• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Gaming Going Backwards

by Steve Gibson, Oct 23, 2002 2:31pm PDT

We've been hearing some really odd reactions by corporation to the recent sniper killings going on in the northeast. Lately though it's started to hit the game industry, a little while ago CBS carried a story that had Counter-Strike being investigated as some kind of instigator/trainer program and now the folks at Wal-Mart are pulling games off shelves: (another link here)

"If the snipers didn't have violence in their life, I don't think they'd be as violent as they are. I agree wholeheartedly with Wal-Mart in taking the video games off. And I think they should stay off," said Bobbie Harkey, a Tierrasanta resident and Wal-Mart customer.
It feels like we're in a Paula Abdul song taking 2 steps forward and 3 steps back when it comes to the videogame industry being accepted. My sincere apologies for the Paula Abdul reference.




Comments

109 Threads* | 332 Comments



















  • dumb asses

    when its something to do with violence, they blame video games
    when its something to do with abuse, they blame the parents
    when its something to do with stealing/theft, they blame the video games/parents

    fucking media is stupid ... if counter-strike is so bad, then why arent all 75,000 players going ballistic and sniping out people in their home towns?!? the media makes NO sense at all and they try to blame whatever they can just to make people happy.

    and fuck wal-mart. they're an evil corporation just like any other. wal-mart likes to move into a small town that has nothing, become the staple for jobs, the central place where people buy all their things and then when profits go lower than a certain margin, they pick up and leave, totally fucking over the small town they just "took over" so i dont believe a word of what they say when it comes to "trying to help the people" or whatever.

    i could go on forever talking shit about this but i have to leave.








  • I originally posted this on Domain of Games, where I saw it first, but I thought I would share my thoughts here is well.


    I don't think that the gaming community can claim with 100 percent certainty that the sniper doesn't play video games. There HAVE been past examples of violent criminals who were obsessed with violent video games. The point isn't that they aren't attracted to violent video games, the point is that they take something much different away from their gaming experience than normal gamers.

    Normal gamers find violent games give them the same feeling of excitement of "being the hero" that an action film gives their audience, or just the adrenaline rush and competition that online gaming provides. Every teenage testosterone pumped male has those "hero" fantasies. Yes they do gain pleasure from the violence of the situation, but it is secondary to their understanding that it is controlled violence, that it is just a hero fantasy and nothing else, that even if it is not using violence to further justice in the game that the suffering and death that occurs is purely imaginary and something to be ignored. But in 99 percent of the games the user gains pleasure because they, in that fantasy, are risking their lives to serve justice, to protect the innocent, to be the hero. Even if they are playing a game like Grand Theft Auto, in which they are the bad guy, they understand that it is just a fantasy. The suffering or death of their virtual victims is not real, and so the morally distasteful part of being a bad guy is no longer there. Even in games like Grand Theft Auto you are still acting out the part of a hero, in a sort of Butch Casedy/Sundance kid fashion.

    The criminals who play these games are of two types. Either they are psychopathic and ENJOY the killing for its own sake, and their fantasy is that the virtual suffering they cause is actually real, or they are of the type that is so detached from reality that they consider the suffering and death they cause in real life to be no more significant than the virtual deaths and suffering caused in the games they play. In either case, these criminals are as radically different from normal gamers as they are from normal people who don't even play games. ANYONE who has enjoyed a movie containing violence, or a story, or approves of the use of violence for justice, is on no higher moral ground than that of the average gamer.

    The problem is that the term violence has an entirely negative connotation, and it is the only adjective used to describe games that contain it. The fact is violence is necessary and acceptable in certain situations. Being a moral person does not mean being a pacifist that condemns any form of violence, it means being able to differentiate when violence is acceptable and when it is not. As an example, the police use violence, but they do so to serve justice.

    Furthermore, we humans are not entirely detached from our basic nature. Just as we have to eat and sleep, we also find tales containing violence to be exciting, and always only when the violence is used in a socially acceptable way. This basic nature of ours can not be said to be morally wrong. Morality enters into the equation ONLY when it is REAL suffering that is being caused that does not serve to perpetuate justice. Games easily pass this definition, and the prejudice with which the media and the masses at large treat video games is spawned not from their abhorrence of violence, but from their ignorance and a natural tendency of people to mistrust new things. These are the same kind of people who have in past centuries thought it was blasphemy and evil to claim the earth was not the center of the universe, that the earth was not flat, and many other things that we now take for granted. In my opinion the problem here is not people finding socially acceptable, harmless outlets for their more basic human tendencies, but people’s basic social nature to not think for themselves, demonize things they are ignorant of, and to generally mistrust anything new or different.



  • This is a step in the right direction.
    It's about time they started investigating Counter-Strike for its role in the decline of Western Civilization!! I say we let CS take the fall for everything in this world that we think sucks ass:

    The AIDS epidemic? That's Counter-Strike's fault.

    The current recession? Counter-Strike.

    Death of Napster? Once again, Counter-Strike did it. The RIAA was merely a scapegoat.

    Banning of anonymous accounts on the Shack Forums? Well, who else would do such a thing?

    I'm certain that there are several other heinous happenings that we can trace directly back to Counter-Strike. Anyone else have any ideas?