Spring Break
Anti-video game debate continues
Fernando Dutra
Issue date: 4/21/09 Section: Focus
Another week, another uninformed person who makes comments about video games. This week's potshot comes from George Will, writer for the Washington Post. What differentiates him from other writers is that he has a Pulitzer Prize - which also means he has a greater podium from which to voice his opinion. He is a noted conservative writer and, in an opinion piece about jeans, goes on to question Seinfeld and Indiana Jones alongside video games. This is the same person who said global sea levels remain unchanged.
What Will had to say, in specific, was "[s]eventy-five percent of American 'gamers' - people who play video games - are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote. In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized [sic] movies (the six - so far - "Batman" adventures and "Indiana Jones and the Credit-Default Swaps," coming soon to a cineplex near you)."
He uses his argument against jeans, in which he says the world would be better off dressing like Fred Astaire, to take a potshot at gaming.
Though the comment isn't entirely earth-shattering or necessarily upsetting, this is just another example of how video games are constantly being portrayed and looked down upon by other forms of media. Video games are a niche experience, slowly making its way in public consciousness and acceptance. Currently, graphic novels, long considered the adult form of comic books, are getting the recognition they long deserved. It could only be a matter of time before Roger Ebert concedes that video games may be art after all.
The argument Will implies is worth noting: he doesn't think those who play video games should be allowed to vote simply because he associates video games with childish, immature actions. Though he takes it to an extreme, this isn't an unusual statement to make of gamers. The industry made more than Hollywood last year, yet people still dispute its authenticity or position in society. It is still seen, very much so, as something that must be constrained, something that belongs to a generation removed.
Will seems to justify himself by comparing video games to other forms of entertainment, particularly movies and television. It could very well be that he is simply elitist in his tastes, discarding and questioning anything that goes against his nuanced, highbrow sophistication, which would make any commentary on what he writes completely futile and undeserving. Perhaps responding to his snarky comment only further proves his assertion. A majority of the Web sites looked at have seen this as what it truly is - a throwaway comment meant to incite - so it's a relief that this isn't receiving the similar call to arms that other comments of this nature usually receive. All the same, it further shows how ingrained an anti-video game mentality is pervasive in society.
What Will had to say, in specific, was "[s]eventy-five percent of American 'gamers' - people who play video games - are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote. In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized [sic] movies (the six - so far - "Batman" adventures and "Indiana Jones and the Credit-Default Swaps," coming soon to a cineplex near you)."
He uses his argument against jeans, in which he says the world would be better off dressing like Fred Astaire, to take a potshot at gaming.
Though the comment isn't entirely earth-shattering or necessarily upsetting, this is just another example of how video games are constantly being portrayed and looked down upon by other forms of media. Video games are a niche experience, slowly making its way in public consciousness and acceptance. Currently, graphic novels, long considered the adult form of comic books, are getting the recognition they long deserved. It could only be a matter of time before Roger Ebert concedes that video games may be art after all.
The argument Will implies is worth noting: he doesn't think those who play video games should be allowed to vote simply because he associates video games with childish, immature actions. Though he takes it to an extreme, this isn't an unusual statement to make of gamers. The industry made more than Hollywood last year, yet people still dispute its authenticity or position in society. It is still seen, very much so, as something that must be constrained, something that belongs to a generation removed.
Will seems to justify himself by comparing video games to other forms of entertainment, particularly movies and television. It could very well be that he is simply elitist in his tastes, discarding and questioning anything that goes against his nuanced, highbrow sophistication, which would make any commentary on what he writes completely futile and undeserving. Perhaps responding to his snarky comment only further proves his assertion. A majority of the Web sites looked at have seen this as what it truly is - a throwaway comment meant to incite - so it's a relief that this isn't receiving the similar call to arms that other comments of this nature usually receive. All the same, it further shows how ingrained an anti-video game mentality is pervasive in society.
Be the first to comment on this story