generalizations: the spiraling vortex of nasty discourse.

“For the sake of all our kids, burn your video nasty”

- Sun, 26 November 1993.

The violence in videogames debate is painful due to its cyclic nature. Parents are complaining about censorship responsibilities, yet ultimately it is their job to be the censors. I think that generalizations are the most dangerous and accessible tool for parents how are anti-videogames. Many digital immigrants see videogames as a child’s game with adult content full of violence. There is no comprehension of alternate types of games or the fact that often these games are not for children. I showed my mother But That Was [Yesterday] (an indie side scrolling game I am using for my assignment), and she said “what? This is not a game”. Yes, it is true that the debate about the extent of violence involved in video games is most apparent, yet these debates often ignore the beauty or poetic nature or educational notions of other forms of games.

It was interesting to have a New Zealand article this week by Gareth Schott as video game culture theory is often pinned to American scholars and American consumerism. As video gaming laws are different and perhaps the nature of our people it was refreshing to hear something closer to home. In classic kiwi style I found the limitation amusing as he could only find a small pool of children that a school would let of to play videogames – as the discourse of videogames being mindless entities is obviously still prevalent. He also discusses generalizations in terms of the unspoken yet outspoken youth. “The denigration of games by social commentators and advocacy groups is not easily dismissed as a rite of passage faced by each new medium. Each new strain also fortifies a generational rhetoric that is being employed in discussions of young people”(Schott, 3).

I was also reminded by this while watching the Close Up clip in the lecture as the person representing videogamers was a young boy who was in the studio, almost as if he were to be supervised. The other two academics were in the comfort of their own environment and clearly more familiar with interview style and being a spokesperson. The side reinforcing discourses were more mature, experienced and out numbered the boy who was being confronted. This was also silly as the boy is not even the average gamer but would rather have been a man in his 30s. This was not surprising given it was at 7 o’clock as no one likes to challenge discourse at risk of losing viewership.

Perhaps the ‘mature’ audience who are anti-videogames should look at rephrasing their perspective of ‘burning’ nasties is a bit too aggressive for national print or television surely?

Pippa Neels