In Response to Dean Takahashi's Article in the San Jose Mercury

A favorite topic among so-called computer "gamers" is the issue of violence in games, especially the category of games known as first person shooters, or FPS's. It's no secret that game violence is a hot topic and often pointed to as one of the major factors in the moral decline of not only this society but most other societies around the world as well. That's always seemed strange to me because I've always considered FPS's as more akin to a game of ping-pong than a gangland murder. By that I mean the quick reactions and agile fingers required in a computer game mimics the kind of experience I have when playing a good, fast-paced game of table tennis, and do not inspire the visions of bloodlust that so many game detractors seem to ascribe.

That said, I would like to further add that I don't consider myself a "gamer", and there are a couple of reasons. The first is my natural disinclination towards labeling, and of the way people try to assign labels and prejudge others as a result. I guess I am politically conservative, but don't label myself as such and reserve the right to subscribe to liberal ideas if so inclined. I am a male, but don't feel dismissive towards female ideas and reserve the right to watch "Sewing With Nancy" if so inclined (and I like that show, by the way. Creative people can be fascinating to watch sometimes - creating something out of nothing, which happens to be the exact opposite of this blog wherein I manage to start with something and create absolutely nothing).

The second, and more important reason I don't consider myself a "gamer" has to do with a game that came out a couple of years ago called Grand Theft Auto II. If you haven't heard of it then let me briefly describe it. In the game you play some kind of low-level criminal whose objective is to hijack cars and run errand's for the mob. Along the way you get to do such fun things as run down pedestrians, kill cops and beat up women. The game was a massive hit in the video game world and based on unanimous praise from the so-called gaming "press" (really just PR hacks, but that's another blog) I bought it. Big mistake.

As you may or may not know, inherent in any game or movie or book, for that matter, is this idea of suspension of disbelief. That is a good game, just like a good book or movie, depends on it's ability to draw you into it's game world and deliver a sort of vicarious thrill as you live and do things outside of your normal everyday experience. Unfortunately, for me GTA II failed miserably on that account because it was leading me into things I didn't want to do, and taking me into a life that I absolutely did not want to live. It's like a movie where you hate the hero, despise him even, and don't want his experiences and certainly don't want him to succeed. After a while I reached a point in the game where I lost all suspension of disbelief and became acutely self -conscious and aware of the fact that I was sitting there playing this repulsive game.

But, like I said the game was a huge hit and obviously struck a nerve with the people who were playing it. What that nerve is I can only imagine, and why so many parents have bought this game and its sequel for their children is a total mystery to me. Maybe they're just passing along their values to the next generation, or maybe it just benign neglect instead. Either way, to this day GTA II still retains a kind of mystique in the gaming world and remains an important reference point to the common experience of "gamers". And that's why it struck me that if this is what "gamers" do for fun, if rape and murder is part of the "geek" fantasy, then I must not be a geek, or a "gamer", and had no desire to be one. That's not a fraternity I want to join.

Still, even though I'm admittedly no "gamer", I have played lot's of computer games and believe that you have to take each game as it comes. You can't really judge a popular FPS like Half-Life, for instance, based on the excesses of a GTA II, and you can't really draw any meaningful conclusions about game violence beyond the expectations brought by those that promote them, those that play them, and those that deride them. I'm sure there are sick people in the world who play computer games and perhaps get more from them than they should, but there are also healthy, literate, balanced people who play them, and I like to believe that I belong to the latter group.

Just don't call me a "gamer".

City of God

And now for my video pick of the day. Actually this isn't a pick, this is mandatory viewing. The movie is called City of God, and those who haven't seen it are hereby ordered to get thee to your local video store and rent it. While computer games may be about imaginary violence, City of God is about the very real world violence of Rio de Janeiro's favelas, and achieves something that I was beginning to believe was all but impossible - it manages to show the drug trade without glorifying it. The dealers are not hollywood villains, and their are no Shanes riding in to town to clean up the town. When this movie ends there are plenty of guns left in the valley, along with plenty of ugliness and hopelessness.  And, more importantly, there's a sad sort of logic to it all. 

Before you return it, though, be sure to check out the special features too, because this DVD also includes one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. The documentary is independent exploration of the world of the favelas beyond what the movie offers, and includes some really fascinating and insightful interviews. In particular watch for the interview with the Chief of Police who I guarantee will suprise you with his very frank and brilliant assessments of the police, dealers and residents working and living in the favelas. Unfortunately, I think he also manages to undermine one of the premises of the movie. In the real world of the favelas, there are no heroes and there are no solutions.

Anyways, I could do ten blogs just thinking about some of the things he said, and maybe I will someday.