- Mar 3, 2010
That's really the heart of the matter.Calbeck said:I'd think it obvious: if millions of gamers are, collectively or individually, influenced by these games to the point it can reasonably be said to affect their behavior, then we would be seeing THOUSANDS of Columbines and Jack Thompson would have been 100% correct.
Ad absurdum, ad nauseum.
Influence does not automatically translate into action, or even the kind of action one is assuming because there are multiple ways to approach any given problem or subject.
Just on the subject of video game protagonists:
"Problem: Very few good female protagonists -> Cause: SEXISM! -> Result: Women want more favorable representation! Feminism!"
"Problem: Very few good female protagonists -> Cause: Stock, poorly written characters to save effort -> Result: Gamers are tired of the same old shit."
Neither of these are mutually exclusive; one doesn't have to be a feminist to want stronger female characters or females in leading roles etc. Yet, the gender issue seems to revolve around the former almost entirely, and the ugly implications is a big part of why this whole "Influence" issue keeps getting brought up.
"You are influenced by media to see women as objects. And that's why this is bad."
Alright. Why is this influence bad? Is there some evidence showing the consequence? Is this consequence significant?
Is that consequence even properly correlated with with your evidence?
Few, if any of those questions are really addressed specifically or conclusively so the implications are assumed; and where they're assumed, they're projected.
Which means the matter inevitably gravitates towards "guilt by association" bullshit.
Well, if anything, it's an easy if not cheap way to coerce others into the conversation like a honeypot.