The faithful were lined up at midnight two night's ago to be among the first to purchase and play the latest version of the video game, Call of Duty. To term it a game is probably an insult to its creators and wouldn't help those whose experience is from a past where the graphics in games was rather crude and not very interactive. The current games are really an invitation into a virtual reality with stunningly real visual images and a host of options for the players.
Many gamers didn't bother to line up because they pre-ordered the game. In fact nearly two million fans pre-ordered, which to me is mind-boggling. As the photo and name suggests, Call of Duty is a war game -- a blood-soaked, violent, gore fest. A Toronto Star article dared to ask about the impact of these games:
To retailers suffering through the recession, it's an early Christmas gift, a product that may get consumers in North America and Europe to open their wallets.
To detractors, it represents everything that is wrong with the billion-dollar video gaming industry: blood-soaked images of warfare that they say pose a risk to the mental health of children and even some adults who may not be able to tear themselves away.
The release comes at an awkward time, just days after 13 people were killed and 29 wounded in a mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. An army psychiatrist is suspected as the gunman.
There are churches which have games nights where some of these violent and often misogynist games are played to attract young people. So much for "blessed are the peacemakers."
What is our "call of duty?" Should churches speak out against these games? Just mind our own business? Do you wonder whether they do incite people to violence? Do we understand this Rembrance Day that war is real and people die?
2 comments:
I personally dislike these games, but I think its iffy for a church to speak out on them because I think it would be compared to the TV censors of an earlier era and not be well recieved. I think it's too big of a task to "ban" games, either literally or through moral persuasion. I think we are too attached to the rights of the individual to ever succeed in something like that. The reality is that speaking against something that normally rests in the areana of personal choice will almost always ensure a bigger sell. It's funny though, because when you think of it there would probably be a lot of folks who would speak out against this type of intrusion into their entertainment, then say issues about the environment. People would discuss this.
When I was a teen I was forced to watch news reel footage of traffic accidents. It was graphic and disturbing. Someone somewhere thought that the visual display of a station wagon full of dead toddlers would lessen teen carelessness. I tried to flee the room but two adults were waiting in the hall and they literally forced me back into the room. Many of us tried to flee. Many of us cried and even vomited but no one was allowed to leave. What worries me about my experience as a teen and my sons is that these games dont' just expose them to violence but also ask them to 'participate' in senseless violence. Had I been asked to participate virtually in my driver's ed film, had it been a game, I think the impact would have dwindled down to two sides of gym competing for points. The toddlers would have been less real, but also less human like me.
I agree that suggesting a ban on certain video games would be pointless.
At the same time you raise the issue of what happens when images of extreme violence become commonplace in everyday life, including the family TV room or a child's bedroom. We become numb to the barage of brutality.
I have to wonder if either "oh well, it's the way of the world" or "if you can't beat 'em, so join 'em" attitudes are faithful.
Thanks for a thoughtful response.
Post a Comment