Pages: 1 2 |
|
 Print This Post
|
Surely, the PX and GameStop stores in question are within their rights to determine their inventory. The concern over the effect such a game could have on servicemen and their families is legitimate. However, the hubbub over Medal of Honor does generate some interesting questions regarding why some products are deemed insensitive while others are not. Where is that line? How ought game developers account for taste?
EA Games president Frank Gibeau offered a different reaction to Develop Magazine:
“At EA we passionately believe games are an artform, and I don’t know why films and books set in Afghanistan don’t get flack, yet [games] do. Whether it’s “Red Badge Of Courage” or “The Hurt Locker,” the media of its time can be a platform for the people who wish to tell their stories. Games are becoming that platform.”
This evokes the debate over whether video games are indeed an art form. Arguing against the notion has been popular Chicago-Sun Times film critic, stream-of-consciousness leftist blogger, and frequent NRB antagonist Roger Ebert. In a 2007 post on the subject, Ebert provided some of his argument for why video games can never be art.
They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in “Myst,” and (3) player control of the outcome. I don’t think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports.
The first two points are moot, since countless films involve gratuitous violence and treasure hunts. The legitimate distinction is the latter, interactivity.
It should be noted that theater, dance, and music are all recognized art forms which can be interactive. However, the kind of interactivity one engages in with a video game is certainly unique. The player is the fundamental actor upon the virtual stage, and engages directly in carnal depictions of unsavory action.
Judging by the controversy EA has stirred with Medal of Honor, it would seem there is a difference between watching depictions of violence and virtually engaging in them. The question I ask NRB readers is, what is that difference? Why is it tasteful for military personnel to watch The Hurt Locker, but not to play Medal of Honor? If the answer is because the Taliban are playable characters, how is that substantively different from playing as a Nazi in multiplayer games set during World War II? How is it different than kids playing Cowboys and Indians?”
No doubt, the answer involves proximity and realism. The war in Afghanistan is current and ongoing. The depictions in modern games are uncanny. It is nonetheless interesting what we are willing to accept in entertainment, so long as it does not remind us too overtly of real life.
