You are in the start of the mission armed with a full automatic machine gun. Just like any, except this time you are at an airport and nobody in the airport is armed. You then walk with your comrades mowing down wave and wave of innocent civilians. If you haven't played Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 then you might not know it had a scene just like this. I am sure more people are also familiar with Heist in which you are constantly set in a stand off with the police, which you will mow down in large numbers. Scenes like this cause many to ask, is the content too violent, too full of moral deprecation, to allow in video games.
Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.(Wikipedia) It is hard to argue that games themselves are not art. Games are packed full of art. Through the visuals, to the music, to the story, games come together as a conglomeration of art to an over arching piece in itself. Art has always been used to question the human experience and I see no reason why games cannot do the same thing. Even if it is violent art there it is still art. A really good argument is made for this in Wisecrack video "The Philosophy of Beserk". Art isn't always good but that does not mean the attempt in itself is a bad thing.
There is never a chance where someone out in the news won't blame video game violence for some major catastrophe. While some results have been found in youth trending towards violence after violent games there is hardly consensus that it make people more violent. I do admit and have talked about the aggression a player will have while playing a game they are frustrated by but there is still no real evidence of it causing long term aggression in players. This is covered in much greater detail in episode 12 of The Psychology of Video Games.(psychologyofgames.com) There was also a recent study which found that there was not a long term effect in empathy from those who played violent games. (Szycik, Mohammadi, Münte, and Wildt.) There is mounting evidence against the reflexive thought that violent video games make people more violent or influence other negative behaviors.
Many people complain that we should just not being going down these roads in the first place. They ask if there is a point to violence even in the imaginary. This is more a personal opinion in that I believe that trying to hide a problem is not going to make the problem go away. Being exposed to events and ideas that make people uncomfortable allow people to give it meaning and build an opinion on it. Unless they do not wish to be exposed to, then it should be on option not to be. In the same respect that I am not a fan of horror films, I tend to stay away from them. As long as people are clear on the content they are getting into, there really shouldn't be an issue with people just avoiding what makes them uncomfortable.
I think it is important to state here that there is a difference between art and propaganda. Art is for human interpretation while propaganda is the forced dissemination of an idea. This would be the difference between the scenes in GTA and a game where you would be shooting a certain group for the purpose of invoking hate. GTA is violent but still leaves room for interpretation while the other is reinforcing a message with little room for interpretation. Think of it as the difference between an Uncles Sam poster and the Mona Lisa.
What all of this brings me to is that no type of artistic interpretation should be off the table in video games. While some people can deliver art through a game much better then others, there should not be a gate to what people are allowed to try. If it fails to land then we know it was a bad idea and we can deride it as such. There is a way to handle games that break what you are comfortable with and that is just not playing them.
I say this with the full caveat that this does not apply to children. This is for people with developed pre-frontal cortex. While evidence does not yet bare this is an issue, its worth the caution in my humble opinion.
Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.(Wikipedia) It is hard to argue that games themselves are not art. Games are packed full of art. Through the visuals, to the music, to the story, games come together as a conglomeration of art to an over arching piece in itself. Art has always been used to question the human experience and I see no reason why games cannot do the same thing. Even if it is violent art there it is still art. A really good argument is made for this in Wisecrack video "The Philosophy of Beserk". Art isn't always good but that does not mean the attempt in itself is a bad thing.
There is never a chance where someone out in the news won't blame video game violence for some major catastrophe. While some results have been found in youth trending towards violence after violent games there is hardly consensus that it make people more violent. I do admit and have talked about the aggression a player will have while playing a game they are frustrated by but there is still no real evidence of it causing long term aggression in players. This is covered in much greater detail in episode 12 of The Psychology of Video Games.(psychologyofgames.com) There was also a recent study which found that there was not a long term effect in empathy from those who played violent games. (Szycik, Mohammadi, Münte, and Wildt.) There is mounting evidence against the reflexive thought that violent video games make people more violent or influence other negative behaviors.
Many people complain that we should just not being going down these roads in the first place. They ask if there is a point to violence even in the imaginary. This is more a personal opinion in that I believe that trying to hide a problem is not going to make the problem go away. Being exposed to events and ideas that make people uncomfortable allow people to give it meaning and build an opinion on it. Unless they do not wish to be exposed to, then it should be on option not to be. In the same respect that I am not a fan of horror films, I tend to stay away from them. As long as people are clear on the content they are getting into, there really shouldn't be an issue with people just avoiding what makes them uncomfortable.
I think it is important to state here that there is a difference between art and propaganda. Art is for human interpretation while propaganda is the forced dissemination of an idea. This would be the difference between the scenes in GTA and a game where you would be shooting a certain group for the purpose of invoking hate. GTA is violent but still leaves room for interpretation while the other is reinforcing a message with little room for interpretation. Think of it as the difference between an Uncles Sam poster and the Mona Lisa.
What all of this brings me to is that no type of artistic interpretation should be off the table in video games. While some people can deliver art through a game much better then others, there should not be a gate to what people are allowed to try. If it fails to land then we know it was a bad idea and we can deride it as such. There is a way to handle games that break what you are comfortable with and that is just not playing them.
I say this with the full caveat that this does not apply to children. This is for people with developed pre-frontal cortex. While evidence does not yet bare this is an issue, its worth the caution in my humble opinion.
Comments
Post a Comment