tip off
4

I don’t want your conversation

Mario kiss

Today, a Fairfax blogger wrote an article that questioned the effect of videogames on the relationships of ‘grown men’. I won’t link to it, for reasons that will become clear in this piece. It’s easy enough to find if you’re interested. The basic thrust was this: the relationships of adult men who play videogames suffer because of their videogame consumption.

The article, while being fairly restrained in tone (in comparison to other articles of a similar nature, anyway) is obviously hugely problematic and ripe for an error-picking response. Mostly, the suggestion that videogames are the sole domain of straight men is a harmful assumption that does not hold to the slightest scrutiny.

But I’m not going to do that. The author has stated on her twitter account that she wrote the piece “to start a conversation”.

My response is clear: I don’t want your conversation.

After years spent challenging and responding to similar pieces, it’s clear that such conversations are always stunted from the start. The conversation is a rhetorical move that fits discussions about videogames into the author of the day’s favourite pre-existing topic. By responding to an article about how gamers can have relationship problems, we automatically hand over the power of framing the debate. By the same token, a response, say, to an argument suggesting videogames lead to obesity will always find it incredibly difficult to escape the fundamental assumption that there is some link there, that this is a conversation worth having. That these topics have an inherent power to shape debate is rarely noted; the temptation to respond and respond with some anger is often too great to resist. Before long, the debate seems to have substance, to be a competing war of ideas, when the actual circumstances of videogame play are often left untouched.

So I say this: the argument that videogames can impact on love and relationships is so fundamentally unsound that I cannot and will not respond to it.

Videogames do not need to go unchallenged, and this is not an attempt to thumb my nose at all and every criticism. Far from it. Videogames simply need different conversations than the paucity of those usually made available by a reactive mainstream media. These conversations need to be conducted within frameworks that mean something, that are based in the actual use of videogames and not just a favourite media narrative.

4

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    Posted March 14, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Great piece, Dan.

    And Ben Keogh tweeted a great label for the genre of article we’re discussing here.
    “linkbaiting vacuous nonsense”.

  • 2
    Ruprecht
    Posted March 15, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    What a polite way of saying don’t feed the MSM concern trolls! You waste more time dealing with the assumptions in such a loaded debate than you spend on discussing the potentially interesting stuff.

    Reminds me of the QandA on r18+ where the journo asked the gamers “But why do you want to play violent video games anyway?”

  • 3
    John Reidy
    Posted March 16, 2012 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    My son today was telling me about another boy in his class, who appears very introspective, possibly even autistic.
    According to my son’s year 7 eyes, he spends the whole time in school ‘reading a book’.
    As you say there are issues with society that manifest themselves in gamers, but is it gaming causing the problem or just that games can be attractive to people with social problems.
    While writing this my son is playing multi-player minecraft with his friends, they spend more time talking about it offline than they do playing it.

  • 4
    Richard Wingfield
    Posted March 16, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    “I won’t link to it”

    http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/blogs/citykat/the-games-we-play-20120313-1uye0.html

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...