Extended Written Work

For my written work I had planned to do an evolution of game features, inspired by an earlier post I made on my blog. Instead I wanted to tackle something a little more academic and political, and have settled on trying to settle, once and for all, the debate of necessary themes in video games.

Now let's not start off to an immediate misunderstanding. I am all for the most graphic of themes in video games, and I don't believe it requires you to be psychologically damaged to enjoy them. There is quite clearly a market for it, and sometimes games like Mortal Kombat are read between the lines. Only the violence is seen whilst critics cry out uneducated arguments calling for the game to be banned.

At a glance, it is justifiable. But rating systems are in place to ensure that the game does not fall into the hands of anyone unsuited for the content, and often it is a parental responsibility (or lack of) that eventually ends some people up in the situation where they are playing the game in a situation where they shouldn't be, and surprisingly, something happens because of it. Perhaps a young child learns something from a game like Grand Theft Auto, or a copy of it is found in a murderer's bedroom. Games, like films, books, like many other or any other medium of storytelling, can have an affect on people, certainly. But it is often pointed too as the only possible variable or explanation, which I think is an injustice.

Video games are the source of much criticism like this, and although it may be a passing phase, I am in agreement that the necessity of video games is a debatable thing, and want to set out to understand both sides of the argument and how much justification can be found between each one.