Jeg føler ofte en irrasjonell trang til å «fullføre spill 100 prosent». Da er det interessant å lese meninger som Richard Terrell sin hos Critical-Gaming Network: Det finnes ingen «komplett opplevelse». Teksten er heldigvis mer jordnær enn det høres ut om.
Er vold i spill egentlig et problem? Simon Parkin ser på historien til vold i underholdning, og hevder blant annet at vold i spill er et spørsmål om form, ikke funksjon:
Most game murder (and its moments-older twin, game violence) leaves no imprint on the memory because it lacks meaning outside of the game context. Unlike depictions of death in cinema, which can trigger keen memories of the viewer’s own past pains and sorrows, game violence is principally systemic in nature; its purpose is to move the player either towards a state of victory or of defeat, rarely to tears or reflection.
…
Video games are the youngest creative medium. What literature learned in four millennia, cinema was forced to learn in a century and video games must now master in three decades. The issue of game violence and its potential effects may seem like an abstract, esoteric issue, demanding of scientific study to make clear what is opaque. But game violence has logic and precedence and is always an act of play, not of sincerity. The worry is then with those who cannot tell the difference, from disturbed high school student to the US senator.
Tom Dawson hos The Ontological Geek har sett på to ulike gudespill, From Dust og Black & White, og sammenligner fremstillingen av Gud i de to spillene. Han mener guden i Black & White er en parasitt, mens From Dust tegner et stikk motsatt bilde.
God lesning!
Noe du vil si?