Love the mag,
-Happy Keller
To the Editor:
I'm a bit late to respond to the threat of having no games. After all, I played games.
"The blood was crimson..." as Tom Rhodes started his piece. It is fitting that he should start with an ancient reenactment of spectator games that were eventually banned. And why were they banned? It was because they had a coarsening, in other words destructive, influence on society.
There are some games that are better not to be played. Just as there are destructive books, TV shows, movies, etc. that should not be read nor watched. But we depend on a mature market to make wise choices. For wherever there is a market, there will be people ready to cater to it. Even if it is illegal.
Thus the existence of games like Grand Theft Auto, Dungeons and Dragons and other games that are recognized by many as having a negative effect on the individuals who play them is less an indictment of the gaming industry, as it is of society as a whole. True, for most players that negative affect will be small, offset by other influences in the players' lives, but it is still there. Your magazine has given examples of such negativities in past issues. That is what animates the Cary Nations and the Prohibitionists of today, who want to get rid of the modern equivalent of "devil liquor" out of gaming. But just as Prohibition didn't work, nor is the "War against Drugs" having much success, so banning destructive games without drying up the market for those games will be ineffective.
The proper response to destructive games is not to ban games, rather it is to be creative and make good games that are at worst, fun ways to relax, and at best games that have a positive influence on our lives. Further, it is to show that games affect the people who play them and to show what the affects are, both positive and negative. Thankfully, the state sponsored blood sports of the ancient arena are no longer available, but there will always be individuals who make unwise choices in the games they play.
A second response is to segregate negative games to the equivalent of the red light districts of yesteryear: a good, consistent rating system will help people recognize and avoid the red light district if they so wish. And no cheating, for though it may confer a temporary financial advantage to the cheater, it also brings on unwanted attention of those who would wish to ban them, which would hurt the industry as a whole.
Personally, before I play a game, I ask "What is this game's message?" "How will it influence me?" Games that deal with destructive themes such as occult or unnecessary violence don't even get opened. Our family had hours of fun years ago when we hooked up a group of Macintoshes over Appletalk (before ethernet became common) and played against each other. I used that as an opportunity to teach my children about what to look for in a game. Now that they are grown, I am pleased to see that for the most part, they make wise choices in the games they play.
-Karl W. Randolph
