So, apparently somebody named Katie Couric has produced a television special (I think?) where she vehemently argues that videogames are addictive, ruinous things that turn people to violence. Yes, this argument is still going on. Even Joe Biden is getting in on the topic, and his opinion is just as hilarious as it is frightening.
Since I’m still fishing for decent blogging ideas, this will be one of those posts where I do little more than share other people’s work and parrot their opinions.
First up is this succinct, two page response to the Couric issue called Violent Videogames are Awesome, from the masterful Shamus Young. Good ol’ Shamus does his damnedest to explain why videogame violence is super good, and I agree with just about everything he has to say.
But this begs the question why most videogames are so violent in the first place. Fortunately, there’s an answer given by another one of my favorite gaming pundits, Christopher Franklin, who explains all in this video.
That there video is about twelve minutes long and fairly analytic, although it’s plenty entertaining too. Still, in case you just want a summary of its content, Chris explains that games are only really capable of delivering an experience of spatial manipulation (contrasted to, say, verbal debate), and the most obvious method of manipulating space is by redirecting, reducing or destroying physical objects.
In other words, stabbing, punching or shooting someone in a game is not only easier to design and program, but also easier to understand.
Seriously, though, he explains it about eight million times better than I can.
Thanks for reading. I’ll now return to my creativity cave and slam my head into the limestone a few more times until I come up with a real post.