A McGill University professor has attacked the games industry for its focus on violent content. Michael Hoechsmann has claimed that focusing on guns, violence and warfare does society no favors and is unimaginative. Perhaps, but I NEED TO SHOOT THINGS OR I WILL KILL MY NEIGHBOR IRL!
"There is a tremendous lack of imagination on the part of the games industry. I think it’s barbaric," stated Hoechsmann when asked about EA's upcoming mercenary-fest, Army of Two. "I don’t understand why there can’t be a greater diversity of titles."
Of course, videogames are actually more varied than this professor gives them credit for. If you think of the amount of kiddy games and puzzle games out there. Adam Thierer recently blogged about the myth of violent games, stating that the majority of videogames are actually for children. There IS a greater diversity out there, but Hoechsmann has bought into the negativity and anti-hype.
Hoechsmann went on to add that although it would be "simplistic" to claim that playing Army of Two would, for example, make somebody want to become a mercenary, such games could have a longterm effect on "the cultivation of attitudes and world views."
What do you make of Hoechsmann's statements? Is a game like Army of Two running the risk of cultivating our world views ... whatever that means? Is EA, contrary to its claims, promoting mercenary activity with its action title? More importantly, are videogames with violent content only violent because they lack imagination?
Contest:
8:07 AM on 03.01.2008
| 
When I play Harvest Moon or Super Mario Galaxy, there's always time for crushing your enemies and seeing them driven before you. Oh, and I absolutely LOVE hearing the lamentations of the women!!
I'm now majoring in pre-law, its pretty much the same thing right? I'm gonna bust into the courtroom of my first case and jump kick the opposing attorney in the face while shouting "KOWABUNGA!!!!!!!!!!!!" then I'm gonna eat pizza and break dance.
Yet another old person making mean comments about an industry they know so little about.
I'm starting to think that Professors and those who do conduct studies on video games (Mainly the Psychology department.) find a game that fits there limited guideline so that they can prove their point, and to make sure that their research can be viewed as not a waste of money. Once they have found what they want, they generalize and will not move on their position. (Conspiracy theory in the works. :P)
Maybe they should not be wasting their time on one form of media, and start looking at how "Barbaric" most media is. (That's even if we can deem it so.) I mean we don't live in a vacuum.
(First and Last rant ever....maybe.)
It become a circle of fallacies. Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because...
Welcome to the "Halo age"
Mr university professor is absolutely right. this ought to be the focus, not the game that games MAKE US KILL EACH OTHER
Oh we did many times it is just people don't listen or are some fat fuck of a senator who wants to get famous off of attacking videogames....
In other news: the training of these animals/kids, to turn themselves into fighting machines, is simply barbaric. Barbaric... BARBARIC!
Someone should show him something like Brain Age or Animal Crossing just to shut him up
Yay bandwagon!
Also, this guy is absolutely daft.
For non-gamers, most games are just about killing people and exploding things. Sure, Wii and Madden are exceptions here and there, but when most non-gamers think video games, they tend to associate it with violence.
The industry, I think, should work to change this perception. It is good for the industry and will make them more money by bringing in more consumers. Kudos to companies like Nintendo for striving towards this. I'm not saying abandon violence in games and just make more Nintendogs, but just make a PR effort to show the public that games can be about more than violence.
For example, games can also be about personal spiritual conflict: http://www.manifestogames.com/shivah
Wow, Jim. Open your fat eyelids and read it. You, being a typical journalist (a bad one at that), said he claims games are barbaric when in fact, pasted by your own fat fudge filled fingers, he said he thinks it's barbaric. Thinking something and claiming it is different. Grow up and quit posting the same rehash garbage everyday.
The Prof made a perfectly reasonable comment, whether you agree with it or not.
Personally, I *do* agree that many games are violent and lack creativity. But many of them are also fun. There is no conflict here - and there's no need to invent one, either.
And anyway, since it's in the Montreal Gazette, anybody not living in the West Island is likely to read this.
Or, on the other hand, one could argue that such gaming paradigms are so popular because of our already existing attitudes and world views.
It isn't a conspiracy theory. It's true, university studies can end up biased purely because of the way they're designed to prove certain hypotheses before the study even starts. I mean a Professor at McGill hardly wants to 'research' something for a few years and then find out that his original hypothesis was wrong. He may lose credibility in the field. You also need to look at who is funding these studies.
It must be time to actually finish my blog series on this shit. If only the ultraviolent Zack and Wiki hadn't sucked up all my time recently.