While browsing through the manual of Quake (I only have 9 days of work left, give me a break) I noticed one of the questions in the Commonly Asked Questions section is still that’s very high on the minds of many right now:

Q. Don’t you worry that Quake teaches people that all problems can be solved by the misuse of deadly force?

A. No.

Sure this topic has been beaten like a dead horse time and time again by both scholars and watercooler junkies. I don’t think it’s a stance that’s going to be declared official any time soon. When speaking with Matthew Weise at GDC he said to me that, in order for games to be taken as a serious medium we basically just have to wait for everyone born before a time with videogames to die. This isn’t malicious, or at least not intentionally. He compared it to film, and when it really became a recognized art form was after people who had grown up without films had all died out. [tangent: I was just reading an article yesterday about how film is still struggling to be a recognized art form. You could have fooled me!] I then countered with Comic Books, which still aren’t generally considered an art, yet have been around for well over 50 years now.

Anyways, we’re getting away from the point here. People like Jack Thompson will always say things like the Commonly Asked questions, and so will the mass of inexperienced outsiders. The thing is that creative intention goes a long way. Outside of possibly America’s Army, I don’t think that any violent or aggressive game is out there to teach people about how violence or murder solves a situation best. Until the creative intent behind the development of a game goes out of its way to support that claim I think the issue is a bit ridiculous. In order for this all to get resolved I guess I’ll just have to wait until everyone dies out.