I'm no expert on child psychology but it seems that those who cry foul at the perceived violence of games are doing too much reading of people and very little understanding of them. I worry that people are too busy becoming dime store pop-psychologists and semioticians to actually try and understand the way other people experience things differently, preferring that explanations for differences or behaviour be handed to us on a populist platter to some real insight or conversing. In this case what we end up with is a lot of damnation for games and gamers from outside by people who really don't like most games from the outset. I think if the detractors were to actually observe gamers of all ages for a time and actually be one as well they would likely come to the same conclusion. But Semioticians and Psychologists observing from a distance would only see the language and images of violence when it is actually people enjoying very different things about it.
People say if the games didn t have the violent imagery then they wouldn t sell.
This may be true but it doesn t make the games violent or the people who play them. And long after the imagery is put into the background the game remains, for a long time if it is good enough. All contributions are welcome. Contact us for more information on GameSpy Industries.