The Game Stash: Show Some Respect

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

It's essentially the same problem as with modern art. The largely uninformed majority criticise what they don't understand. The difference only really lies within the criticisms.

And, again, in defending their interest, the people who are informed attack and dismiss those who aren't.

It's ignorance versus elitism.

The problem with people like Jack Thompson has nothing to do with (not) understanding games. They have a much more fundamental issue;

They believe that the "bad" aspects of human behaviour can best be dealt with by suppressing them and eliminating reference to them. This is ofcause a recipe for disaster and general unhappiness.

Intelligent people give their inner beast a (safe!) outlet ..... like games. There is no way to convince Jack of this though, as this would smut up his perfect, puritan, black/white view of the world.

Games will become art the day gamers stop caring about the label and enjoy the experience. I once saw a bar of soap with a bulls eye on it made of pubic hair. Someone called it art and gave the guy thousands for it. I have played games where I just matched colors and symbols and paid for it. Art is in the eye of the beholder and needs no justification to exist. There is no game vital to life as is no work of art in a museum. We want and crave games because it is an expression of our creativity. Gamers spend nearly as much time perfecting their skills at a game as a artist does perfecting their style. We do not need to but choose to do this.

Art has and always will be in the eye of the beholder.

I think you miss a third point of view here. There is some truth to seeking self validation, and some truth to defending the industry in a high-minded sense. There is also the other point of view that the people attacking video games for not being art also usually say that they cannot ever be art, and do so with the agenda of trying to belittle them as part of an effort to impose more controls on them. I think the whole "games as art" issue involves more facets than your giving it credit for. For those tending towards the "Jack Thomson" school of thought the problem with video games even having the potential to be art is that this would afford them the same level of protection as other forms of art and would make them harder to regulate.

I say this because I care less about high minded principle of wanting games to be accepted as art, than I do about the central issue of free speech, and free speech includes the abillity to be offensive, hateful, and irreverant, without any need for such things to be associated with art. Since I feel it was long ago established that anything could be considered art if hyped the right way, I think the arguement has always beem more about semantics than anything.

-

As a side note I would like to point out that the bit you demean about the guy promoting a game as being the "ultimate male fantasy" is an artistic statement on a lot of levels. Today we typically see more statements from a feminist perspective and "what it is to be a woman" and listen to people ranting on like Dan Brown did in his books about the oppression of the "sacred feminine" or whatever else. People tend to forget about warrior poets and such and people who have explored the issue of what it means to be a man.

In today's society we're rapidly seeing men being forced to rein in their desires and instincts, being turned into so called "meterosexuals". We live in a society where it's increasingly becoming wrong to deal with problems directly, everyone minces words and hides behind bureaucracy and impersonal legal systems. While women will go on endlessly about their sexuality in books, movies, prose, and philsophy, men are basically forced to oppress ours, we live in a society where you could be sued or thrown in jail for coming on to some girl. In general male sexuality tends to only be expressed in a crude, and offensive fashion, if at all. Heck, in fiction today aggressive men are almot always portrayed as the bad guys, a definate differance between the heroes of yesterday in the mould of "Don Juan" who could be said to appeal to both genders.

A game like you describe does sort of make a statement if I understand it properly. Guys being able to express their sexuality towards women without danger (and by this I don't mean rape), very direct and rational solutions to problems. There have been many people who have written about how being frank and direct is a manifestation of manliness, as well as some very interesting explanations as to why duels of honor and such are not a bad thing. Oh sure we all know the problems with "Samurai Justice", "Duels', and affairs of honor like that but for all the problems with that kind of system it can also be pointed out that today's bureucratic system of justice has as many problems where instead of "might makes right" we face a situation that's just as bad where he who hires the biggest rat to argue semantics for him wins. It might be a differant kind of might, but when you look at duelling lawyers with pens and documents from a certain perspective it's really no differant than a couple of Gladiators going at it. You can't even say today that nobody gets hurt in this way of doing things since lives can be ruined, massive jail sentences can be inflicted, and arguably in some cases death might have been preferable.

The point being that games like this can be seen to make a statement. The very fact that some people consider a character like Conan "immature" when he was once considered to be pretty serious sword and sorcery material is sort of the point of making a game like that in response. What's more, ask yourself what is fundementally wrong with a guy being found attractive and picking up girls? Nobody bats an eye when some paranormal romance heroine has her legions of adoring Vampires and Werewolves or whatever, but when the situation is reversed and you have this dude who has tons of sex with all these hot girls people scream that there is something horribly wrong and immature about it. Why?

I respect your opinion that you don't like that game's hype/proposal/whatever it was, I mean everyone has their opinion, I guess what I'm saying is that in a lot of respects making a clear statement or analysis of a concept through a medium is what art is all about. Arguably your arguement against something being art, seems to involve a very direct example of something being art even if you don't agree with the artist's apparent message of exploring unfettered masculinity.

I doubt you (or many people) have read this far, but just in case I'll state this is simply my opinion, and apologize (ahead of time) to any it might offend.

At any rate I seriously look forward to the arrival of a game that gives me the oppertunity to let my hair down, and not only hack up a bunch of bad guys, but have babes all over me while I play it without pulling any punches or acting like I should feel guilty. I mean heck, the teen girls have their fantasies about Edward and Jacob, I have mine about the gorgeous twin princesses I save from the evil overlord and want to show me their gratitude. :P

bobdevis:
The problem with people like Jack Thompson has nothing to do with (not) understanding games. They have a much more fundamental issue;

They believe that the "bad" aspects of human behaviour can best be dealt with by suppressing them and eliminating reference to them. This is ofcause a recipe for disaster and general unhappiness.

Intelligent people give their inner beast a (safe!) outlet ..... like games. There is no way to convince Jack of this though, as this would smut up his perfect, puritan, black/white view of the world.

See, the problem there is exactly what was discussed in the article. You assume that your opinion is correct and that his is ill-informed, and you are defending your opinion aggressively without leaving the option open for rational discussion and a goal of mutual understanding.

All I'm suggesting is that we're blaming them for not understanding something that they have had no opportunity to understand.

Are we? Or are we blaming them for not understanding something they've taken no interest in understanding? I don't personally feel a need to abuse someone for feeling out of their element in the digital world that I grew up in, but is it really too much to ask that someone who's going to claim to speak from a vantage point of expertise actually try to engage with the medium they're judging? Or at the very least, with those who do?

Asparagus Brown:

bobdevis:
The problem with people like Jack Thompson has nothing to do with (not) understanding games. They have a much more fundamental issue;

They believe that the "bad" aspects of human behaviour can best be dealt with by suppressing them and eliminating reference to them. This is ofcause a recipe for disaster and general unhappiness.

Intelligent people give their inner beast a (safe!) outlet ..... like games. There is no way to convince Jack of this though, as this would smut up his perfect, puritan, black/white view of the world.

See, the problem there is exactly what was discussed in the article. You assume that your opinion is correct and that his is ill-informed, and you are defending your opinion aggressively without leaving the option open for rational discussion and a goal of mutual understanding.

The problem is that the moral crusaders feel as though they are on a mission from God, so normal logic does not apply. If they don't care to defend their own opinion with anything better then an idealistic world view then there is no point to try to argue nicely, is there? Only ridicule remains.

Call me when someone can answer how it is possible that just in 2000 years, witnessing sex en violence by a minor went from 'normal' to 'causing irreversible damage'.

Loonerinoes:
snip for length (although it was such a good read I feel guilty aboiut doing so!)

Thanks for that. Now I don't have to do my lecture on mutual respect and understanding.

As far as I can tell, with the issue of gaming, there are actually THREE types of people involved:

Type #1. Gamers. These play games They are not homogenous, some are older than others, some are female, some are male. Whatever. They are united only in playing video games as a form of entertainment.

Type #2. Non-gamers. These, again, are not a homogenous group, having in common only their non-playing of video games.

And, Type #3. Those with an axe to grind. Stephen Conroy, Michael Atkins, everyone ever who has wanted to filter the internet.

Now, I fully agree with Steve here. Shouting and yelling at people who do not understand will never get gaming understood. However, the issue gets a little more muddled when we add Type #3 people to the mix. Gamers who otherwise might have been happy to meet others half-way, become understandably upset when they hear their chosen entertainment being denounced as wrong by people they strongly suspect are using them for their own political gain.

I still don't condone disrespectful reactions from gamers, but I do understand them feeling a little beseiged. It's never nice feeling like a political scapegoat.

bobdevis:

Asparagus Brown:

bobdevis:
The problem with people like Jack Thompson has nothing to do with (not) understanding games. They have a much more fundamental issue;

They believe that the "bad" aspects of human behaviour can best be dealt with by suppressing them and eliminating reference to them. This is ofcause a recipe for disaster and general unhappiness.

Intelligent people give their inner beast a (safe!) outlet ..... like games. There is no way to convince Jack of this though, as this would smut up his perfect, puritan, black/white view of the world.

See, the problem there is exactly what was discussed in the article. You assume that your opinion is correct and that his is ill-informed, and you are defending your opinion aggressively without leaving the option open for rational discussion and a goal of mutual understanding.

The problem is that the moral crusaders feel as though they are on a mission from God, so normal logic does not apply. If they don't care to defend their own opinion with anything better then an idealistic world view then there is no point to try to argue nicely, is there? Only ridicule remains.

Call me when someone can answer how it is possible that just in 2000 years, witnessing sex en violence by a minor went from 'normal' to 'causing irreversible damage'.

Being aggressive in defending your opinion and not being open to rationality only serves to solidify the opinion that the people they are condemning are aggressive and irrational people.

Also, have you considered that these "moral crusaders" might actually be of the opinion that video games engender this behaviour, and that they have developed that opinion based on their own moral judgements of the content they have been exposed to and the context in which it has been exposed to them? Similar to the way you believe that they are unnecessarily aggressive and irrational because of the material you have been exposed to and the context in which it has been exposed to you?

As the article is titled, show some respect.

I could not agree more. Any argument should be about understanding the other side - even if you do not or cannot agree, seeing why a different opinion formed gives new thought to the subject. In fact, that's the whole point of argument, not to sway others to your point of view. After all, this is impossible if both sides refuse to admit that their view may be faulty, and furthermore merely because a rational defense to an argument was not mounted does not mean there is no rational defense that can be mounted, and even if one's view is unchallenged in an argument that does not mean that they are accurate.

In short, I believe that all arguments are really just fodder for use in the search for the truth.

(Note that this does not include convincing another person of anything. It is up to them to decide what they want to take away from an argument, and some people are unwilling or unable to understand another point of view.)

Also, as far as Ebert is concerned, I believe he reached the same conclusion, that he cannot truly understand games without first truly experiencing them, which is something he is unwilling to do - and as such his statements have no authority and probably shouldn't have been made in the first place.

See, these are the types of articles that I read the Escapist for! As an aside, it's rather nice to see your column has deviated from Mr. Young's topic this week. It was kinda unfortunate when you two were hitting the same topic by coincidence. Nice to have some breadth in editorials.

From my perspective, when the mass media, or for that matter, government policies, or what-have-you attacks anything and everything in sight (as they most certainy do) people tend to react to what affects them as a personal blow. Call it selective listening or selective reading if you'd like. In the absense of strong opinions that agree with one's points of view, its only natural to flock to the other end of the spectrum in lieu and react to the strong opposition to your standpoint. And the media knows this. Even outspoken persons who don't know this explictly are aware of it on some level based on fame and reactional feedback.

I think the thing we often miss is that as gamers, or [insert personal social demographic here], or just about anything, we forget that much of the mainstream media aren't intentionally being jerks to us. They're just being intentionally jerks, full stop.

Asparagus Brown:

As the article is titled, show some respect.

I would if I felt the other side was intellectually honest. But I am afraid this is not the case with Jack Thompson.

I'll drag in a more ridiculous example to be able to explain myself better;
Ever heard of the Young Earthers? Basically they believe the earth is only 6000 years old (just as the Bible suggests) and are willing to debate this with geologists to no end.

Now, by your logic, it would be possible to reach a mutual understanding with them though respect and somehow find a middle-ground.
However, since they are grown up people with a (not so) hidden agenda it s obvious you aren't going to get anywhere. Any kind of compromise would be a total loss of common sense.

bobdevis:
I'll drag in a more ridiculous example to be able to explain myself better;
Ever heard of the Young Earthers? Basically they believe the earth is only 6000 years old (just as the Bible suggests) and are willing to debate this with geologists to no end.

I'd say that ones even worse because said protests sometimes actually argue for "retaliation" against their opponents. I saw a bunch ironically in Sydney in 2008 on a church trip where most of the funding for their trip came from federal taxation. In turn primarily derived from the west coast's mining industry. ie: Geologists. </derail>

The worst parts of these scenarios is the negative reflection it can place upon the arguer's peers. In all such conflicts, respect has to be levelled at both sides, not just your ideological opponents.

Where a mutual middle ground can't be reached, its probably best just to agree to disagree. The only people who readily change to match your opinions are those with a weak or lack of a pre-existing stance.

I hear this a lot... by gamers no less. I gotta say man, I disagree. If someone rants about how games are corrupting todays youth. Sure I'll argue my point but I won't be offensive about it. And to be fair it's only a small minority of older people who are still ignorant enough about games to believe that. Let's face it. Old people are stubborn, they didn't get to be so old by just accepting other peoples opinions. No amount of ranting or shoving logic down there throats is gonna change that, so really I just don't bother any more.

As for casual gamers. I don't mind them. The more the merrier really. And I've got no objection to these motion controls that are heading our way either. If it makes the Wii actually have to work on it's titles due to competition then all the better. Casual gamers aren't going to interfere with my fun so why should I with there's.

And judging by the amount of people who point out this misnomer. I'd say most gamers think pretty much the same as us.

It's just unfortunate the minority of dickheads that love to attack without thought are also the loudest portion of gamers.

bobdevis:

Asparagus Brown:

As the article is titled, show some respect.

I would if I felt the other side was intellectually honest. But I am afraid this is not the case with Jack Thompson.

I'll drag in a more ridiculous example to be able to explain myself better;
Ever heard of the Young Earthers? Basically they believe the earth is only 6000 years old (just as the Bible suggests) and are willing to debate this with geologists to no end.

Now, by your logic, it would be possible to reach a mutual understanding with them though respect and somehow find a middle-ground.
However, since they are grown up people with a (not so) hidden agenda it s obvious you aren't going to get anywhere. Any kind of compromise would be a total loss of common sense.

Actually, I'm suggesting mutual respect, not mutual understanding. I'm suggesting that geologists aren't going to improve the situation by claiming that God doesn't exist and repeatedly calling the Young Earthers idiots, which may make the Young Earthers' even more adamant and aggressive in their beliefs.

When it comes to whether or not games are art I have one question, does it really matter? When I play a game I play it to have fun and enjoy the experience, if the experience I am enjoying counts as art or not is beside the point.

Steve Butts:

Sikachu:

Steve Butts:
All I'm suggesting is that we're blaming them for not understanding something that they have had no opportunity to understand.

Wrong.

Steve Butts:
Maybe that's getting a little overly philosophical, but I think the same is true of gamers.

Bit of a big word for what is a rather juvenile point.

Other than those two niggles, good article and I particularly agree with the notion that those who push for outside recognition the hardest tend to be the least secure about playing games in the first place.

Thanks for the compliment. Seriously.

Unfortunately, your initial two reponses illustrate my point. The extent of your first argument goes no further than saying I'm "wrong" while your second merely insults my delivery.

Allow me to expand (I would have, but I don't always get responses and have learned to economise with my comments).

When I say 'wrong', I'm contesting the notion that they've had no opportunity to understand videogames. They have just as much opportunity to play them and test them out before they start expressing their opinions as anyone else. I don't think that excusing their wilful ignorance by saying they have/had no opportunity to understand is correct or productive.

As for the 'philosophy' point, I didn't mean to insult you, merely to point out that 'philosophy' is kind of grand a term for what I'm sure you'll admit is an abrupt and incomplete thought. What I meant by 'juvenile' is that your idea is undeveloped and not extensively analysed (at least in the text), and in this sense has more in common with ideas shared over a pint than it does with Nietzsche or Wittgenstein.

Asparagus Brown:

Actually, I'm suggesting mutual respect, not mutual understanding. I'm suggesting that geologists aren't going to improve the situation by claiming that God doesn't exist and repeatedly calling the Young Earthers idiots, which may make the Young Earthers' even more adamant and aggressive in their beliefs.

The assumption I am making is that in a debate, you are trying to be convincing above all else. Being nice is fine as long as it helps to be convincing.

When the other side is claiming that you must be possessed by demons, or can't have any morals anyway as a non-believer then the ship of mutual respect has usually long sailed.
The best strategy then becomes flaming your opponent in just the right way to force a weak answer.
Calling someone an idiot or claiming that God does not exist is not going to get you anywhere. Aggressively attacking the link between an unprovable belief and an opinion however, is a good strategy.
You are not going to convince Jack Thompson or the young earthers themselves, but hopefully you still can convince neutral bystanders.

You can ofcause take the high road, refuse to play that game and walk away. However in a public arena that will be seen as defeat.

When I debate whether or not games are art I do so not trying to validate the many hours I have spent in my room playing them, but to protect the gaming. In America if video games are not considered art, then they lose a lot of political barriers and can be censored rather easily. I'm not saying that if we don't get gaming classified as art soon then it'll be outright banned, but I don't want to see any company EVER have to appeal to the mainstream media just because their product might do something they disagree with. Much in the vain of Manhunt 2 on the wii.

Excellent article, it really does echo what I've been trying to get people to do.

The gaming community does tend to stereotype it's critics, we make them look closed minded and ignorant whilst we respect each other's opinions about everything else in the world. We as a group don't think that maybe the opponent isn't uninformed or evil, maybe he's got all the facts but is just opposed to our hobby?

Making every opponent of gaming out to look like a fundamentalist killjoy is stupid on our part because they'll almost certainly have valid points. We ridicule our opponents and try to make everything they say look ignorant when if we were smart we'd listen and take it on board.

EDIT: This is NOT an 'excellent article' because it agrees with me, it is an excellent article because it is insightful and well written. Thank you sir!

Politicians (like this raging imbecile Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal)shouting anti gaming slur and not doing any research before actually speaking is where i draw my line. Roger Ebert rant on gaming i really could care less about, not like i agree with a lot with his views on artsy fartsy films and movies. (i found at least half of what he likes boring) But still he is the Movie guy so i value his opinion on them. Not so much when its on games.

Generally i just dont respect politicians (tho i do respect cunning). I give respect to people and their opinions when its based on their field of expertise. I just pay no heed to them when they talk out of bounds.

Plus its also human nature to hate anything or anyone that doesnt think or like what u think/like. Just look at religion (namely the western ones, i find the far eastern ones to be more nonchalant about it, at least the ones that dont have active conversion regiments)

I completely agree, why should we value the opinion's of those who don't know what gaming's like? I just pity them for missing out.
And the very sentence before the one mentioning the degree in Latin, I thought; 'hmm, not sure how useful this Latin is proving'.
Great article, Steve, keep 'em comin'.

Ya know, it's kind of funny. Whenever I suggest that maybe people who have no knowledge or experience in something shouldn't really count as valid authority on it, people tell me to shut up and that I don't "get it", yet when someone else points it out everyone agrees...

You...you don't think I could be the problem?

On a less joking note - I really enjoy your column - keep up the good work!

And Captain Mustache continues to single-handedly keep the Escapist afloat once again.

How does he do it?

I haven't read the whole article yet (will do later), but...

Why is EVERYONE using the word 'insecurity' EVERY TIME someone defends something?

Yes, I do claim games are art (in the sense that creating games are a creative process and the final product can have a lot of artistic value, not less than a movie or a book). No, I'm not insecure about it.

If there's someone insecure, it's usually people who criticize stuff they don't know, like that guy who claimed games in general can't be art, based on watching someone playing platformer.

Insecure? Hah. No. It's just that I want people who claim 'games are stupid' to first at least try a few (stuff like Assassin's Creed II for example is on my mind right now) before claiming anything.

Seriously, there are games I really dislike (HL2, GoW etc.), but I won't call people who like them 'insecure' or anything. Nor would I dismiss the book industry after seeing a cover of some red literature novel. But people constantly do that, yet the defenders are called insecure. No wonder some turn snarky and arrogant.

t ome playing games has the effect of understanding humanity from the work they've done. and i don't like humanity at all.

Lots of great comments here, and I appreciate Sikachu expanding his objections to what I said. I still stand by what I wrote, but I understand your criticisms better, which is a definite benefit for me.

I completely disagree with the opinion that respect is only worth giving if (or when) it's received in return. That's like children justifying bad behavior by claiming, "He started it." I think it's perfectly healthy to disagree with someone's beliefs and even to stop listening to people who distort reality purely for the sake of their own political or moral agenda. But if you choose to engage a person in a disrespectful way, you're just as responsible as they are for the downward trend of these discussions.

Steve Butts:
I think it's perfectly healthy to disagree with someone's beliefs and even to stop listening to people who distort reality purely for the sake of their own political or moral agenda. But if you choose to engage a person in a disrespectful way, you're just as responsible as they are for the downward trend of these discussions.

Which is an own goal when you're playing the Public Perception game, which is a game that both gamers and the game industry have to play if they want wider public acceptance and/or support to help guard against gaming being kept as an available moral and political scapegoat.

For me the line is when they try and enforce their opinion on others.

Ebert is welcome to his opinion. It's not doing anyone any harm.

People like Atkins (and Thompson if he were at all competent) are where I draw the line. While they're also welcome to share their perspective with us, they abuse that right by trying to prevent people from playing the games they deem inappropriate. Atkins' spent a lot of time trying to stop the availability of some titles to the people he's supposed to be working for. Some of those actions even caused some games to be edited for all countries. That's not right.

Boy, do I have lots and lots to say on your article! I'm a little tied up right now though so for the mean time I'll just say I agree with most of it.

To be honest though, I don't even think most games are art. Especially when you consider that boyhood power fantasy. I'm a game developer myself, and I'd agree that CREATING them is an art. To clause this, I likewise do not think most movies are art. Is hot-tub time machine really art? Really?

Out of curiosity Steve, are you enjoying your time and the more... sophisticated discussions had on The Escapist?

therandombear:
A nice read and appearantly it's your birthday so congratulations.
PS: And I am still waiting for the escapist store to start selling Game Stash membership cards :D

I apologise I accidentally reported you when I tried to see what your badge was. Again, sorry.

Steve Butts:
That's like children justifying bad behavior by claiming, "He started it."

And yet, if well played it can be the best weapon you have.

If you want to start a war, trick the other side in attacking first so you can claim the most sympathy. This has been successfully done like a million times.

Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat) gained fame and fortune by successfully flame-baiting a whole country.

Our own Yahtzee became so popular by disregarding normal etiquette and being as direct as possible. He doesn't trick people, but ironically his tactical lack of respect made him GAIN respect.
Penn and Teller did about the same with their show.

Grinnbarr:

therandombear:
A nice read and appearantly it's your birthday so congratulations.
PS: And I am still waiting for the escapist store to start selling Game Stash membership cards :D

I apologise I accidentally reported you when I tried to see what your badge was. Again, sorry.

Happens, I'm sure, button is right beneath the badges, but no harm I'm sure they go through the reports and look for reasons to ban ;)

Now this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that the biggest problem of all (and this can be said for most things such as politics, religion, etc.) is that neither side of an argument takes the time to look into the opposing viewpoint.

(I'm a Conservative, so in fairness to those with opposing philosophies, I'm going to take the piss out of myself and use myself as the butt of the argument. Although I have checked facts on them (and believe in these principles), for the sake of demonstration I'm saying I haven't.)

"Big government is bad." Why is big government bad? Well, I'm not going to look into it because I already know it is, I don't care if some social programs are actually doing good. I just want a smaller government. If you don't think this way you must be a socialist.

"Tax breaks actually bring in more revenue for the government and gain jobs for citizens" Am I going to look for numbers to support my theory? No. It just makes sense that if employers have more money they'll hire more workers which means more taxes paid and if you say otherwise you're a dirty, red commie!

It's one thing to stand by your principles, but it's something completely different to just attack those who hold principles different than yours. If you disagree with what people like Ebert and Thompson say, that's fine; just read or listen to what they say to try and get an idea of their viewpoint and attack them. Not physically, but attack them with facts.

Let's face it, if someone is in the media, nobody is going to change their viewpoints, but if you can bring enough facts to light that shows the opposite of what they say (and do it in a polite, non threatening manner) you have gone a long way to making their views irrelevant.

Also, Happy Birthday, Sir.

Yeah, it's the point at which "I have a different viewpoint" turns into "You are a horrible person" that seems to be the issue here. But the lack of understanding can lead people to warp the facts and even the meanings of words merely to attack a different position.

Of course, you can't separate people from opinions, which are the beginning of our notions of social and political health. Then we become desperate to find an objective proof to justify those opinions and ignoring or distorting anything that proves us wrong. We end up using labels in contexts where they clearly don't belong, or to justify as "rights" those things that are merely personal preferences.

I guess the good news is that the gaming industry is just like every other part of society. Wait, maybe that's the bad news.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here