In Response to "Why RPGs Should be Severely Censored."

by Jeffrey Zimmerman

It is a rule of mine not to "reply" to editorials because they are merely editorials as opposed to message boards. However, I found it prudent to follow through with Stephen Gohan's request and respond to his editorial, point by point. I would like to make absolutely clear that I do not make the goal of proving Stephen wrong, but rather to show objectively why the observations he made are not supported by sufficient evidence to be considered right.

1.) Realism and subliminal influence: I would like to observe that neither Stephen Gohan nor myself are scientific leaders of any field dealing with subliminal influence. There are many more people, scientists and civilians, who are skeptical that subliminal influence, if it exists, has that much significance on our daily judgements. As an avid history student, I can only observe that basic human psychological patterns have not significantly changed with the advent of new technology. Human beings have always reacted violently to stimulus, and this reaction has not changed with the advent of computer games or FMV. Some would make the reasonable argument that, while not increased, the nature of violence has changed, and that there has been a shift is aggression from the adult to the adolescent.

Essentially, I consider the idea of involuntary brainwashing to be a kind of psuedoscience; a false theory based upon an obvious and simplified cause-effect pattern that is easily accepted by the public because of its simplicity and fantastic nature. For example, from 1890 to 1940, the first major genetic revolution took place, where eugenics took various European countries (and the U.S.) by storm. The idea that personality traits were inherited through genes was accepted by most prominent eugenicists. However, it has been determined to be false, and this fallacy is now known as genetic determinism.

Yes, video games, and the entire media bombardment do indeed affect our thoughts and actions. However, I do not see a direct correlation between FMV and violence, and the only evidence used by Stephen was a cause-and-effect analysis, and this is no more effective than saying that the pants I'm wearing keep tigers away from people's homes. Hey, I don't see any tigers around; do you?

2.)Character development: Stephen made the argument that character development in video games causes people to emulate those characters. In my high-school debate tournaments, what this argument would be known to lack is uniqueness. In other words, Stephen has failed to explain why character development in video games have affected us anymore than character development in movies or in literature, the latter of which has existed since the advent of written language, several thousand years ago.

I've read many books. My favorite authors are Piers Anthony, Isaac Asimov, and Tom Clancy. These books do not provide me with clean slates with which to use my imagination to determine who the characters are. If I want a clean slate, I'll write a story. Rather, they portray the characters in action, describe their features, and paints them in a light that the author deems appropriate. Book advertise actions as well. Under Philip's reasoning, "Politika" by Tom Clancy advocates the burning of food storage so that starving innocents can die and leave the country of Russia free for the taking.

Under my reasoning, however, what we see in television, read in books, and play in video games is analogous to a plate of food put before us. We eat the food, and we decide whether or not we will eat the food again based on its taste and what we know of its nutritional value.

Here's another interesting concept. It takes a certain kind of person to see a movie, read a book, or play a video game, and then react to it in an unhealthy manner. Yes, it takes an unhealthy person to do this. It doesn't seem surprising that what Phillip sees as video games being the "cause of the effect" is actually video games being part of the effect itself. To be able to play a game and react to it in a healthy and analytical manner is a virtue that, unfortunately, not everyone has. Most people do.

I've played 007 Goldeneye for hours on end. Yes, I've gotten all of the secrets, cleared out every level, and enjoyed the challenge. In fact, I've played and enjoyed several "violent" video games, like Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain, and all of the Final Fantasies. I've been an RPG enthusiast since I was 10. However, I stand firm in my beliefs. I am steadfastly Catholic, and a pacifist. I don't make important decisions until I have been properly informed of the situation surrounding them. I am one of many honors students at our school that participate in community service and hope to have promising careers. I don't wear a trench coat. I wear plaid collared T-shirts. And glasses, no less.

But here's where it gets important. I have a loving mother and father and grew up in a communicative environment. I am not a "popular" student, and grew up picked-on by peers at every turn in school. Fortunately, I've had the support of my family and background, and can play any game I want to. I am not immune to the game's effects upon me, like Phillip says, but then I can always turn it off.

3.)Women are inferior: In a single paragraph, Stephen has claimed that women's opinions don't matter, made the unfounded claim that they are a vast minority of the RPGamer community, and made arguments, that women and men, myself included, would see as being blatant discrimination. Looking at the situation again from a historical perspective, I can see no inherent difference in the abilities of men and women, and applaud the recent advance of women in games, movies, and books. I agree that such media should take into consideration that beauty does not equal virtue or skill, but I disagree that such media should continue to propone the outdated, unfounded believe that women are inferior in any way.

I am glad Philip's editorial was posted and not censored, because as my favorite philosopher, Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of all that you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." I think that in a society in which Philip's goals were achieved, however, civil rights and liberties would become witch-hunt fodder. I would like to assure everyone who read Philip's editorials, if you disagreed with his points, that you are, in no way, secretly ashamed, subliminally brainwashed, or otherwise separated from your living self-conscience.

Original Editorial: Why RPGs Should be Severely Censored and Devoid of Character Development