So video games aren't bad per se. Cognitively speaking, gaming has many benefits. But what about the shoot 'em up kind? What about the shoot 'em kind that take place in a high school that looks exactly like the one your kid goes to?
Seems a developer thought it would be cool to base a game—in which people go around gunning each other down—at his former school in Port Moody, in B.C. The article in CBC left me seeing red.
Needless to say, even though the game is not new and has been around for years, residents in Port Moody were (pun notwithstanding) up in arms over Counterstrike, the violent game and its school setting.
Rest assured the rainbow-coloured lockers are the only sunny thing about the game, which the developer staunchly (anonymously, of course) defended, saying he was "sufficiently mature to realize that the degree of freedom allotted to you in the virtual realm do not extend to your rights in reality."
"Additionally," he added, "people should realize this is simply a game. No physical harm comes from it. Guns in reality are generally lethal weapons. Guns in a video game can't hurt anyone."
The developers may lay claim to maturity, but what they are most certainly lacking is social responsibility and sensitivity. Really, does Newtown mean nothing to you? How can earn a living so insidiously? Can you not find a more positive way to harness your talent and your intelligence, for clearly you are not lacking in either?
It's not gaming I have a problem with. But I'm not convinced that what this world needs is another virtual shoot 'em up, much less that which is realistic enough to simulate violence in schools. We need games like Counterstrike like a hole in the head.
Interestingly, one commenter on CBC claims that simulating violence through games during high school was the only thing that saved him from commiting acts of violence at the time.
So that begs the question: am I overreacting? Are violent games like Counterstrike cathartic or suggestive?
Printer-friendly version