An easy target
The generation gap can be relied upon to produce criticism based upon ignorance or the shock of the new.
Anything outside a person's experience is fair game, which is why games are so often labelled as harmful.
The music of Elvis and The Beatles were foreign to parents of the 1950s and 60s, so many called the music dangerous. Comics, movies, television and even certain types of books have suffered similar condemnation in the past.
Perhaps some of you can remember that before Sesame Street, the idea that kids could learn anything from television was absurd. Today it is computer games that are in the firing line.
My hope is that the idea that computer games are corrupting an entire generation of kids will soon be considered as absurd as the once commonly held notion that a gyrating rock star would create a generation of depraved sexual deviants.
We all want our children to enjoy a balanced range of activities. No one will argue that children and teenagers shouldn't read books, play sport and indulge in all manner of indoor and outdoor activities.
No one should spend countless hours glued to a television screen, a computer monitor or a handheld game.
But society has finally stopped using television as a scapegoat for social ills. It is time electronic games are recognised as another form of entertainment that has the potential to equally aid a child's development as to harm.
Here's the good news: games can improve coordination, problem-solving skills and fuel the imagination.
Gaming doesn't have to be a solo activity: playing with friends can encourage communication, co-operation and teamwork. Internet play can result in new long-distance relationships, and even let people explore role playing and think about their own identity.
Games can let people indulge in risk taking, carry out fantasies, play God, or learn to empathise with others from experiencing what its like to be put in their shoes.
Contrary to the view that games are an anti-social activity, most frequent gamers play with friends.
This isn't just my personal view. Many academics are now studying what children can learn from gaming.
We all need to protect our children from excessive violence, but to completely deny children one of the most powerful and exciting entertainment and educational mediums is not the answer.
Be guided by the ratings labels when shopping for games, and most importantly, play with your kids.
I guarantee you'll have fun, and you might even learn something.
Valid case indeed. It's baffling that the video game industry is still largely misunderstood and regularly used by political and religious figures as ammuniction to fight their battles.
I mean what sort of generation have we become if we still can't determine what is suitable entertainment for both ourselves and our families? Anything can be deemed unsuitable as a form of entertainment even a TV ad if it goes against the grain in the eye of the beholder.
The obvious solution for the nay-sayers is right infront of their noses, I mean every TV comes with an OFF switch doesn't it?
- Posted by: LazyGamer on May 13, 2006 2:07 PM
... you mean games do *not* cause lung cancer? :)
- Posted by: alex on May 13, 2006 4:42 PM
LOL. You know what, i was just reading that article and i got angry. It was full of plainly cynical assumptions and conjectures they pulled out of their arses. I wanted to discuss it so i came here and thought i will leave a comment in one of the other posts to vent about it. But what do you know. You were onto it already and put up a blog. I saw the SMH article btw, which was essentially identical.
The article was flawed. First of all, it makes all these assumptions that video games lead to violence. And the only evidence it can come up with is some choice quotes from the lawyer Jack Thompson? This is the man that even the American BAR association doesn't take seriously. He is a cheap scare mongerer who is trying to raise his profile by corrupting a sensitive subject which parents have genuine concerns over. I agree that some games should not be played by minors, but adults should have the freedom to play what they want. It is also unfair to label all games dangerous because of a few sour grapes.
Also, Professor Ryuta Kawashima was already an author of a best selling book in Japan, so he was hardly a nobody. He was right about his previous comments about video games, that some video games, if played excessively and exclusively by kids, can deteriorate some portions of the brain. If you are a kid whose brain is still developing and you play pong all day don't you think the brain will suffer at the repetition of calculating a pixel going back and forth across the screen? Labeling him as some huge anti gaming activist (which Jack Thompson clearly is BTW, an irrational one) before Nintendo scouted him and then making it look like he has turned to the dark side of the force is a pretty cheap form of journalism, if you ask me.
- Posted by: clee on May 13, 2006 7:46 PM
What we have here are knee-jerk reactions from the right-wing looking for a new scapegoat. Let's face it- ANYTHING is bad for you if you have too much, from Maccas to TV.
We need to accept that there is a medium that needs to be struck, and that it will occur. The solution isn't to simply blame society's woes on the latest form of entertainment. Its refreshing to see your point of view, Jason, because its quite plainly true- throughout the past there have been unjustified backlashes against TV, rock music etc. and its only a matter of time before society as a whole adjusts to the rise of gaming. We should look instead at the true causes of social dysfunction, instead of looking for the simple scapegoat.
- Posted by: John on May 15, 2006 8:51 PM
Thanks for your support, John.
There is little doubt that games will eventually receive the same treatment as other entertainment media, with today's gamers eventually becoming tomorrow's newspaper editors, policians and parents.
But its certainly going to be a frustrating wait for generational change, as evidenced by Australia's ridiculous lack of an R18+ classification for games.
I asked Microsoft's Peter Moore about what he thought could hasten cultural acceptance of gaming and he disappointingly had few answers beyond simply waiting...
Educating non-gamers about this unique medium is the key.
I gave a speech to parents of a Melbourne private school last year on this theme and afterwards it was as if a huge weight had been lifted from many of their shoulders. The parents have had the media bombarding them with negative stereotypes about gaming for so long, and were relieved to hear someone actually say what most of them had already suspected - that some games could have extremely positive benefits for their children.
- Posted by: Jason Hill on May 16, 2006 9:33 AM
People are always afraid of things they don't understand, and to educate most of the older generations about video games could be a lost cause. I always get the impression that people who write articles that proclaim the evils of the video game industry, or specific individual games, have not actually played many, if any, games themselves. And if they did, for how long did they play them, and were they objective.
Parent should still be responsible for the content their children are exposed to, just like movies. The only current problem with this is a lack of R18+ classification for video games in Australia.
- Posted by: Yug on May 17, 2006 8:53 AM
To blatantly summarise the issue:
There's a rating system for a reason. You should not let a minor play a game rated above their age. Stop blaming your inability to parent your children on games they shouldn't have access to in the first place and pay attention to what your children are doing.
Damaging effects on the brain...
There's contradictory evidence on both sides. Again, monitor your child and perhaps actually spend time with them? Too much of anything is a bad thing. A movie is less involving than a game, so perhaps consider playing a co-operative game -with- them? It's quite a nice thing to see a family enjoying co-operative games instead of mum in the kitchen, dad in the garage, and billy in the lounge playing for hours on end alone and unattended.
Profitable scapegoat. Still wondering where that article on effects of voilence in the press is. The amount of real life voilence I've seen on prime time news is disgusting.
- Posted by: JI on May 17, 2006 10:38 AM
A copy of the feedback I sent to SMH for your edutainment:
This is the worst piece of so called journalism that I have seen so far in regards to game development. It is even worse than the whole "Manhunt" witch-hunt, where it was claimed that the game was the reason for the attack and death of the young victim. In that case it was claimed that the perpetrator owned the game when in fact it was the victim that owned the game. It was claimed that the game motivated the attack, when in fact the motivation was one of robbery to pay for a drug related debt. The perpetrator's family and their lawyers pushed the angle that Manhunt, a computer-game, was responsible for their son's actions.
How ridiculous a notion. Games are nothing other than entertainment, just like feature films, TV shows, novels, comic books, music, art, etc. Games are not the only entertainment medium that has been attacked for the source of all that is evil in mankind, they are just one of the newest mediums is all. Films have been strongly criticised in the past for creating youth violence for instance, so have comic books.
You see, when you remove the notion of any single form of entertainment being the cause of violence, you are only left with the people themselves in whatever incident you wish to analyse.
I wonder what you would find if you dug deep enough into the family of the perpetrator in the Manhunt case. After all, the kid is a drug addict, which would make me ask why that is so? After all, all entertainment, recreational (and illegal) drugs inclusive, are methods of escape from reality. I would be asking what issues under the surface that this young man was seeking to escape from within his family and the community that he is apart of. After all, games don't kill people, people kill people. And at the heart of the worst known killers, is the abuse they have suffered and endured at the hands of others - again not a computer game which is a form of cathartic realise, but people which are the cause of the symptoms of such violence.
This piece seems "credible," but that is only the case if you are an ignorant and naive reader or journalist. There are many studies, some more credible than others, there are many experts, some more credible than others. Some claim that games are bad leading to violence and brain damage, others claim that they are a release for violence and stimulate brain activity and development. So in that regard, the jury is clearly out. I however from my experiences, research and understanding of human behaviour, see no correlation between violence or maladapted brain development attributed to games, I only see the opposite.
Here is something I wish people to understand, no matter what you do, there will always be a small percentage of the population that are abnormally violent, either through genetics - they were born with a mental disease - or have developed a mental disease or maladapted personality due to social factors, like their mother beating them and locking them up in a confined space when they reached puberty for instance - I think this was the case of serial killer Son-of-Sam.
A computer game can not have such an effect as it is just a game, not a person - most children can tell the difference between reality and make-believe, there for they won't hold a grudge to a game. A game at best will only offer such individuals a release of their aggression, not be the source of such aggression.
This whole piece smells of sensationalism and scare-mongering so as to give readers something entertaining to read. Yes, news is another form of "entertainment," yet journalists that are quick to attack other entertainers and entertainment mediums for the effect their content may or may not have upon people, seem to be at a loss when they use their own medium to effect people as well with engineered and clearly biased pieces so as to entertain their readers and keep their readers so as to sell papers.
I also extremely abhor the comparison drawn between the game development industry and the tobacco industry - the last I checked there was no research that suggest that computer games caused several forms of cancer as well as other diseases. Any other comparisons that are drawn are no different than those that can be drawn between the tobacco industry and any entertainment industry - including news mediums.
I have no idea how Deborah Cameron got her journalism credentials, but they should be revoked, her job given to someone else, and she should go back to university - this time perhaps try some arts subjects dealing with morality and social responsibility.
- Posted by: CynicalFan on May 19, 2006 12:12 AM
Well, I wanted to know... Did you have the chance to talk to Deborah Cameron about this disastrous article, as she's your colleague ?
I mean, she's certainly not a bad woman, she seems to know Japanese culture quite well, so I just wanted to know what the hell she was thinking when she wrote this horrible compilation of all the cliches about videogames : game industry seen as a monolithic mafia, statements of "specialists" (and Jack Thompson !) considered without verification, nor discussion, as the ultimate truth, ALL videogames considered as bad and harmful... Really, what was she thinking ?
- Posted by: Soldat_Louis_fan on November 9, 2006 6:07 AM