Google GGA:
|
|
Links
Alice Taylor
Clint Hocking Costik Derek Daniels The Edge electro^plankton Gamasutra Game Critics GameDevBlog GameFAQs Game Jew Game Poets Society Game Set Watch Gamevideos.com Gewgaw Got Game? Grand Text Auto Grrl Gamer Henry Jenkins Heroine-Sheik IGDA Indie Game Jam Insert Credit Invisible City Julian Dibbell KillerBetties Kim Pallister Kongregate Kotaku Lost Garden Ludology Magic Box Margaret Robinson Matteo Bittanti Memory Card Ogre Cave Penny Arcade Raph Koster Reality Panic Serious Games Shiny Shiny Slash Dot Games Surfer Girl Terra Nova ToastyFrog Tokyopia Water Cooler Games Women Gamers Zen of Design
Thank You for Donating!
If you'd like to help keep GGA afloat, we thank you!
Mascot by Penny Arcade!
|
April 05, 2007
Sports DO Cause Violence
The aftermath of the Manchester United versus Roma game is just the latest soccer-related incident that shows a clear correlation between sports matches and violence. And yet no one is seriously calling for a ban on football. Why not? Well, for one thing the fans would throw a riot that makes this event look like an Easter egg hunt; and second, because society recognizes that sports have a value that is greater than the unfortunate incidents of violence that sometimes follow in the wake of games. We need to educate society that video games, too, have outstanding value for us as a culture, as a society, as a people, that far outweigh the isolated acts of violence that may or may not be tied to playing them. The question is, how do we do that? Posted by jane at April 05, 2007 05:02 PM | TrackBackComments
I would say just give it time. Nobody flips out when books inspire people to engage in acts of violence, or when music does it. If we wait, within 10-20 years something else will come along and be the next big thing to blame our social ills on, while video games will be just another form of expression. Posted by: Cameron Sorden on April 5, 2007 08:16 PM
Bear in mind, however, that the authorities in charge of sports have not blindly ignored the violence either. They have found ways to help prevent it and to lessen its effect when it does occur, for example through improvements to stadium design, crowd segregation, CCTV and imposing fines on clubs whose fans cause problems. They also recognise potential flashpoints and prepare for trouble accordingly. Perhaps we as an industry should learn from these examples. Perhaps we should start regulating ourselves a little more, so that the most "dangerous" games are toned down, so that developers who cause upset are penalised. Let's face it, developers have made some mistakes, some bad calls. But by blindly ignoring them, we leave ourselves much more open to heavy-handed governement interference. If we cannot prove ourselves to be responsible for what we create, then it is a government's duty to step in and act to protect its people. Mind you, there are a few obvious differences as well; when games cram tens of thousands of people in one place, it is only their avatars in danger - the real people are tucked up nice and safe at home. If you put ten thousand WoW players in the same stadium, able to see who was controlling their in-game enemies, I don't doubt you would see more than a few bloody noses... Posted by: Zild on April 6, 2007 02:27 AM
I've never really understood the whole sport/game dichotomy that people set up. Sports are games. I had a lacrosse player in a class that I was guest lecturing for, she looked bored, but I could tell she was an athlete. I asked her what made games different from sports. The ensuing discussion ended up being a really interesting (and hopefully fruitful) conversation with the students (undergrads, largely first-year students). I actually believe that there is a lot to be learned from women in sports (especially sports typically "owned" by men) that can be learned for those people designing games. But then again I coach a women's hockey team, so I'm biased. One thing that is right on (and is what the latter part of this post is really getting at) is that there is a tendency to ghettoize games (and especially video games) because they are outside of the mainstream. I think tapping seriously into the rhetoric of video games as game, as a part of the human creature (Homoludens), having value as you say. At the same time, I think that there needs to be an effort on the part of developers to recognize that the uptake and public perception of games is something that they are responsible for. Posted by: Casey O'Donnell on April 6, 2007 12:36 PM
I believe Zild is partly right. I hate to bring Jack Thompson into this, but beyond all the hate that gets thrown in and from his direction, when he says that the game industry needs better self regulation, he's right. And the most infuriating thing is how many gamers, bloggers and people in the industry say "just ignore him and he'll go away." But the mainstream is paying attention to him, not Penny Arcade or Kotaku. That attitude will only push games further from popular culture. I say "partly" because I don't think games should be toned down for fear of government intervention. That's exactly what Thompson is trying to do, and I don't agree with it. The industry has made great leaps in recent years in terms of keeping mature games out of the hands of youngsters (too lazy to look up the stat, go to ftc.gov and search for video game sales). That doesn't mean they can't try harder. Roll out a PR campaign. Put out some public service ads. Create an anti-Jack Thompson pundit. Blogs like these are fine forums for intelligent thought, but they tend to preach to the choir. Posted by: The Pimp Of Sound on April 8, 2007 08:26 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
|
Archives
August 2009
July 2009 June 2009 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 Category Archives
About GGA (15) Academia (26) Advertising (3) Art (25) Books (9) Business (42) Conferences (18) Criticism (22) Culture (20) Design (6) Economics (6) Entertainment (19) Events (65) Experimental (32) Fashion (25) Features (18) Food (3) Fun (16) Gender (26) Humor (35) Jane's Journal (78) Journalism (27) Law (18) Marketing (10) Military (3) MMOG (33) Movies (16) Music (18) News (16) People (37) Politics (42) Preview (4) Research (14) Review (4) Scandal! (2) Sex (12) Society (47) Technology (22) Television (4) Theory (27) Travel (1) Trends (25) Upcoming Releases (12) Web (12) WTF? (28) |