Another misinterpretation is that games need 3d sci-fi like technology in order to convey something other than “shoot the evil terrorist, he’s really bad”, and that because games are in a screen and are controlled with physical devices, they can’t be truly engaging. Well, what about movies then? What about books? How is it possible that an audiovisual interactive medium can’t possibly express more while a medium based on putting ink over some paper is the main source of creative expression and information of the history of humankind?
Yes, videogames are necessarily spacial, and like everything else, they need some sort of conflict in order to remain interesting, but that conflict by no means has to have to do with violence. Scoring a goal on a football game, solving a mystery on an adventure game, building a tower in Minecraft, or ascending with an unknown partner towards Journey’s end, can be just as or even more engaging an experience as you seem to think violent videogames are. Also, we have seen how violence creates immersion. It is a one-way street, but non-violent videogames are just starting to explore how to create engaging experiences through mainly non-violent activities, and the possibilities are much less limited, or dare I say it, limitless. Maybe in a future game you’ll play a bird that has to migrate, crossing entire continents while resisting the harsh weather and managing the limited resources. Maybe you’ll play a paparazzi that has to infiltrate private parties, or a historical figure who decides to do things differently. Maybe you want to be pointing and shooting for the rest of your life. Well, some of us don’t.
LOOK WHO CAME: