Are Video Games Morally Dangerous?

Video games: Are video games morally dangerous? One of the most controversial forms of new technology is that of video games. Authors such as Grant Tavinor have lauded video games as unique pieces of 'interactive' art while opponents of video games such as Stephanie Partridge have condemned video games' violent images and the fact that they encourage the viewer to distance him or herself from the consequences of those actions.

There is concern that because of their all-absorbing, interactive nature, video are uniquely 'dangerous' for the user, which for their proponents is actually what makes them so fascinating. Tavinor clams that in additional to the artistic component of the video game experience, video games are themselves art because of their 'gaming' component. If various games such as chess have been called 'art' throughout the ages because of their use of dynamic strategy and what they demand of the viewer, why not video games as well? (Tavinor 384).

Tavinor argues that both the aesthetic and intellectual components of video games are engaging and validate the works as art, from the compelling vision of a post-apocalyptic world that is as gripping as any cinematic representation, to video games that absorb gamers in the construction of a fictional world that is every bit as emotionally vital and psychologically-nuanced as a novel (Tavinor 385). Gamers are encouraged to tell and create stories, not merely 'shoot up' their opponent, even in violent games like Grand Theft Auto.

The 'special' and unique nature of every video gamer's experience allows him or her to create something new with every play. Stephanie Partridge, in contrast, suggests that the relationships of the users to the characters of video games are very distinct in a negative fashion from other mediums. The characters are amoral and behave in a fashion that is detached from moral consequences. They play to win, not to act ethically, and there is no fall-out for the most violent of actions (Partridge 386).

Partridge reminds the reader that very often video games endorse racial and gender stereotypes, and encourage viewers to engage in profoundly asocial reactions, such as rape. Outmoded notions of tribal Africans or Native Americans as 'bad guys' are openly endorsed (Partridge 388). The excuse for tolerating this is that 'it's only a game.' Even as a first-person shooter, the player distances himself from the character, given that he is performing actions he would not in life (Partridge 387).

The defense 'it's only a game' invalidates the claim that video games have meaning, significance, and value outside of the realm of gaming and seriously questions the notion that they are 'art,' given how little they critique or question dominant modalities of representation (Partridge 386). Video games, after all, are designed to be consumed and marketed, not to last for all time. The very notion of the electronic medium is a disposable one.

Unlike art, video games encourage us not to question why people get enjoyment from violent and morally questionable images. There is no nuanced interpretation, the only defense is 'it is only a game.' The reason for the disagreement between the two authors seems partially to lay with the examples both writers cherry-pick for their arguments. Partridge's selection of examples highlights how video games are marketed to white, middle-class male adolescents and the content tends to encourage rather than question their prejudices.

Tavinor emphasizes aspects of games that have resonance in high-quality.