![neogaf essential rpgs 2017 neogaf essential rpgs 2017](https://i.imgur.com/qyyGtUNl.jpg)
An abstract game, by definition, can’t be violent. The quality, content, and what they will do to you (if anything) will depend on how they are designed, and your own nature. Video games go from graphic adventures and chess simulators, to non-stop manic slaughter-fests. Now, talking about video games in general and what they cause is absurd. Instead of calling the accusation for what it is, sophistry, the accused has to kneel and do some soul searching, and then conjure some half-assed justification that will never justify anything since he had already accepted he did something wrong.
![neogaf essential rpgs 2017 neogaf essential rpgs 2017](https://i.giphy.com/media/mg8NqPD5JLz2/giphy.gif)
The common answer is some bubbling justification of why it’s not “problematic” to do that (it was realistic in the era depicted, or something, for example). The same problem happens when a movie, video game, comic or whatever is accused of sexism, misogynism or objectifying women. It doesn’t seem to dawn on them that the question is loaded and that the product they enjoy may not even be violent… at all. The same happens with accusations of sexism: “Yes, there are nudes there BUT…” and you have already lost. This is important since most gamers and developers, when accused of creating or enjoying violent products, usually have to admit it’s violent BUT for some reason or other that does not matter. That question is “ Can a video game be violent?” or “ Is violence something that can be expressed and provoked through a game?” The reflex answer of many people -even gamers- would be yes, but I will argue that the answer is (almost) no, unless you extend the definition of violence until it means anything. It’s a more subtle version of the “ I’m assuming you beat your wife” question. Why? Because it implies an answer to something that has not been answered. “ Are violent video games a problem/danger?” That’s better and seems like a reasonable question, but it isn’t. Among other reasons, this is why debates seem circular and eternal since the conclusion is already inserted in how the problem is defined.Īn example of public debate done wrong would be violence and video games or “ What does video game violence does to our children?” Now, that was phrased in a somewhat hysterical way, so let’s tone it down a bit. Modern politics and social debates follow similar patterns, although not in such a crass or evident fashion. It is like that trap: “ Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” There is no way to answer that. Gore is just edgy window-dressing.Īlthough there are some issues that truly divide a nation, most public debates that go on forever have the same problem: They are not well defined, the meaning of words shift according to the current needs of the speaker, and there are invisible premises inside the problem/question. TL,DR version: Lol games aren’t real, killing isn’t even the goal, it’s competing to win at something.