Log in or sign up to comment
289 Comments
Posted by Ravenlight

But what about sexism?

Posted by hollitz

I like that the name of this segment involves guns and the story immediately following this one is a quick look with a still image of a gun.

I've been playing video games my whole life. Violence is pretty much always the answer in video games. I personally don't think violent video games have a profound effect on the way anyone behaves, but being that we are animals, having a certain action so consistently enforced with positive feedback is bound to have some kind of effect, even if it is negligible.

I agree with Alex and Biden that we do have a perception problem, but I really can't think of how to fix it. The medium is still somewhat niche, so any outsider is only going to see the most prevalent kinds of games, or what sells the best. As long as GTAs and Calls of Duty and the Pokemans and Marios continue to be the most profitable games, those are what's going to be at the forefront of outsiders' minds when they think about gaming.

Great article, Alex. Thought-provoking as usual. Miss hearing from you weekly from back in the Screened days. Any games press in NY that you could maybe record some supplemental podcasts with?

Edited by Spiritof

Gaming is just one of the many outliers to the situation, but it's not even near the core issue. If we really want to tackle the issue, instead of just nibble at the border, we really need to look seriously at the mental health of our nation.

There are far too many mentally unstable in this country who aren't being identified, treated, or even tested for these homicidal tendencies. Violent imagery hasn't been connected to violent acts in NORMAL human behavior, but can the same thing be said for those with a warped brain chemistry? Institutionalization is ugly word, but we really should look into at least testing our populous for potential homicidal behaviors. Unfortunately getting ugly with the situation is the only real thing that can be done to change it. Nibbling around the border is what people do when they can't see (or don't want to see) the truth.

Posted by Binarynova

Thank you for mentioning Simon Parkin's amazing piece on the relationship between gun manufacturers and game developers. That article helped me come to the conclusion that as long as the NRA and gun makers are going to throw video games under the bus after every violent crime, I'm going to stop buying games with licensed, real-world firearms. They want to bite the hand, I'll stop feeding them.

Posted by Eddie_and_the_Fist_Monkeys

If video games are part of a culture they are part of the problems of that culture, political blame games aside. Some people consume content produced by the 'video game industry', as that's what it is an industry, in a very unhealthy way. Video games, not unlike and comparable to many facets of life, facilitate isolation. For those with addictive personalities for obvious reason this can be destructive.

I think people need to stop seeing any criticism of Video Games as a personal attack, though we all take responsibility for the world we live in. A criticism of video games within society should be viewed as a criticism of society as it pertains to video games. This argument has reared its head for the wrong reasons but for anyone wanting to consider themselves as part of a video games industry then they should consider themselves; and their industry, the good and the bad.

Posted by aspaceinvader

Video games don't kill people. People kill people for no reason sometimes. The right to bear arms is no more than a right to commit murder. Why in this day and age do Americans need to bear arms. They aren't fighting a colonial power like they were back in days of British rule. You don't need to bear arms this day and age as America has both law enforcement and military forces to defend its constitution and borders. Civilians do not need to be armed all this does is lead to gun crime and a higher rate of murder. It is way too easy to buy guns, totally restrict them from sale to the public. If the general public want to shoot guns then registered gun clubs were the weapons will be stored is the only way that they should be allowed to use a gun and under the strictest supervision.

Posted by wardcleaver

A better job of defending what?

How do you defend against those giving animate properties to inanimate objects (videogames, guns, etc.)? This does not merit a defense, as it based on a false premise.

Posted by chocolaterhinovampire

Fucking so glad that Alex has a weekly column now. Good stuff my man. Keep it up.

Posted by President_Barackbar

@bruno0091: The good reason for them to not be legally binding is that it forces indie filmmakers/artists/game developers into an awkward spot where they have to submit to a ratings board before they can sell their product. There's a lot of indie games on Steam that don't have ESRB ratings. While submitting to the ESRB might be easy for a large company, it presents some challenges to smaller outfits.

Posted by Superfriend

Could you please change the picture on this article? I freaking hate to look at this asshole┬┤s face every time I load up Giantbomb. Have something nicer.. like a pile of dog poop or a dead baby.

Edited by Uberdubie

It's simple. The US media is in bed with the US government. And both of the above are in bed with Hollywood. When it comes to entertainment today, video games are by far the biggest competition against television and movies. Until all this changes, video games will always vilified by the media. When you truly understand this, it'll be much easier to see how ridiculous and farcical this situation really is.

I'm pleased to see that some here already see through all this, or at least part of it. As silly as it may sound, it's important for us as a community not to use logic whenever the media/government presents another sensitive issue to stir everybody up and divide us, because that's all it does. All of it is done specifically to distract us common folk from a bigger picture. As others have mentioned, it's about manipulating the public with scapegoats, distractions, and complete and utter bullshit (also known as cheap political tools used to benefit agendas of powerful people). So of course, it really has nothing to do with guns, glorifying violence, or even the legitimate causes of violence. Once you can see the farce for what it is, it'll be much easier to identify what's really going on, and why.

Posted by gbrading

When Congressmen and Congresswomen actually start to play video games, then this debate will end.

Games are just the latest victim in a long list of media blamed for perverting youth and turning them into maniacs. First it was comic books, then it was television, now it's video games. Eventually it will be something else.

Posted by Shaanyboi

This was a great read, Alex.

Edited by ptc

The game industry needs more lobbyists in DC. A good lobbying arm will continually shape messages and tell the story the way the industry sees it. I suspect the games industry just isn't spending enough money on this pursuit. Enough spending would transform the game industry from a target to something that politicians jump to defend. Not saying this is right, but it is reality.

As always, great read Alex.

Posted by thetrusammael

Alex - great article! Well written. This article should be sent to all of the idiots that "report" on this topic in the mainstream media.

Posted by GaspoweR

@Ravenlight said:

But what about sexism?

Patrick's got that covered. I reckon Alex covers guns and video game violence on Giant Bomb. : )

Online
Posted by darkjester74

Nicely done Alex, enjoyed reading this. :)

Posted by Jnorman

I really like Alex articles. And I love that the name of the feature is "The Guns of Navarro". Well written. Good read.

Posted by omdata

Good stuff, Alex. Thanks.

Posted by gaftra

I don't know if this has come up yet but a very short answer is money. The NRA get's top billing not because the 2nd amendment is more important than the 1st but because they pay out. Take a look at the following from the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/19/us/politics/nra.html

You'll see a direct correlation of dollars to support here. You always hear in abstract terms how intrest groups hold sway over government and here is a prime example. The NRA pumps hundreds of thousands of dollars into lobbyists and campaign donation to make sure that they are top of mind and lock in their supporters.

My question is why isn't the gaming, and entire entertainment industry, throwing the same financial weight around? Why isn't the aggressive media buy and lobby protecting the interests of their industry?

Ultimately the worst case scenario is that we wind up with an expanded ESRB and rating become even more restrictive. Any retailer found selling a M rated game would face huge new fines, when by contrast an assault rifle will be sold at a gun show without so much as an ID recorded.

Posted by The7thDraconian

Actually, some studies have shown that an over exposure to violence in video games can make a person less sensitive to real violence. However, violence in media is usually just one part of the problem and people will point at it and say that it is the problem. So people should stop pointing fingers at something and saying "That's the problem.". Instead they should put everything down on the table and say "These are all pieces of the problem."

Posted by cyberbloke

I don't live in the US. Have the gun lobby really managed to turn public opinion against video games as the cause of gun violence? I am amazed.

Posted by Dryker

The problem isn't the various media being consumed, but rather the people committing the crimes. But that's a much more complex problem that includes mental health, parenting, and social status that no one wants to point a finger at because it's a giant can of worms. People who study chemistry and physics for years and years become people who invent bombs that can potentially kill millions (and have killed massive amounts of people). Do you blame their exposure to chemistry and physics as the cause? The problem isn't what inspired the criminal to commit the crime the way they committed it, but rather why were they inclined to commit the crime in the first place. The two are not the same thing. One is the chicken, and one is the egg. Which one came first? It's not a difficult question, it just seems to be because, after the fact, they're inseparable. But before the fact, there's only one. A chicken, or in this case, a person. Does this person lay eggs? If so, there could be a problem if he/she is shown ways to lay those eggs, build those bombs, or shoot those people. The more clever the person, the more ways by which he/she can be influenced by media in ways to act out impulses he/she had in the first place. If you really want to prevent the potentiality of crime, there's only one way to do so. The same way so many fictional AI constructs have in so many movies. Eliminate mankind. But that's ridiculous. So focus on fixing the people, not controlling what they're exposed to. Because controlling what they're exposed to is merely a pain reliever, not the cure.

Posted by MarkWahlberg

@drakesfortune said:

To sum it up, we have the right to carry arms not to protect ourselves against our neighbors, but to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. Some people are going to die to keep that freedom.

Indeed, not many people realize this. Thomas Jefferson himself once said "We endow our citizens with the right to form a militia, not because we haven't invented a police force yet, but because if we fuck this whole 'democracy' thing up, they should come over here and shoot us all down."

Posted by interasteral7

@Jimbo7676: Funny, because American news has been mostly about scaring people. Even Bowling for Columbine explained that which I think most Americans will disagreed.

Edited by BPRJCTX

One vote for more of Alex's actually interesting and thoughtful articles, and less of Patrick's "Sensational Media" bullshit articles.

On a side note Alex, i am a loner, and a social outcast, but i never thought of myself as a "cringe-worthy human being".

Actually, what i consider to be a "cringe-worthy human being", most of the time it's... Basically every person who spends their life on any type of social internet activities, like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, or World of warcraft, just to name a few.

There are certainly a lot more types of "cringe-worthy human being's", i could spend the day pointing them out, but since i am on the internet it's, only fair to focus on what's wrong with the internet.

And those types of ppl are considered the norm in today's world.

So, i'll gladly be the the loner, and the social outcast, but a "cringe-worthy human being", i am not.

Posted by vexidus

Your latest articles are very compelling to read. Honestly, I don't read much of the written content on this site, but I always check these out. Nice job Alex!

Posted by Vigil80

@cyberbloke: Not really, no. They haven't helped video games, but it's a rather narrow view that says they're the source of the trouble. The reality is that video games were already on the chopping block with a lot of politicians, and always have been. Politicians have room on their desks for more than one ridiculous measure at a time. I don't know why folks - in any camp - seem to forget that.

Genius ideas like the town of Southington, CT trying to hold a video game burning, or California's game ban that was taken to the Supreme Court, haven't needed help to crop up.

Posted by Choo_Parr

Alex, this is such a great article. I do not think many of us could have wrote about this issue better. The following sentence from your article is edged in my mind:

"There are awful people like this in every facet of entertainment, but somehow, we've let our awfuls become our default image. Angry commenters, forum trolls, and thoughtless haters are stealing our narrative and feeding into this resentful and fearful perception people have of what games are all about."

Any of us game designers/developers who have written or read articles over this most important of issues can just scroll down to the comments and see the domination of trolls send our narrative into the gutter. It is very small and sad.

Edited by Shinri

More articles like this and less of Patrick's political soapboxing and clickbaiting, please.

Posted by mythrol

Much respect on this one Alex.

Edited by Tolkienfanatic

@oasisbeyond: This. A million times this. Unfortunately a lot of the recent political history of the US can be characterized by glossing over/ignoring the real issues in favor of making things more palatable to the masses.

EDIT: Also I completely agree with the stance that merely participating in the VP's circle jerk is an admission of guilt, and something that should be avoided in the future

Posted by King9999

Alex, this battle has been raging since before you and I were born, way back during the days of Atari and early arcades. I'm sure most people don't realize that. Read some history books!

Posted by ripelivejam

@Shinri said:

More articles like this and less of Patrick's political soapboxing and clickbaiting, please.

more posts dealing with the content at hand and less shithead unsuccessful trolling like this, please.

Posted by ripelivejam

@Ravenlight said:

But what about sexism?

poorly disguised and flippant shot taken at a writer and material not even related to article. you lose.

Posted by mp5

@Shinri said:

More articles like this and less of Patrick's political soapboxing and clickbaiting, please.

Posted by Ravenlight

@ripelivejam said:

@Ravenlight said:

But what about sexism?

poorly disguised and flippant shot taken at a writer and material not even related to article. you lose.

Serious-face response doesn't get that the shot was taken at all the panty-twisters/haters/douchebags on the site as of late. You may have lost the meaning but you're still a winner in my eyes :D

You're spot-on about "flippant" though.

Posted by ripelivejam

@Ravenlight said:

@ripelivejam said:

@Ravenlight said:

But what about sexism?

poorly disguised and flippant shot taken at a writer and material not even related to article. you lose.

Serious-face response doesn't get that the shot was taken at all the panty-twisters/haters/douchebags on the site as of late. You may have lost the meaning but you're still a winner in my eyes :D

You're spot-on about "flippant" though.

fair enough.

sarcasm detector = broken

on topic: another great article alex!

Posted by Legion_

The laser guns of Navarro!