The topic of this post, according to the New York Times, is an idea that is already becoming a cliché:
Is our virtual culture of violent images and hyperactive stimulation sabotaging our humanity?
Retreat to Walden, anyone? I don't know. Jason Della Rocca seems pretty human to me when he talks about this other NY Times article on the "9/11 Surivor" Unreal mod as well as popular criticism of some other simulations.
The big question here is the potential regulatory response to the above cliché. Borland and King have pointed to this which contains a quote from Des Clark of the "Australian Office of Film Literature and Classification":
We tend to be extremely strict because of our guidelines on sexualised violence or where there are rewards for sexual violence, gross nudity and other sexual activity...
In the eyes of Mr. Clark, it seems that playing out bad behavior is different than just watching it -- seem familiar? And the same article also has this quip from Bill Hastings of Tolkienesque New Zealand:
Some of the games do have video clips in them now and some of the games do have a linear narrative structure... There is a goal you have to achieve by killing people basically - for kids I don't think that's great.
So the idea is that games rewarding bad (virtual) behavior are bad enough to, e.g., keep out of the hands of kids. (Potential silver lining: maybe games like the Ultima Series should be government-subsidized?)
Of course, as we all know, games are speech and censorship is bad. Greg Costikyan is more eloquent about this. Curious to see, though, that some designers developing a game based on the Columbine Shootings have advanced another argument that we've criticized here:
"We're just trying to make a statement," Mr. Leonard said. "We're trying to say, `It's just a game.' "
Update: Jason Della Rocca post re books
Comments