Wednesday, 30 December 2009

Shooting People Isn't Fun?




The elevator doors open. You walk out,  slowly, with three other men into a crowded airport. You are all armed with machine guns. Then you open fire on the public. They run, but they cannot escape your torrent of bullets as they tear through women and men, but no children. Why are there no children you may ask? This is because it's a game. This scene/level from Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 has got people very angry.
I can understand why some old people might be upset but come on. A game is like a film, it's made to provoke a feeling or reaction. So if that reaction is outrage then it has achieved its goal. Now firstly we all know that the level was put in so it would get the publicity, so why complain about it? If anything, the best thing to do is ignore the level completely and not give them completely free advertising. The game actually warns you about the level when you put the game in. It's asking for you to complain. The game has outsmarted all these people and by complaining they are literally eating out of the games clenched fist. The level doesn't even make any sense anyway. The publicity from complaining is probably why it's one of the best selling games ever.
Censorship and freedom of speech has always been a problem with me. The 'Wall of Fuck'  was my stand against anyone who thinks people should not be allowed to do and say what they want. However I still believe that there is a line. Shooting virtual 3D people isn't really going to offend anyone to great extent and has no real political meaning and context. Mindless violence is fine, contextual violence is completely different. It's different shooting random people on a street, in a game, rather than playing a member of the KKK with a baseball bat who then goes to beat Obama to death in the White House.
It isn't violence people should be against, it should be contextual violence. I am no saint, but there is a difference between when a game is just violent or actually giving out a negative message. Now call me evil but I showed my 9 year old sister this level to see how she would react. Is it that bad? Will it traumatise her for life? The answer was no, it didn't. My nine year old sister has enough common sense to know that it's a game and it's not real. That answered my own question. If it had an effect on her then fair enough ban it, but it didn't, so all the people who are now think that banning that scene  is a good idea, are idiots. The game is also certified 18 so young kids shouldn't be looking at it anyway.
Games are there primarily for people to have fun, and anyone who cannot have fun playing them shouldn't force the rest of us not to. If I want to run over someone, shoot their wife, then reverse back over to make sure they don't try and take my car off me, in a game, then that's my choice. There was some research done which actually showed that when a violent film is released, while the film is showing crime is said to go down. This is because all the violent people go to watch the violent film rather than performing muggings. If you want to get rid of my violent games, make sure you know the consequences. A violent person would be better in their own house playing 'Fuck Everyone, Kill Everything' rather than attacking people on the street, or going to nightclubs.


1 comment:

  1. I have to disagree somewhat. I understand what you're saying but if it's repeated messages of violence through games, kids, especially young children, grow up believing violence is okay which would generally reflect on their actions and personality. I don't think it's necessarily about the trauma, more the subliminal message saying it's okay.

    I guess it just has to be age appropriate.

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails