286: Videogame Myths Debunked

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Pirate Kitty:

targren:
No, you CANNOT play through Gears of War without pushing little plastic Skittles on an Xbox controller. Nothing is actually being killed. Contrary to what you may have seen in TRON or Reboot, there are not actually little beings inside the game that play the roles of the NPCs.

It is the depiction of violence. You cannot possibly say otherwise.

There is a reason the rating system for an M classified game says 'Mild Violence', 'Strong Violence', and others to that effect.

That is my entire point; the player is, in some games, encouraged to use violence. Simple.

I assure you that when I snipe a prostitute from a rooftop in GTA3, I'm not actually doing it, nor do I have any intention nor compulsion to. As targren said :

targren:

Portrayal != promotion.

And I'd have to agree. Video games in which violence occurs are about as violence inciting as deliberately choosing the bad ending in a pick your own adventure story. Speaking plainly, it ain't real, so it's no big deal.

mr_rubino:

catalyst8:

mr_rubino:
If you already know intellectual dishonesty is the order of the day with PK - and it always is - why keep taking her bait?

I live in hope that one day s/he might gain some honesty or integrity. It's either that or hit the 'Report' button for trolling.

It won't do anything. At least wikipedia has policies for dealing with people like her... They don't follow them, but it's on the books. On a free-for-all like The Escapist, there's no way to deal with a troll that flies under the radar.

Well, I'll give her/him a chance here. If they don't untangle their trolling I'll hit the 'report'. Thankfully the mods have gone back to keeping things in order, so we'll just have to see.

Oh well, apparently not. 'Report' it is then.

targren:
Why would I say otherwise? I'm the first one who SAID it was the portrayal of violence (which is a synonym for "depiction"). But yet again, "portrayal"(or "depiction") is NOT
"promotion."

It is the promotion of violence. If a game gives you no alternative to committing a violent act, and then rewards you for doing so, it has promoted the use of violence.

Promoting is not the same as 'encouraging you to commit [insert act here] in the real world'.

Aw thought it would be fun video game myths like the Sasquatch in GTA 4, not a bunch of stats arranged in the form of a preachy soap box. Video games don`t make people violent, girls are gamers too, casual gamers are good. Yeah yeah boring, I rather hear about the curse of madden or is that really Christie's vag in DOA Xtreme XD

catalyst8:

mr_rubino:

catalyst8:

I live in hope that one day s/he might gain some honesty or integrity. It's either that or hit the 'Report' button for trolling.

It won't do anything. At least wikipedia has policies for dealing with people like her... They don't follow them, but it's on the books. On a free-for-all like The Escapist, there's no way to deal with a troll that flies under the radar.

Well, I'll give her/him a chance here. If they don't untangle their trolling I'll hit the 'report'. Thankfully the mods have gone back to keeping things in order, so we'll just have to see.

Oh well, apparently not. 'Report' it is then.

It'll do nothing, like I said. I used WP as my example because it's the place I instantly thought of where trolls gather on "controversial" topics to pretend they're just honestly misinformed fools. They flood the talk pages with 3-paragraph essays to push incorrect facts, pimp blogs and other known unreliable sources, complain about the conspiracy against their truths, and do so constantly, on multiple pages, on multiple topics. They act snide, backpedal and change the subject as needed, and never answer responder's arguments or waver from their starting point no matter how much logic and fact is thrown at them. At best they do nothing for the community; mostly, they harm it. They're coddled and put up with instead of axed with prejudice by the people in charge, because the choking bureaucracy of the place never gets around to getting rid of them.

Similarly, PK prides herself on just disrupting any discussion that comes along. You'd be forgiven for not being able to get a read on her beliefs from her post history because she shifts positions wildly from topic to topic according to what allows her more lulz. And she gets what she wants because she's allowed to continue.

I'm certain I'm in the minority when I say this, but I highly disagree with the "games are art" argument, even more so when the author compares it to the laws of gravity of all things.

Let me explain, and I'll try to make this as coherent as possible. A movie is not art. Neither are books, music albums, or the topic here, video games. They are instead amalgams of several artist mediums. For movies, the most prevalent is acting and writing. Books, just writing. Albums, music (goes without saying or so I choose to believe). For video games, graphics (an extension of the concept usually used as reference or simply drawings), writing, even the soundtrack. All these come together to make a single glorious package, but you can't really say that said package has the same artistic merits as the individual parts that compose it (one reason why I'm slowly starting to dislike Extra Credits).

All of this is highly subjective of course, and I could be wrong on some or everything. To that end, I'm gonna go back to gaming.

SageRuffin:
I'm certain I'm in the minority when I say this, but I highly disagree with the "games are art" argument, even more so when the author compares it to the laws of gravity of all things.

Let me explain, and I'll try to make this as coherent as possible. A movie is not art. Neither are books, music albums, or the topic here, video games. They are instead amalgamations of several artist mediums. For movies, the most prevalent is acting and writing. Books, just writing. Albums, music (goes without saying or so I choose to believe). For video games, graphics (an extension of the concept usually used as reference or simply drawings), writing, even the soundtrack. All these come together to make a single glorious package, but you can't really say that said package has the same artistic merits as the individual parts that compose it (one reason why I'm slowly starting to dislike Extra Credits).

All of this is highly subjective of course, and I could be wrong on some or everything. To that end, I'm gonna go back to gaming.

Hmm. Interesting ideas there. Never really thought to look at it that way. Don't think I agree, though. Need to think about it some more.

mr_rubino:

catalyst8:

mr_rubino:

[...]On a free-for-all like The Escapist, there's no way to deal with a troll that flies under the radar[...]

[...]If they don't untangle their trolling I'll hit the 'report'[...]

Oh well, apparently not. 'Report' it is then.

[...]They act snide, backpedal and change the subject as needed, and never answer responder's arguments or waver from their starting point no matter how much logic and fact is thrown at them. At best they do nothing for the community; mostly, they harm it[...]

Well, let's see what happens in this instance. I've no idea how long it takes for a report to be processed, but I made mine about 10 minutes ago.

Policies for dealing with people that don't agree with you?

... anyway

I don't think video games have a direct link to crime. HOWEVER there is a culture of violence in video games very similar to the culture of violence in action movies. When somebody gets brutally killed we cheer. When something explodes we cheer. When something causes massive damage it's awesome.

This isn't gaming's problem, it's a more broad social problem. Why do we continue to assert that video games don't at least help promote a culture of war happy violence consumers? It's not just games, it's most media.

On that note, maybe it isn't a bad thing that we go to media for our violent fix instead of actual violent crime. Still, to simply say that it never has anything to do with violence is ignorant. Studies go both ways and studies are inconclusive. The only thing you can prove is that video games don't have a direct link to crime.

...

Next up is the "games are art". I will argue this definition for as long as I can. A rule system designed for people to play is a game, which has vastly different definitions from art.

Do you describe Monopoly as art? It too is a rule system with some pictures and figures in order to show you what's happening.

A closer example is, do you consider Dungeons and Dragons to be art? Dungeons and Dragons is nothing more than a rule system, and using that rule system people create stories and art. There can be published D&D stories using the setting. There can be artistic drawings depicting all the fantasy creatures from D&D. D&D itself is not art, it is simply a game that has artistic mediums surrounding it.

To put it simply: The story your DM made up explaining how a band of thieves made it into the castle is art. The rolling of your D20 to see who goes first in initiative is not.

By my definition I would argue that a the game within a video game is not nor can never be art. I would argue that any story you attach to that game, and any picture or 3D model you put in that game is art. Any game mechanic is not. Don't link me to Extra Credits over this I vehemently disagree with them when they get on that high horse.

And yes I know it's a mostly pedantic argument. If all video games contain art then why shouldn't I just say the games themselves are art? Because none of the art contained within video games can now or ever will have an artistic merit that doesn't require the use of another medium. The interactivity itself isn't artistic.

joebthegreat:
Because none of the art contained within video games can now or ever will have an artistic merit that doesn't require the use of another medium. The interactivity itself isn't artistic.

But the game is no less artistic, yes?

Interesting post.

Interesting, however I see a couple of places where this should have been explained better, even if it's not politic, and one place where it's absolutly incorrect.

The big area where things could have been explained better, is along the lines of gaming and intelligence. It is true that gaming doesn't make you more intelligence, BUT in the PAST more intelligent people gravitated towards gaming to begin with. Leading to the entire "gamers are smart" perception. It took a degree of smarts to even get a system like a Commodore 64, or a DOS based computer to run properly. Game installations used to involve a bit more that popping in a disc and hitting "Install", you had to know the ports for your hardware for example and probably had to set them up yourself. Today people don't even need to do things like format their own discs.

As time has gone on, and the computer industry (and gaming) has increasingly become more mainstream, it's gotten to the point where any mouth-breather can operate a computer fairly effectively. Heck, over the years I've seen charities for people to provide computers for the retarded since they have gotten to the point where they can be "enabling" for even the lowest intellectual rungs of society (whether it's their fault or not). This means that video games are increasingly being produced for a very average audience, as opposed to smart people, and those people can run them and figure them out. Whether a bigger audience and a reduction in quality is good for gaming in an objective sense is irrelevent to this paticular point. Gaming used to be a sign of intelligence, simply by being able to get one to run, and figure the games out, not to mention the fact that developers were writing for people on that level. Today this is no longer true. "Gamers are smart" or "Games make you smart" isn't quite an outright falsehood because at one time it was true. Someone with the basic abillity who wanted to play games badly enough to learn computers back in the day probably DID become smarter if they achieved their goal.

I'd also make a case for the fact that today where games are "stories" that anyone can beat, back in the old days this wasn't the case. You didn't even have strategy guides like today, hint books were just that and didn't provide outright solutions in most cases. There were no sites like "Gamefaqs" where you could find answers in 20 minutes. Gaming in of itself was never going to turn around someone failing college (though arguably someone who could game at the time probably wouldn't be failing college, if for no other reason than some of the guys doing the grading might rely on the gamer's computer skills to run the new hardware the school got in), but such games would help with problem solving skills and the like. The bit about "twitchy finger" games helping with coordination has always been a feeble justification at the best.

At any rate this brings us to the point of where this article is outright incorrect, as opposed to missing part of the story. Casual gaming *IS* destroying gaming on most meaningful levels. It is on the other hand causing gaming to prosper in a financial sense, which is something entirely differant. What elements of gaming lead to certain kinds of intellecual improvement and development are gone. This is very much a time period where games are designed so literally anyone can beat them if they want to put the time in. Puzzle games include things like 'auto solve' features, and pretty much every game sees the publication of a strategy guide that will take a player by the hand and tell them how to do everything (or they can just look it up on Gamefaqs).

There is a lot of validity to the arguement that casual gaming is killing the medium as it was beginning to grow up. Artwork in most cases exists to make someone think, and strive to be better than they are now. Video games on the other hand are increasingly stooping down to the level of the viewer as opposed to trying to build them up, and despite artistic pretensions most games today have very little behind them, what points you see are oftentimes the same ones re-stated again and again. In many cases it seems to me that the "artistic" bits in games are simply the developer trying to teach what he sees as a morality lesson based on his mainstream political idealogy. Rarely do you see a game push the envelope to get you to consider things from a radically differant point of view to the mainstream.

I think what casual gaming represents is the gaming industry becoming a big business. It's all about the money, rather than the games themselves. The amount of money that can be made by catering to the lower human denominator greatly outstrips the amount of money that can be made by catering to a smarter, and more capable demographic. As such, you see the gaming industry producing accordingly. It's very much the same situation that has destroyed many artists and developing artistic mediums, and why some people have made arguements (and fairly unrealistic ones at times) about how artists should never receive money for their work because as soon as they do, they produce what sells, not what they want to. Since it's unreasonable to expect artists to remain poor and starving forever (producing for nothing) no solution to this problem has ever developed, and video gaming is the latest example of the problem and how some kind of middle ground needs to be found.

These are my thoughts at any rate, I'm sure a lot of people won't like them though (though it's nothing I haven't said before). Sadly, on certain subjects I am an elitist jerk.

joebthegreat:
-snippity snip-

Your argument for the "games as art" debate is similar to what I said. To that extent, I concur.

Pirate Kitty:

joebthegreat:
Because none of the art contained within video games can now or ever will have an artistic merit that doesn't require the use of another medium. The interactivity itself isn't artistic.

But the game is no less artistic, yes?

The art within the game is no less artistic. Yes, that's me being pedantic about it again.

joebthegreat:

Pirate Kitty:

joebthegreat:
Because none of the art contained within video games can now or ever will have an artistic merit that doesn't require the use of another medium. The interactivity itself isn't artistic.

But the game is no less artistic, yes?

The art within the game is no less artistic. Yes, that's me being pedantic about it again.

So you are saying the game can be art, but playing it isn't? I think that's what you mean.

Pirate Kitty:
Also: why is Braid so touted as a shiny example of video game art? It's a platformer with a well-worn plot. What is exactly more or less artistic about Braid than, say, Doom 1?

Ambiguity is deep, man. DEEEEEEEP.

I'm glad to see someone actually pointing out the issues with Cloud gaming, DD, and onlive. Especially since the "paperless office" was supposed to happen in every decade since like, the 60s. People are often myopic about THE FYOOOOOCHUR! Be it the pessiism that nothing will ever change or the optimism that everything will be bright, shiny and so on.

joebthegreat:
Policies for dealing with people that don't agree with you?

... anyway

Yyyyyep, that's about what I expected, although I expected it from PK herself. Talk about using the #1 troll response of all time. No matter how clearly the problem is laid out, "you're just angry because I don't agree with the hive-mind, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan" is the perfect reply to pretend you didn't get what was very clearly said.

mr_rubino:

joebthegreat:
Policies for dealing with people that don't agree with you?

... anyway

Yyyyyep, that's about what I expected, although I expected it from PK herself. Talk about using the #1 troll response of all time. No matter how clearly the problem is laid out, "you're just angry because I don't agree with the hive-mind, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan" is the perfect reply to pretend you didn't get what was very clearly said.

No that is exactly what was very clearly said. You say it's trolling but trolling is VERY OFTEN just somebody with a different opinion that is adamant about it.

If you go so far to combat trolls then who draws the line between what's trolling and what's holding an unpopular position? And in that case what's to stop me from calling your position "just some troll ignore it"?

joebthegreat:
Policies for dealing with people that don't agree with you?

... anyway

I don't think video games have a direct link to crime. HOWEVER there is a culture of violence in video games very similar to the culture of violence in action movies. When somebody gets brutally killed we cheer. When something explodes we cheer. When something causes massive damage it's awesome.

This isn't gaming's problem, it's a more broad social problem. Why do we continue to assert that video games don't at least help promote a culture of war happy violence consumers? It's not just games, it's most media.

On that note, maybe it isn't a bad thing that we go to media for our violent fix instead of actual violent crime. Still, to simply say that it never has anything to do with violence is ignorant. Studies go both ways and studies are inconclusive. The only thing you can prove is that video games don't have a direct link to crime.

...

Next up is the "games are art". I will argue this definition for as long as I can. A rule system designed for people to play is a game, which has vastly different definitions from art.

Do you describe Monopoly as art? It too is a rule system with some pictures and figures in order to show you what's happening.

A closer example is, do you consider Dungeons and Dragons to be art? Dungeons and Dragons is nothing more than a rule system, and using that rule system people create stories and art. There can be published D&D stories using the setting. There can be artistic drawings depicting all the fantasy creatures from D&D. D&D itself is not art, it is simply a game that has artistic mediums surrounding it.

To put it simply: The story your DM made up explaining how a band of thieves made it into the castle is art. The rolling of your D20 to see who goes first in initiative is not.

By my definition I would argue that a the game within a video game is not nor can never be art. I would argue that any story you attach to that game, and any picture or 3D model you put in that game is art. Any game mechanic is not. Don't link me to Extra Credits over this I vehemently disagree with them when they get on that high horse.

And yes I know it's a mostly pedantic argument. If all video games contain art then why shouldn't I just say the games themselves are art? Because none of the art contained within video games can now or ever will have an artistic merit that doesn't require the use of another medium. The interactivity itself isn't artistic.

When it comes to violence I think it's part of what makes humans, human. I don't really see a problem with violence in the media, because it's part of who we are. I feel trying to overcome these impulses entirely is a mistake, rather it's something we need to come to grips with (part of our nature). I think media violence has been around as long as the first forms of media because it's a way of catering to these impulses while still being able to maintain a social order. I mean if you think about it ancient cave paintings showed people hunting, heiroglyphics recorded wars, poetry, plays, paintings, and other things have been showing war, warriors, hunting, and acts of violence as long as they have existed, to say nothing of books. Today's current technology with video, audio, and interactive media is just a new way of doing what we've always done.

I don't want to rant about it too much, but I think "violence is bad" is something people need to get out of their system. Especially seeing as it leads people to see violent instincts, especially when it comes to children and such, as something aberrant as opposed to part of our condition. Truthfully, if it wasn't for violence and aggressively dominating our enviroment humanity never would have progressed to the position it occupies now where we moralize about such things.

I'll also be honest in saying that while operating purely on a system of "might makes right" doesn't work, I think that a purely bureaucratic and administrative system doesn't work either. Today we see a tyranny of the pen, rather than the sword, and it's just as bad. I think a lot of the concerns over violence, especially in countries like the US, come from bureaucrats who realize that the only thing standing between them and a well deserved, horrible, screaming death at the hands of people they exploit, are a few pieces of paper and a general societal consensus to follow the laws. As I've explained before, I feel the USA's "right to keep and bear arms" was intended to try and create a middle ground here, though increasingly naive, anti-violence sentiment is eroding it, and actually causing a lot of the problems we see today. A lot of those unfair laws, corperate policies, and other things generally come from a sense of invulnerability, with people believing that there will never be any direct, physical repercussions, no matter how people are treated at their hands.

-

When it comes to PnP RPGs, I think the key element is that they are games. Artistic elements are tertiary to them. I think the issue started to become confused when "White Wolf" started getting pretentious about their games being "art", largely in relation to the violence and deviant sex that started to surround them. While most people are familiar with the incidents of violence surrounding "Dungeons and Dragons", but very few are familiar with White Wolf's even more extreme history (D&D's infamy came from that whole Egbert incident and how Gygax didn't handle it well as I remember).

At any rate:

http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/serialkillers/vampireklan.htm

http://www.gothicsubculture.com/vamp-clan.php

Search for White Wolf, Murders, Sex Scandals, Vampire Clan(s), and other things and you'll turn up tons of stuff. This includes things like teachers using gaming groups to solicit sex from students and the like if you dig.

At any rate, White Wolf decided to do things like put preachy full spread "Is this Art" pages in the back of books like "Montreal By Night" which included pictures of lesbian S&M vampires torturing girls chained to a bathroom urinal with an abortion hook. This is about the time things really started to take off there from what I saw.

Now, I have no objection to over the top adult material, and graphic violence (as many might know) but at the same time, I don't think defending "shock horror" on serious artistic grounds is a good idea. Free speech grounds, yes. Perhaps argueing that the media itself is barely artistic enough as a whole to get by, but there is a point at which you get pretentious by claiming "this is serious art" when your "artistic" point is "this is really going to shock you". I don't think people should ban DeSade's "101 Days In Sodom" (which I have read a long time ago), but at the same time nobody is going to convince me that should be considered serious art. It's basically a guy writing down the most offensive things he could think of in prison to get a rise out of people.

As far as the die-rolling interfering with RPGs being art, I think that's more of an issue today with the whole "Storytelling" movement where the PCs go from encounter to encounter to see how things play out, as opposed to proper "scenario based" gaming. It could be argued that RPGs largely take any artistic chops they have from Drama/Acting, even if it's very low-end in most cases. It's improv. Part of the point of the dice is that they are supposed to make the game unpredictable, since nobody (even the GM) knows for sure what is going to happen next, and yet everyone has to react to what happens in character, within the scope of the scenario.

The point being that in the course of that clever master plan, that should work, someone could roll really badly, and then everyone has to react to the results. By the same token, in a desperate situation, characters will oftentimes do desperate things, playing based off the game percentages when they know the odds are against them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and again that desperation, combined with reacting to the results as the character would, is part of the point.

To put things into perspective, let's look at the ciassic D&D example of someone trying to swim in plate mail which is stupid. In general the odds of success here are fairly minimal, but if someone is going to try and do this, even adjusting the stats to give them a decent chance of success, there is typically a reason for it (such as obtaining some treasure, saving another party member, or trying to finish off an aquatic monster). Simply by attempting something this rash it says quite a bit, and again comes down to improv. Can the guy improvise a way (statistically) to pull it off? Will he drown as is the most likely (and realistic) outcome? How does everyone else react to him doing something like this?

mr_rubino:

catalyst8:
I've seen you do this before, so that you don't have to engage with any debate over an empty claim you make you simply accuse the other person of not understanding, or of 'missing the point'.

Then why are you continuing to reply to her? If you already know intellectual dishonesty is the order of the day with PK - and it always is - why keep taking her bait?

Pirate Kitty:

targren:
No, you CANNOT play through Gears of War without pushing little plastic Skittles on an Xbox controller. Nothing is actually being killed. Contrary to what you may have seen in TRON or Reboot, there are not actually little beings inside the game that play the roles of the NPCs.

It is the depiction of violence. You cannot possibly say otherwise.

There is a reason the rating system for an M classified game says 'Mild Violence', 'Strong Violence', and others to that effect.

That is my entire point; the player is, in some games, encouraged to use violence. Simple.

Stop it, PK. You're breaking the flow of conversation.

She's breaking the flow of conversation because her opinion is different from yours? That's fascinating. Apparently a real conversation is one where lots of people chant in unison.

Capslockbroken:
She's breaking the flow of conversation because her opinion is different from yours? That's fascinating. Apparently a real conversation is one where lots of people chant in unison.

Don't you know? Being adamant in your opinion if it happens to be contrary to popular belief makes you a troll.

God I wish I hadn't wasted my time reading that, thank you for some irrelevant unproven information.

Urialanis:
God I wish I hadn't wasted my time reading that, thank you for some irrelevant unproven information.

They don't make you read their articles, you know. People spend a lot of time writing for them. If you don't like them, there is no need to insult their work. Just don't read it.

mr_rubino:

joebthegreat:
Policies for dealing with people that don't agree with you?

... anyway

Yyyyyep, that's about what I expected, although I expected it from PK herself. Talk about using the #1 troll response of all time. No matter how clearly the problem is laid out, "you're just angry because I don't agree with the hive-mind, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan" is the perfect reply to pretend you didn't get what was very clearly said.

What, exactly, was clearly laid out? Maybe you could go ahead and explain the difference, in your opinion, between trolling and failing to agree with you. You have added absolutely nothing to this thread other than accusations. You haven't even stated that you disagree, let alone formed a coherent argument about it. You went directly to name calling, and now expect everyone to believe that you are the rational one. There are plenty of people making intelligent arguments, your input is not required. Dismissed.

Therumancer:
-snip-

Now what you say about violence is interesting. Also I would note that I honestly personally have no problem with violence, gore, or really anything in any media. And on this subject I feel I mostly agree with you. My main goal here was to point out that it CAN be argued that video games at the very least promote a violent outlook, as do many many things.

As for the artistic debate. I think what gets mistaken here is that the D20 roll is there purely for gameplay reasons. Yes it makes things unpredictable, but calling that unpredictability part of the point I feel is mistaken. It's really just there to make the game part work the way it should. Fighting segments in D&D are often times very separated from the story being weaved, and as soon as the fight is over everyone just goes back to the story they were creating anyway. I'll agree that the story is largely improvisational, but once again the story aspects of it seem separated from the rolls mostly. Really what happens is people just use the roll as a way of randomly determining between two already though up stories, and they only officially adopt one of them as what happens.

Even when the DM does an excellent job of making your decisions in a fight have larger consequences within the story, it's still mostly just people making stuff up on the fly, only using dice as an indicator of how long certain things take or at best a way to determine between two story ideas that they were already going to use. Once again I'd argue the art within the story is separated from the gameplay aspect, no matter how hard a good DM or player works to the contrary.

Very interesting post though. I definitely enjoy reading your point of view. :)

Am I the only one who's slightly disappointed that The Void (aka Tension) wasn't listed as a artful game? Seriously, you can't get more artful than that.

Pirate Kitty:
Video games can and do promote violence in young people.

Last I checked, using a chainsaw to cut a creature in half or shooting up a base full of militants is violent.

I played M rated violent assasination games since I was 12. Many of my friends beat me to it, and those that didn't were playing violent games since the age of 15 at the latest. That's easily 20 people that I know well who play violent video games, and you know what, not only have none of us gone out and started shooting people, but I would argue that we are less violent than kids that don't. In my highschool, fistfights occurred several times a day, keep in mind there were about 100 kids in my highschool, and that's a little disturbing. The kids who were most often in fights, were the ones who didn't play violent video games. In college, my group of friends plays violent video games for a minimum of 5 hours a day, and yet, we are completely non-violent in real life.
finally, saying that video games cause violence in real life is tantamount to saying that the kids have no choice in the matter. This is not true, at the end of the day, any violence that a person perpetrates is thier fault, and no one elses, because they chose to do it.

As far as the article, I have one big problem with it. he says that "vidoe gaming is social" is a myth, and i find that hard to believe. Social interaction is not limited to face to face. Look at communities like the escapist that are based around gaming, these sites bring gamers togethor in a social environment about gaming. Me and my friends spend hours talking about, joking about, and playing video games. Half of our conversations and other social interactions wouldn't exist without video games. I can't even begin to count the number of hours we have spent debating the finer points of party design in dragon age: origins, or the best class layout in CoD, or who knows what. In that light, Gaming is one of the driving social influences on many people.

joebthegreat:
To put it simply: The story your DM made up explaining how a band of thieves made it into the castle is art. The rolling of your D20 to see who goes first in initiative is not.

By my definition I would argue that a the game within a video game is not nor can never be art. I would argue that any story you attach to that game, and any picture or 3D model you put in that game is art. Any game mechanic is not. Don't link me to Extra Credits over this I vehemently disagree with them when they get on that high horse.

All really depends on how you define art. I define it as a product of creativity, and, in that respect, even the basic mechanics, the control layouts and how pressing down a button or moving a joystick sends a signal almost instantaneously and changes thousands of pixels at the same time that has been programmed to act that way is art.

And then there's things like the "art" of making a good...I don't know, sandwich? The art of playing an instrument, after someone's gotten really good at it. If there's such a thing as the art of programming all the responses and machinations of different game mechanics (especially when one's really good at it), then who's to say a product of those "artful" actions can't be called art?

Pirate Kitty:

Capslockbroken:
She's breaking the flow of conversation because her opinion is different from yours? That's fascinating. Apparently a real conversation is one where lots of people chant in unison.

Don't you know? Being adamant in your opinion if it happens to be contrary to popular belief makes you a troll.

Yeah, I read through this thread, and even though the whole argument is very, very stupid and just mostly arguing about semantics, I was kind of irked how they turned against you with the whole "Oh, I've seen Pirate Kitty here and there, and she is suuuch a troll" just because you were adamant about your standpoint.

Also, I remember one guy talking about Extra Credits' "high horse" that they like to mount often, when, at the same time, catalyst, the guy who (if I remember correctly) said it is in "cahoots" with mr_rubino, whose modus operandi in this thread seems to consist purely of trying to put down for having a differing opinion and trying to one-up you, while also having convinced catalyst to do the same.

Seems to me like it's the pot calling the ladle black (and no, I'm not trying to give off the same implication of the well-known idiom; think about it, those mentioned items and their interactions actually describe this situation pretty well).

spartan231490:
Saying that video games cause violence in real life,

Please point out where I said that.

Fraught:
snippy

Yeah, it is partly an issue of semantics. But perhaps it is my autism, for when I see someone say a violent video game isn't encouraging violence -- which you can clearly see is by looking at the screen -- I get all... perfectionist.

Pirate Kitty:

spartan231490:
Saying that video games cause violence in real life,

Please point out where I said that.

Only the first part of my post was in response to your post, that statement was a general statement about the whole, "that kid shot up a school cuz he plays call of duty" argument. sorry, I should have made that more clear.

spartan231490:

Pirate Kitty:

spartan231490:
Saying that video games cause violence in real life,

Please point out where I said that.

Only the first part of my post was in response to your post, that statement was a general statement about the whole, "that kid shot up a school cuz he plays call of duty" argument. sorry, I should have made that more clear.

Oh, that's cool. No harm done.

I fully agree with you - no sane kid is going to go shot up a school because of a video game. They might if they already have issues, but those issues are the problem, not the video game.

Games aren't art, they could be art, but I have yet too see a single game that is indeed art. And just because one game is more artistic than another, and might even be art, the genre as a whole is not art.

Pirate Kitty:

targren:
Why would I say otherwise? I'm the first one who SAID it was the portrayal of violence (which is a synonym for "depiction"). But yet again, "portrayal"(or "depiction") is NOT
"promotion."

It is the promotion of violence. If a game gives you no alternative to committing a violent act, and then rewards you for doing so, it has promoted the use of violence.

Promoting is not the same as 'encouraging you to commit [insert act here] in the real world'.

Actually, promoting IS encouragement. And yes, it is. Violence, by definition, takes place in the real world. You cannot harm that which does not exist.

Pirate Kitty:

Capslockbroken:
She's breaking the flow of conversation because her opinion is different from yours? That's fascinating. Apparently a real conversation is one where lots of people chant in unison.

Don't you know? Being adamant in your opinion if it happens to be contrary to popular belief makes you a troll.

No, but redefining words to fit your position makes you a troll.

What a crock fiddlesticks. You can tell this person is a jounalist by the amazing in depth intospective argument especially for games are art argument

think you could have expended on the art bit, if movies can be classed as art then why the hell is there a question with games, hell look at enslaved, kickass game with fantastic "acting". infact you can use those god awful games have an example aswell, if films like zombie slayer strippers can still be protected what cant be haha

I don't consider Zombie Strippers as art either.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 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