Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
This argument was actually presented and explored in the Discovery Channels excellent series I, Videogames. I think it was the third episode in the series, entitled The Legs. Ill try to surmise the content and let you make up your own mind about it.
The popularity of Doom marked the beginning of the controversy surrounding video-games and the characterisation of violence in them. When it was discovered that the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were passionate fans about the Doom title, it underscored the social panic and negative perceptions surrounding these games. Eventually the hysteria gained such traction that there was US Congressional Hearings on the subject with televisions playing e.g. Mortal Kombat presented in full view of the audience, consisting mainly of politicians past their 50s, to give judgment.
But whilst the US government was expressing its concerns on the rate of violence in these video games, a couple of years later it decided that video games would be a viable platform to help the military tackle its recruitment difficulties. This eventually culminated in the release of Americas Army in a post 9/11 America, where military personnel became regulars on the front doors of E3 and gaming expos. The creators of Doom recall the contrast in media coverage and controversy between the reaction of Doom and FPSs like, and that of the US governments own video game. The contrast in motives further accentuates their frustration; whilst they sought to express their creativity, they would argue, the military was essentially targeting young children to present free of charge an environment where they would not only be exposed to violence, but also present it as a real and viable career choice.
Around the same time Americas Army released, a Syrian company released a title named Under Seige where they player could re-enact the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from the latters perspective. Their argument was that whilst young adults in the Middle East enjoyed playing video games, they were tired of playing titles that portrayed Arabs as the enemy. This attitude reflects the current controversy surrounding the upcoming Medal of Honour where players will have the chance to play from the perspective of Taliban forces. Politicians and commentators have questioned the ethical issues of such a decision of identifying American forces as an enemy in a context of a present war, mirroring the exact same complaints in the Middle East.
As the graphics and realism of military titles increase, there is a concern (implied to be the valid one here) that young adults may fail to distinguish the content (and context and consequences) of what they see on CNN from what they see on their consoles and PCs, especially when these games present the objective the threat and consequences often from only one perspective; essentially becoming a conflict between good versus evil. The fear being war is dehumanised and depersonalised, encouraging a more militaristic culture of our understanding of the world. The insinuation here is that it is a form of propaganda and indoctrination. These developers and gaming journalists essentially are questioning why video game violence in general is criticised outloud, and yet violence in the form of a military struggle is not questioned on the same principle and when a developer tries to present both sides of conflicts, they are condemned.
So, what does GAF think
The popularity of Doom marked the beginning of the controversy surrounding video-games and the characterisation of violence in them. When it was discovered that the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were passionate fans about the Doom title, it underscored the social panic and negative perceptions surrounding these games. Eventually the hysteria gained such traction that there was US Congressional Hearings on the subject with televisions playing e.g. Mortal Kombat presented in full view of the audience, consisting mainly of politicians past their 50s, to give judgment.
But whilst the US government was expressing its concerns on the rate of violence in these video games, a couple of years later it decided that video games would be a viable platform to help the military tackle its recruitment difficulties. This eventually culminated in the release of Americas Army in a post 9/11 America, where military personnel became regulars on the front doors of E3 and gaming expos. The creators of Doom recall the contrast in media coverage and controversy between the reaction of Doom and FPSs like, and that of the US governments own video game. The contrast in motives further accentuates their frustration; whilst they sought to express their creativity, they would argue, the military was essentially targeting young children to present free of charge an environment where they would not only be exposed to violence, but also present it as a real and viable career choice.
Around the same time Americas Army released, a Syrian company released a title named Under Seige where they player could re-enact the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from the latters perspective. Their argument was that whilst young adults in the Middle East enjoyed playing video games, they were tired of playing titles that portrayed Arabs as the enemy. This attitude reflects the current controversy surrounding the upcoming Medal of Honour where players will have the chance to play from the perspective of Taliban forces. Politicians and commentators have questioned the ethical issues of such a decision of identifying American forces as an enemy in a context of a present war, mirroring the exact same complaints in the Middle East.
As the graphics and realism of military titles increase, there is a concern (implied to be the valid one here) that young adults may fail to distinguish the content (and context and consequences) of what they see on CNN from what they see on their consoles and PCs, especially when these games present the objective the threat and consequences often from only one perspective; essentially becoming a conflict between good versus evil. The fear being war is dehumanised and depersonalised, encouraging a more militaristic culture of our understanding of the world. The insinuation here is that it is a form of propaganda and indoctrination. These developers and gaming journalists essentially are questioning why video game violence in general is criticised outloud, and yet violence in the form of a military struggle is not questioned on the same principle and when a developer tries to present both sides of conflicts, they are condemned.
So, what does GAF think
