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?