The game that got left behind

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/08/praise_the_lord.html

Ever read an article that seemed like a really sick joke and laughed about it...and then found out a few minutes later it wasn't a joke at all? Well, get the party started...I've joined the club.
In “Praise the Lord, Pass the Ammo”, Skye Jethani describes a new video game based in the Left Behind universe. Left Behind: Eternal Forces is a top-down strategy game in which the player can choose to command either Christian or demonic forces in the post-Rapture battle for New York. From reading both comments on this blog as well as seeing the wealth of posts being written about it in other sites, it's obvious that the Christian world is divided over the “morality” of the game.
Granted, with an issue so hot, there's bound to be some misinformation being spread. And, not having played the game myself, I don't know whether it's true or not. Some rumors have it that characters scream “Praise the Lord!” when they kill enemies; others say that praying helps you regain power before you go and kill some more. Whether these are true or not, I've done a little looking on the game site as well as the blog post, and tried to piece together exactly what is going on.
The game's creators do, admittedly, have a good mission. Video games are a staple in the media diet of almost all children and teens. Marketing Christianity here opens up a whole new set of ears that just might be willing to let in the Gospel. However, as Skye Jethani goes on to ask, is a violent game really the proper medium for evangelism? Is violence okay in games if Christianity comes along with it?
Absolutely not.
Let's look at the purpose of the game. The creators' stated purpose is creating “Christian-themed” “interactive media” for the consumption of the general public. Evangelism with video games. The specific Left Behind: Eternal Forces game is supposed to teach about the Bible as well as have “all the cool stuff”, as the company's owner states. (Cool stuff, in this case, meaning violence, killing, etc). And in defense of “the cool stuff”, one commenter on Skye's blog reminded everyone that “It's just a game.” All the violence isn't “real”. Only the Bible stuff is, right?
In a post a while back, I talked a little bit about games and reality and et cetera. Games should not replace parents as moral teachers, or else little kids with porous, untrained minds will begin to soak up all that nonsense as an actual worldview. Older children and adults, on the other hand, have solid worldviews and will have a point of reference-what is really moral and what is not-on which to base the game's content. This principle does not change just because a game is “Christian”. “Spiritual” youngsters-new Christians or seeking unbelievers-do not have a point of reference on which to base the Christian content of the game. Their “porous” spiritual minds will soak up all they see-even if it means that Christianity becomes a game of war. Older and more mature Christians will be able to file this game under a title of what they already know about their faith, but then again, the point of the game is to evangelize, right? Not entertain older Christians.
I also enjoyed what another commenter said. What has our culture come to, that the only way we can evangelize is with high-tech video games and entertainment? Very true. But then again, this also admits that our culture has come to that point-and Christians need to adapt accordingly. Perhaps Christian video games are the way of the future? But not in the overt way Left Behind: Eternal Forces goes about it. Why not stick Christian characters into “regular” games and stories, instead of blaring out “CHRISTIAN MEDIA” all over the cover of a story? People are much more likely to listen when they have to process what's going on, instead of instantly knowing that religious messages are going to pop out of the box when they lift the lid. That more than anything probably turn offs many staunch atheists. But who knows. Ideas, ideas.
Oh, and one more thing. These “game designers” need to learn something about texture resolution. Har har.

Thoughts on Blogging

First of all, let me make myself clear. I would NEVER come NEAR this site if we were not required to by a class. When this class is done, I will be gone and I will delete every trace of this. I am so incredibly embarassed by the existance of this blog that I do not even tell my parents what I am doing in English class. It makes me sick. But rant posts don't make good grades.

A theoretical web log seems like another decent contribution that the Internet has to offer modern society. Anyone can make their own blog and post whatever they want for the whole web to see. It allows special interest groups a way to be heard. Commenting and inter-blog trackbacks allow for open discussion on issues ranging from last night's party to the next Presidential election. For someone who wants to share their mind without forging backroom
connections with a major media syndicate, a blog seems like a great solution.

Unfortunately, theory is not the topic of discussion here. There is a huge difference between having a web log and "blogging". Blogging is the self-indulgent pastime of millions worldwide that, for most, involves feeling fulfilled over rearranging the day's events on a pre-made web page. It has nothing to do with altruistic concerns over "the little man being heard". Blogging is so popular because it's such a simple-and wasteful-hobby. You don't need skill or determination; all you need is Google or your memory of the day's events. Pick a random topic-life is an easy one, because it has the advantage that you don't even need to research-and start hammering out those posts. Soon you will have a web site filled with text and images that you can tell all your friends about. In turn, they will probably already have their own and ask you to read theirs.

And so begins the idea of "blogging" as a hobby. You read others' blogs and write your own. Free time is consumed with this back-and-forth of "creativity" that is really nothing but playing tag with your friends and fellow readers across comment boards. Among many casual bloggers, web logs are just an opportunity to gossip and chat about the latest goings-on at their respective academic facilities-under the laughable guise that they are doing something "constructive" like blogging. And for more "intelligent" blogs, you might even be competing with your fellow bloggers to get to a story before anyone else does. I once was asked to read a story that an online friend tried to "Digg". He wrote a pretty good piece in his blog on the story. But instead of
complimenting him, a storm of readers attacked him for doing a "repeat" story-and none too kindly, either!

As restrained as I am at the moment, all I can say is that the idea of "blogging" is nothing more than a glorified renewal of chatrooms with fancy text and graphics. People gab pointlessly with one another, fight for rights to "who said it first", and of course, vie for attention. The fact that it is legitimatized by society as some kind of "creative" art sickens me. Now, let me be clear: I realize that there are many out there who use blogs as an outlet for their real creativity, and this IS NOT against them. I know many who have blogs that tell stories in serial fashion, show off drawings, or even as programming dev logs. But that isn't blogging; that's real creativity. Creativity is about creation, not making fancy transitions between whatever comes up on the news and your own random experiences in the past week. I do not believe that blogging should be considered as a legitimate hobby; it is a waste of time just like listening to music and television and should be thought of as such.

In all (or at least some) fairness, I've told this view to some and received a number of complaints that I will not just brush off or ignore. Here are my responses to a few of them.:

"With almost no exception, academic research is done by taking past work and putting it all together in a new form with the author's addition on top. Does this make academic research a 'waste of time'?"
Absolutely not. Academic papers are written for the purpose of furthering some field of study. "Furthering" entails that you must build on what has already been done in order to go farther. Blogging, on the other hand, is not designed to further anything. Like any other form of media, blogs are just trying to attract attention to themselves. For those that would deny this, let me ask this. Would you still write if you knew no one was reading your blog? I don't think so. Unless, of course, it was for a grade...

"Despite all you've said, you still can't deny your earlier statement that blogs are a place where normally invisible people get their chance to be heard.
How can you denounce something that allows something close to the universal equality of all opinions?"
Remember, there is a difference between a web log and the idea of blogging itself. Having a web log to share your interests and opinions is fine (although I personally would not care to do so myself), but considering that web log a hobby and pastime in and of itself promotes the self-indulgence that is blogging. And if it is actually possible to separate the two, please let me know.

"Whatever you think, blogs are what some people read as the truth. Hatred of blogging will not change the fact that the blogging community is a fertile ground to spread ideas, and God calls Christians to plant His truth wherever they can. You can't deny the existence of the mission field, can you?"
Okay, actually, nobody said that to me, but I made it up (which is why it sounds so bad) so I could get around to answering the last two questions on the assignment. Yes, I agree that no matter what, blogging is probably not going to be thrown out like the trash that I think it is. More likely, this new medium is going to play an increasing role in determining what people think and believe about the world. In other words, as long as people can get away with being bloggers, they will. However, throwing aside my personal opinions, the blogging community does represent a huge audience for Christian ideas. All it needs is a speaker-and since it's a blogging community, ANYBODY can be that speaker! I won't deny that God will probably call many Christians to be His witnesses in that community. God is more powerful than all of my petty desires, whether they be about hating blogs or music or anything of that sort, and if He wants that community to be used for His glory, than I am in no place to argue with Him. I've stated my personal opinions, but His opinion overrides whatever we puny humans think.

Initial Research

When I initially began to research the "common man's" opinion on video game violence, I expected a mixed response. A few who say let it be, and others who think it should be regulated. But I was quite surprised at the overwhelming number of very vehement blog posts speaking out in favor or at least with neutrality toward video game violence. Scanning through a number of these posts, I began to pick out several common themes in defense of violent and otherwise immoral content in interactive media:

It's not games that are violent; it's the gamer's choice to create violence
Yup-the old adage about "no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people". When a player buys a game, according to this claim, he has a choice whether or not to indulge in violence. This is not all untrue; with more and more new games embracing the idea of "player creating the storyline" by giving the player free reign over the game's world, any player can avoid fighting and violence by merely choosing not to. Right? In theory, yes. But let's face it: the average gamer does not buy World of Warcraft or some similar game so he can go and buy and sell armor. He buys it because he wants a piece of all that sword-and-magic action! Violent games are bought and sold by virtue of the fact that they contain violence. Granted, however, buying the game in the first place is the gamer's choice. Which leads into further points...

Video games are not responsible for trashed minds; people are driven to play them because of extenuating circumstances that make them enjoy violence.
With so much attention being given to video game violence after various school shootings and other incidents of juvenile violence, it's no wonder someone brought this up. I tend to agree with this statement. It is a gamer's choice to buy a game, no matter what it is. Here's the story you'll never hear: Schoolchild goes to store to get milk for his mother, but accidentally gets lost in the local GameStop. While inside, he sees lots of strange boxes, one of which has the words "Doom3" on it. Full of curiosity, the schoolboy buys it, goes home, and turns into a homicidal maniac with a shotgun when he grows up. No-when a violent game is bought, a conscious, understanding choice is made by the gamer. He or she buys the game because they want to play what is inside, and any decent back cover will let you see what sorts of gore and heavy weaponry are enclosed.

Video games are just another form of escape.
Ever been to a play? Read a book? Seen a movie? Video games are just the same, or so the argument goes. And so much the better, if video games allow people to get out their frustration on the screen instead of in real life. After all, aren't all forms of entertainment some form of escape from the trials of reality? Not exactly. All these forementioned types of entertainment try to create their own realities in your mind, and succeed with different levels of intensity. A book comes at the basic level. Your mind has to do all the interpreting, but after all that hard work, you get a pretty decent mental image of what just happened on page 138. A play is one step up. Your brain is saved the effort of some of the processing because the audio and video feeds are already directly hooked up through your primary sensory inputs. Same with a movie, only the video input increases a hundredfold in realism. But a video game is different from all these. Not only does it feed video and audio to your senses, it lets you feed data back. Tactile interaction is one of the main factors that makes reality, well, reality. Of all these forms of entertainment, the video game creates something that is far more uncannily realistic than any of its counterparts, and to this end I argue that it is not just another form of escape. Your mind sees and works with the video game reality just like it was reality, even if it is not. That mind is the same mind that deals with the real world, and I find it hard to believe that such an impact- tactile, video, and audio, just like a memory-does not have some impact on the mind's interaction with actual reality as well.

Video games should not displace parents as moral teachers to children.
One last-and interesting, considering the points already shown-common theme I saw brought up was about the role of parenting vs video games. There is nothing wrong with video games, so the argument goes, as long as the user can separate it from reality. In the case of small children, with porous minds that soak up any and every influence around them, this may not be so simple. And as long as the computer provides an effective babysitter, many a harried parent may not consider the ramifications of buying a violent pacifier for their attention-demanding child. In this case, the gamer is not making an intelligent choice upon buying the game. They are merely being fed. I agree that parents need to exercise caution when buying computer games for their children. Mom and Dad need to establish their children with a strong moral background before (IF AT ALL) they can indulge them in alternate realities where such morals may take a back seat.

This is obviously far from a comprehensive list of every argument about violence in video games, but it's a few for me to think about. Probably more to come on this subject when we're forced to do another assignment.