Ammunition > Heroics

Sorry about not posting for such a long time...
I had finished this quite some time ago, but I was kind of wary of posting it for a couple different reasons:
Firstly, It was pretty rough. I've worked on it more since then, but I still think it could use quite a bit of work (but I don't have the motivation to do that right now). There are still some parts that seem a bit "wishy-washy" and may cause people to come away with false impressions of what I was trying to say. I decided to just go with what I have, though. I might come back to it later if I see a point in it, but right now I don't.
Secondly, well... There's no real getting around this: It's weird. Or, to clarify, the subject and the points I make may seem pretty unusual to a lot of people. Though (probably because of the kinds of people I hang around with, admire, etc.) if I had seen it somewhere, written by someone else, I would have accepted it as normal pretty readily. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're not used to reading stuff on this or similar subjects, it's going to be pretty weird for you.
Because of both those factors, I think I can predict that at least one or two people I consider pretty good friends are going to read this and think "WHAT?!". But I guess I'll be prepared to deal with that as long as I leave you with this statement:
This isn't necessarily an essay that is written to persuade (I actually don' t know what it is, which is the main problem with it). I want people to read it and say "Huh, that's interesting." regardless of whether they agree with any of my points. I'm not trying to make anybody mad; just because you strongly disagree, that doesn't mean you have to go crazy...
Anyway, I've wasted too much time already. Here it is:

One Life Left

An analysis of electronic gaming culture and its impact on culture as a whole

Computer and video games are everywhere. There’s no avoiding it now. What was once denounced as a passing fad has now become ingrained in our culture and may be impossible to remove. Not that people have not tried, of course. A lot of people seem to have a massive vendetta against electronic games. But they’re definitely the minority, and they tend to be ignored. I find this to be unfortunate on some level, because some of their concerns are moderately legitimate. But I think that they drawing serious conclusions from misinformation, causing them to formulate opinions that are far too radical to be listened to in most cases. On the other hand, the gamers themselves seem to think very little about what they apparently care very much about, and that doesn’t add up very well, either. So I’m writing this to two audiences: Gamers and non-gamers. Obviously, this includes everyone on the face of the earth. Call me whatever you like (radical, arrogant, etc.), but I think everybody should hear what I have to say.

So as I was saying, games are everywhere. The video gaming culture is very large and dynamic, and while it was once a small niche, it has expanded to let in all kinds of people, bringing together groups of great variety. It is also closely linked in some ways to Internet culture (we can look to terminology such as “n00b” and “pwn” for examples of this). Since the Internet is a huge form of communication today, it seems to have assisted the video game culture in spreading rapidly into other aspects of culture. I think it’s safe to say that electronic games have made a significant dent in society today, and that within the next decade it is very likely that they will take a stronger hold, becoming a defining point for modern civilization. Does this sound far-fetched to you? It really shouldn’t. It’s a form of entertainment that is able to reach out to a great variety of people. Electronic games are exciting and enjoyable. They can advertise, get points across, and be educational. Perhaps most notably, since few major forms of entertainment share this trait, they’re interactive. It’s no wonder the appeal of gaming is so widespread. Whether you like it or not, electronic games are here to stay.

But of course, the extent of gaming’s impact isn’t something that I need to spend much time trying to assure anyone of. Once you see it, you have to accept it. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact that anyone can see. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it.

Something less objective, however, is electronic games’ validity as a significant form of media, a legitimate aspect of culture, and most important — and most debated—as an art form. Art is something that is difficult to define. What makes one thing “art” and another simply “entertainment”? I would like to propose that all entertainment is art. Art is something beautiful, something that was crafted with love, attention, and a lot of work so that others can enjoy it, learn from it, and be inspired by it. If we agree that this is true, that means that there are many things that can be considered art. But do they need to have a particular level of “seriousness” or impact to be considered artistic? Are the works of Dr. Seuss not art because they are lighthearted books written for children? The immediate answer for some would be “Yes; how could you look at that and say it is artistic?” Yet upon closer examination you will find that Dr. Seuss’s writing at times filled with hidden meanings and powerful metaphors. The amount of care put into it is evident; how can anyone say that is something less than art? Thus, you cannot rule out one example from an artistic medium as being “not art” simply because it has fewer apparent artistic merits. Even if it is thoroughly light and empty, assembled with little effort and only intended to entertain or perhaps even just to make money (a great deal of television programs, for example, fit this description), it is still art. It is just significantly less powerful than other artistic examples of the same genre.

Similarly, we cannot rule out an entire medium simply because we have seen one example that does not satisfy our expectations for art. If a medium has the potential for any kind of impact, I believe that it immediately becomes classified as art. And as I have already argued, as soon as you can say a form of communication has the potential to be artistic, that makes every example within that form art automatically. The electronic game, then, fits all of our descriptions. That makes it an art form, and all games are included. I find the phrase “art game” to be very silly, because all games are art. Some are obviously more artistic than others, but they are all by definition art, since they are a part of an artistic medium.

As an art form, games have a potential for great impact. Most of us have already seen much of this impact, and according to the media, it is largely negative. That is simply because nobody is interested in hearing about the examples of positive impact, but we do not need to address that at the moment. What I am saying here is that much of society seems to cling to the idea that video games are a terrible thing that is corrupting our youth and causing an immeasurable level of problems. It would be foolish to attempt addressing all of the concerns people have with video games, but I am going to spend a bit of time discussing what often appears to be the biggest issue: violence.

It has been said that significant links have been found between violence in various forms of entertainment, particularly video games, and real-world violent behavior. But whenever I hear this I can’t help but think that everyone is seeing things entirely backward. I don’t think as much attention needs to be given to whether violence in games is harmful. To me, that’s not even the real issue. Violent games don’t create violent people. Violent people play violent games. (I imagine that statement upset many gamers, but please read my point and wait for the next section.)

We’re dealing with a very vague and sensitive topic here, one where there is no way to tell if “scientific evidence” is even applicable. Instead I think we should ask the simple question: Does this make any sense? I find it incredibly difficult to believe that simulated killing could directly result in actual bloodlust. At the same time, however, it seems very reasonable to assume that people who are prone to aggressive behavior would play a game that involves a lot of violence. After all, are not energetic people entertained by sports and games that involve a lot of activity, whereas people with calmer, relaxed personalities are more likely to be interested in a quiet game like chess? I believe that similar ideas can be applied to electronic games (and other forms of entertainment, but they aren’t really my main topic here).

Of course, I am not saying that everyone who plays violent games is automatically an extremely hostile person, but I am saying that parents aren’t concerned about the right things. They shouldn’t be asking themselves “What will this game cause my child to become?” as much as they do; instead they should ask questions like “What sort of person is my child already that would make him interested in this sort of thing?” I strongly discourage blaming human ills on entertainment. There comes a time when you simply must admit that you cannot pin all of people’s problems on external things such as what is entertaining them. It’s possible that many external factors play some sort of role in developing people’s problems, but I don’t think they create them. I think people often look for things to blame for their own problems or the problems of others. It’s “the easy way out”, because it doesn’t involve working out the problem. Just get rid of the offending factor, and poof, the problem goes away, right? I could go on about this for a while, but I think you get my point (you may not agree with it, but at least you understand it). Back to our main topic, violence:

Another thing that requires a great deal of your attention is the nature of the violence in a video game. When a game involves spacecraft firing laser beams at one another and erupting in brilliant explosions, this usually isn’t seen by many people as being very concerning. Even if the game’s setting makes it clear that the vessels involved are very large and contain many people — people who are apparently dying when the ships explode — we never see them. The personal aspect, the empathy, is gone. Nobody spends time thinking about people, because there don’t seem to be any involved. On the other hand, if the violence revolves around one-on-one combat that is grotesque and upsetting, involving much dismemberment and disembowelment, this is almost always a subject of concern for many people (it usually appears to be the majority, but it’s a little difficult to obtain statistics on subjects such as these). Clearly, there are multiple kinds of violence. Attention should certainly be paid to these issues, but personally I see them as one of the smaller concerns. A larger one in my eyes is how the violence is portrayed. Is it silly and humorous, or is it grim and disturbing? Most of the time violence is presented as being neither. It is “moderately serious” but overly sensationalized. But is this not much worse than any other form of violence, particularly when we are discussing what children are being entertained with? They’re at a vulnerable period of their lives, and what they see in all parts of the world is going to effect how they view things. They don’t need a picture of violence that looks “cool”. I believe most of us would agree that senseless killing is very wrong. While people are almost always capable of discerning fantasy and reality, fantasy is a bigger part of the lives of children. The real world is at times less important to them, so it’s important that what entertains them doesn’t give vastly conflicting messages about the nature of their world. In this sense, a realistic, macabre portrayal of violence is preferable in some ways to the common, stylized approach. In the end, though, the most acceptable forms of violence should be the ones that are “harmless” and cannot be taken seriously. Even a child, of course, can see that Loony Tunes is nothing like real life; it’s easy to draw a distinction in that case between fantasy and reality.

We still haven’t addressed the concepts that deserve the most of our attention, however. Far too much thought is given to how gory something is, and how great the amounts of blood and guts are. This is certainly a serious concern, notably for people who are easily disturbed. But when we are discussing the subject of the impact of violence on people, especially children, I think that gore is a totally unrelated topic. The real issues are these: Who is being attacked, and for what reason? Are the targets human? Are they being killed or just harmed? Who is doing the attacking? Is it the protagonist? A character controlled by the player? If your concerns are of the moral implications of the content in video games, these are the most important questions you should ask. There is an enormous difference between killing monstrous creatures and killing humans. Somewhat independent of the target, there is also a difference between killing with no motives (or poor ones) and killing with just ones or in self defense. And what if the violence is being done by the antagonist? If a character that is clearly portrayed as being evil kills a great number of people, it may upset the player. That’s what it is intended to do. The actions of the antagonist are not encouraged. In many cases, the mere fact that the actions were performed by the antagonist immediately makes them feel reprehensible.

These are the real issues that need to be thought out. Certainly there’s nothing wrong with asking “Do my kids really need to be seeing stuff this gross?” But the real moral issues are related to the nature of the violent situations and whether the violence is being encouraged.

I am aware, of course, that there is a significant number of people who do not care what sort of content their entertainment has. They reason that something is “only a game”, and that since it is not real, it cannot be taken seriously. This is obviously something that is very difficult to debate. My points in the previous section, then, were for people who are already concerned about the content of electronic games (and other forms of entertainment, as well, since the same ideas can apply to many different mediums). Those of you who do fit into that category of people are probably very disconcerted by many of the video games you have seen or heard about. Some people may take the position that there are very few games (or even none at all) with actual merit. I don’t feel a need to give you some existing examples at this time (of games that do have merits), but if we are in agreement that video games are a legitimate art form (I assume there are people in the world who still disagree with me, but their arguments, frankly, don’t hold up very well at all), you should admit that there is a vast potential for games with a positive impact.

I personally have seen electronic games that have numbed people’s minds and given them an entirely new outlook on life. Why, you may ask, have you not seen anything like this yourself? Well, there are two very simple answers to this question. The first is that everything impacts people in a different way. I personally have seen at least one game that people have said changed their lives that I found to be quite underwhelming. We are all individuals. Some people’s inherent distaste for video games will probably prevent them from ever taking something significant out of one. But that doesn’t mean that games cannot impact other people.

Another reason, though, is that video games are a very new medium. There are many examples of great literature because writing has been around for thousands of years. But electronic games are comparatively new. The good news is that many innovative designers are rising up today to create astounding, beautiful games. Everything is always uncertain, of course — we can’t really see very far forward in time — but the video game looks like it has a very bright future.

Games, as I said much earlier, are becoming more prominent in our culture every day. They bring a wealth of problems with them, but then, so does everything. That does not give you any reason to ignore the large amount of great positive potential they have. With every new art form comes both problems and benefits. There’s little sense in accepting something readily without examining the issues it might cause, but there’s not any more sense in shoving it away from your culture without first weighing its benefits.

Of course, there may always be a debate over the validity of video games. But conflict is a large part of society. In an odd, ironic way, the controversy over video games is what seals their permanent place in our culture.