Personal Response to 'Game Over' film

First off, I play lots of video games. However, I do not prefer to play "violent video games" such as first person shooters and games like Grand Theft Auto. I find it repulsive and depressing that one can derive pleasure from the repetitious virtual slaughter of hundreds if not thousands of computer characters in a single day of gameplay. I have this vision of someone sitting there, slackjawed, unblinking, and using up precious electricity while contributing nothing substantial to their own lives, let alone society, by moving through virtual environments (that are increasingly becoming more realistic) and systematically killing everything in their path knee-jerk (or, more appropriately, thumb-jerk) style.

But do these games actually increase a person's propensity for violence outside the virtual realm? I do not believe so in almost all cases for a lot of reasons. I will not get into all of these reasons at this time, but perhaps one of the main reasons why young people are not all running up and down the streets imitating their favorite virtual criminal/soldier/secret agent in a delusional ritual is that, though young people are spending on average more and more time in playing violent video games, there is still a larger and more critical amount of time spent in the actual world. I believe that if young people spent a majority of their waking hours in a very realistic and violent setting (as many children actually do due to where they live, such as in the slums of Jamaica and other places) and shut away from a more ordered, peaceful setting, then perhaps there could be a noticeable change in their behavior. As gamers, both young and old, we are able to choose our reality. Unfortunately, young people in Sierra Leone during the recent devastating civil war could not, and some were indoctrinated to be vicious child soldiers (see A Long Way Gone: memoirs from a child soldier). They could not turn off their violent world, as violent video game players almost always can.
Thus, the player is still ultimately in control of the situation. He or she turns the system on and chooses the game. The virtual world is still framed by the edge of the TV screen. There is always a way out. Though they are momentarily mesmerized by the flashing screen, every game eventually becomes predictable and boring - the player trades the old game in for the new one (that has waaay cooler graphics, dude...!) and the cycle continues.

Though I believe violent video games do not directly cause violent behavior, I would like to see the video game industry try something new - violence is getting old. Can't we be more creative, inventive, interesting, peaceful, and loving? These are more societally-sustainable characteristics of a video game. This desire of mine also reflects my attitude toward violence and war as a solution. I am critical of violent video games, but I am much more critical of our violent society. To me, the cycle of wars resembles the cycle of trading in old violent video games for new ones. The overly simplistic paradigm characterized by notions of good versus evil, defeating an enemy through ultra-violence as the only means to achieve prosperity, exoticized and incorrect (and damaging) representations of "the Other," and other such notions is pandemic in video games, but, more importantly, also in the dominant culture of this country. It may be overly naive, but in order to make changes in the video game industry, there will need to be changes in how this society behaves. Going to war as a solution and portraying the enemy as "evil" reinforces the idea to its citizens (ESPECIALLY young people) that violence against humanity is an acceptable and permanant path to prosperity (which in our country is defined more specifically as ECONOMIC prosperity as opposed to humanistic, natural, peaceful, intellectual, and other important yet often ignored types of prosperity). This, of course, is a false idea - how many more wars are we going to fight before we realize that winning a war means someone loses, becomes embittered, and strikes again later in the future to start a whole new war? It can end with this very militaristic, aggressive, and short-sighted country's decision to take a non-violent approach to solving conflict and encourage other nations to do the same.

Disclaimer: I do not want to give the impression that the future needs to be completely without violence - obviously, violence is a part of nature. There are many instances where there is violent competition as a force to stabilize parts of ecosystems and ensure the survival of a species, predator and prey alike (see wolf/deer relationship). However, there are also many instances of peaceful cooperation in nature (see symbiotic relationships between bees, flowers, trees, etc). Since humanity, with its uncanny (and in some cases, newfound) abilities to physically change the environment, move across the globe, and other amazing traits, has (presumably) risen to the top of any other competing species, it seems as though we are just competing against ourselves. To me, this is stupid. It's as if we've gotten so smart, that we have become too smart for our own good. We could stand to learn from examples of peaceful cooperation in nature and among other (more little-known) cultures, such as Native American, Aborigine, and others as a way of counteracting the many years of violence, fear, and death brought about by violent competition among our own species.