|
Guest
|
games and teen violence, and English project -
04-03-2003, 01:45 PM
Here's a paper where I defend computer games,
(a little long)
not really finished, but what do you guys think:
A series of sniper style killings effectively shuts down life as usual in the Washington D.C. area. The situation takes an interesting turn when police discover a tarot card with the words “dear policeman, I am God”. The press immediately picks up on this and eventually someone shows up who starts blaming “first person shooter” computer games. Some expert makes a conjecture that “I am God” must undoubtedly refer to “Godmode”, a cheat code common to many older shooters, which makes the player invincible when typed into the command console. Pretty soon there is a full blown crusade of concerned parents and legislators trying to put stricter control on violent shooter games. Now this may seem like a fictional account, but it is true, and every time that there is a violent crime in which a teenager is involved, or even suspected, “first person shooter” games are blamed.
First I believe that it is necessary to clarify just what makes a game a “first person shooter”. One main characteristic is that you are the hero, by that I mean you see through the hero’s eyes and he (or she) is the only person that you control, as opposed to strategy games where you see an aerial view of the battle and you control whole armies or fleets. “Shooter” is a rather vague term, since one also shoots stuff in tank and aircraft simulators, however the accepted definition for a “shooter” is when your character is dismounted (not on any vehicles) and armed with various small arms, such as rifles, machineguns, grenades, rockets, blaster-pistols, etc. “First Person Infantry Simulator” would be a more fitting name, but not very marketable.
Early shooters were not really realistic, games such as “Doom” and “Quake” pitted a lone hero against hordes of mutants and various inter-dimensional monstrosities. Later more realistic games came along, now the player had squad-mates to help him fight a smarter, more realistic opponent. In the “Delta Force” series and “Rainbow Six” you keep the world safe from terrorists. In “Medal Of Honor: Allied Assault” you step into your grandfather’s shoes and take on the Nazi war machine to liberate Europe. There are even “SWAT” games, in which you help stamp out crime in realistically rendered cities.
Groups that are against violent computer games say that the problem is threefold. First the games mess up children’s minds, telling them that killing is OK, and even encourage killing, which makes children and teens more likely to commit violent acts. Second, the games teach children how to properly use a rifle. And lastly the realistic layouts allow teens to practice assaulting their school, etc. IN their minds it is obvious that computer games lead to violent behavior and teach teenagers the skills necessary to commit these acts.
Those who claim that computer games can lead to violence cannot be more wrong. I can easily prove from my own experience, and researched facts that computer games do not lead to violent behavior in real life. I can also prove, with some help from a few experts, that it is quite absurd to believe that a computer game can teach anyone to shoot a rifle with any useful proficiency.
I would like to start by saying that a computer games is just that, a game. Games offer an escape from the dull reality of life. When you come home from work or school, you can escape reality for an hour or two and become a Top Gun pilot or an elite Army Ranger. However, after “saving the world again” you return to the real world and your real world problems. What you did in the game no longer matters, because reality is so much more important.
There is always the myth that all shooter games promote killing for the sake of killing. This assumption cannot be more wrong. Nearly all shooters, except maybe a few of the early ones, are objective driven. That is it does not matter how many enemies you kill as long as you blow up the secret super-weapon, or steal the plans for one. In “Medal of Honor: Allied Assault” there are three missions where you are either under cover as a German officer, or sneaking around. In those missions it is preferable to avoid contact with the enemy and only kill the minimum necessary to get to the objective. Of course nothing stops the player from whipping out a sub-machinegun and “going ape” on the badguys, but that plan is not only stupid, but it will get the player killed. The point of the game is not to shoot everyone just like in the real World War Two the allies were not in it to shoot as many Germans as possible.
Another thing that I have to point out is that the demographics of teenage crime and gang activity do not confirm the theory that teen violence is caused by games. Most violent or gang related teen crimes occur in poor neighborhoods. Most kids who play computer games are middle class, since they can afford the latest machines and all the other crap like joysticks, high-speed internet, etc. Like I said before, when you have a real world effect, look for a real world cause.
Another strange concern among some parents is gaming “clans”. Maybe they think clans are some kind of satan worshippers who sacrifice barnyard animals and small children or something. This is far from the truth. I am a member of a “clan” (although most of us hate that term) called Long Range Recon Patrols, or simply LRRP. I play with them something like 2-3 times a week, or when I’m not busy with real life. We have a loose military style chain of command and participate in “official” tournaments against other “clans”. Why people join these groups is simple, when you play with the same group of people you get to know them and you know that they won’t cheat or act like asshole like people on public servers. Also it is a lot easier to pay the $150/month server rental when you split it 30 ways. So contrary to what some think multiplayer “clans” are not devil worshippers, but groups of likeminded people who play together every once in a while.
The next myth I intend to dispel is the one that says that computer games can teach somebody how to shoot. For this subject I received some advice from people who are experts in shooting combat rifles. Three members of a group that is world renowned for its members’ marksmanship, namely the United States Marine Corps. I interviewed one current Marine officer and two retired enlisted men. Captain Michael Connally said that he spent two weeks training with the M-16, and that was enough for him to qualify “expert”, however many of his buddies needed more time and barely qualified. All three had some insight into various things that make you miss the target. One must fire in between breaths, or the shot will be off. One must also squeeze, not pull the trigger, or the shot will be off. One must also be careful not to overcompensate for recoil, or the shot will be low. All three Marines came to the conclusion that NO ONE can learn to shoot by playing a computer game. Captain Connelly said “NO ONE (and I mean NO ONE) can learn to shoot by moving a mouse across a computer screen and clicking a button. The only thing THAT teaches is how to move a mouse around and right-click. Being very familiar with both computer games and rifle training and use, I can tell you that the ability to use one does NOT translate to an ability to use the other.” I believe that the Marines’ opinions speak for themselves, computer games can’t teach you to shoot, period.
Another myth is that the settings of computer games can provide training for assaults on schools and other targets. Most maps in “Medal of Honor: Allied Assault” which are not large fields or top secret Nazi bases are what I call the generic European town. The general rule is that a “GET” has several two to four story buildings with one or two main streets and several back alleys running through it. It may also have a stone arch or railroad-type bridge, which may have to be blown up. Also many “GETs” have a convenient high ground for snipers to snipe from, most of the time it is the bell-tower of a church. A “GET” may also have wide sewers or other underground passageways. Now does this sound like any school you went to? I don’t think so.
Also it seems to me that it would be rather foolish to practice a real life assault through a game. Firstly I would like to point out that games are rather limited in what they can show, to save the programmer many a headache void areas in the map are closed off by boundries such as hedgerows (really big bushes) and locked doors. In real life you can always shoot the lock on a door, or smack it really hard with the rifle-butt. There are many more examples of the limitations of games, but I believe that the US Army says it best, using their own game “America’s Army: Operations” as an example. “The game embodies certain limitations that are not found on the battlefield or real life. For example, in urban combat Soldiers maneuver through windows, doorways or if necessary, create passages using explosives. Within virtual worlds, such as the Army's game, the random placement of openings in walls or ceilings, through explosive breaching, is not possible. Therefore, in some ways, relying on the game to plan an attack would be foolish.” (army FAQ). I think it’s pretty obvious that games cannot help anyone train for a real life battle.
Finally as I charge up Omaha Beach, eyes fixed on the seawall I must breach to help my buddies get off this deathtrap of a beach and move inland, I can’t help but wonder what it was like for our WWII heroes to do this for real. While I’m in this imaginary world I learn something about the sacrifices of our greatest generation. The next day I go to class, without a gun, and I do not shoot anyone. Why, you may ask, because I have no real world problems to drive me to such actions, and that game, well, it’s just a game.
|
games and teen violence, and English project
Linear Mode
