Devaluing Human Life?

[howeird]

Something frankwu said on spacekatgal's LJ, which she dittoed is a major point of contention for me. They say video games, especially first person shooters which exploit violence for the sake of violence, devalue human life.

Hogwash.

It's a game. You're using harmless electrons to attack harmless electrons on an electronic screen attached to an electronic box. If anything, video games are therapeutic - they allow you to take out your aggression on imaginary objects in an imaginary scenario, using imaginary weapons. It's almost as therapeutic as whacking an effigy of your boss with a baseball bat. One could argue that it takes kids off the street who might otherwise be outside with real weapons, in real scenarios, killing real people.

I hold every sharpshooting medal the NRA offers, and I'm here to tell you that first person shooter games are about as useful as a marksmanship training tool as Seinfeld is as a tutorial in nuclear physics.

The argument that video games lead to real life violence is as valid as the argument that book, TV and movie violence leads to real life violence. Yes, there are examples of people who commit crimes inspired by TV, movies and video games. But they are few and far between, nowhere near a significant number compared to the number of people who love to read violent-themed books, watch violent TV shows and movies, or play violent video games.

Comments

[spacekatgal.livejournal.com]

The issue Frank and I were commenting on, I believe, wasn't if videogames made people killers - it was if the culture of violent first-person shooters "devalued human life."

I've definitely played my fair share of violent videogames. I am not for censoring them in any way, I think adults can choose any form of entertainment they wish. I, myself, have seen approximately 24,000,000 horror movies in my life.

Here's something to consider though.

This is the third definition of pornography, - "the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction." In my opinion, many violent videogames are pornography - they appeal to the basest instincts for a primal thrill. I have no problem with this, and don't feel they should be censored or regulated - but let's not pretend they're something they are not.

[howeird]

I guess my take is video games do not depict human life, thus do not devalue it.

That third definition of pornography strikes me as missing the word "sexual". By this definition, a video of hang gliding, sky diving or downhill skiing would be pornography.

Part of my attitude about violence in video games is due to my being non-immersive. Many, maybe the majority, of fen become one with a book or a game or a movie. I know while my older sister is reading a book, the rest of the world disappears, and only the world of the book is real to her. I'm not like that. When I shoot at the bogie on the screen, and it explodes in a cloud of red pixels, I do not feel like I have done violence, or harmed a person. I feel joy at achieving a level of eye-hand coordination. I don't anthropomorphise.

That's not a value judgement. I don't think it makes me any better or worse than those who can get into the game.

[spacekatgal.livejournal.com]

I really get that. I love light gun games like Time Crisis too - because it's a test of skill. A synthetic skill, but a skill nonetheless. I don't feel like I've killed anyone either - that game in particular is too cartoonish to warrant that reaction.

However, I still stand by my previous statement. I do think many violent videogames are pornography.