Entry 2: rhetoric applied to 'so called' evil games

All games contain rhetorical elements, which is the values and beliefs of the authors of games, brought about through persuasive discourse. When playing videogames we rarely look deeper into the way they're depicted to us, and the ideologies contained in the games we play. There's evidently many values/beliefs exemplified in Splinter Cell and Hitman Contracts. Firstly, killing is rife, and an imperative objective to reach the endings. A key question is whether games which condone violence in their plots can detrimentally impinge on the players. Newman (2004 p.62) argues that there is much effort to class videogames as damaging. Furthermore, considerable research has been done to link playing violent video games to 'real life' acts of shootings and societal decay. There is however insufficient evidence to make the claims true (for now).

Secondly, although there's times in both games where killing is essential to reaching the next stage, there's a slight pacifist element evident in each game because the player doesn't always have to adhere to killing less important villains, instead you can sneak around them (sometimes encouraged to). Moreover, the important kills you do make are seen as for the good of society by ridding the world of its menaces. Neither game encourages killing Innocent civilians, but there's times, particularly in Hitman Contracts, when it's difficult to avoid. This rhetoric is evident in 'real life' situations, such as war, whereby destroying the enemy is Paramount--even if Innocent civilians are in danger.

Finally, a feature used is various ways the player can attack the villains, whether it be by an array of guns, or through strangulation. Alamingly, this demonstrates that our hands can be used as lethal weapons, which evidentely in society they're sometimes used to harm others. On TV we often see such acts commited. However, the audience is passive whilst watching films such as the Terminator or Goodfellas, whereas with these games the player is actively involved in the killings, which is a requirement in order to progress through the game--an incentive itself. Patricia Marks Greenfield (1984) was interested to see if watching TV is worse than playing digital games and, therefore, conducted interviews on four children between the ages of 8-14. The children were unanimous: digital games. Moreover, they were unanimous about reason--active control. the meaning of control was both concrete and very conscious. However, this is still not sufficient to link playing violent games to actual violence.

Interestingly, that research was done in the mid 80s, twenty years on there's still no concrete evidence to support claims that playing violent games make people violent. Could the last week playing these games consequently cause one to think about quitting university to become a hitman or anti-terrorist agent--extremely unlikely. Could playing these games cause one, who by nature sometimes manifests an angry disposition, be influenced by images and control of dangerous characters--perhaps.

Because many videogames are developed in the USA, there's a strong rhetorical element of the USA being the protector against evil, such as in Splinter Cell. However, we need be careful when absorbing such cultural rhetoric in plots because they're often biased and misleading. Furthermore, some games contain such elements which can encourage prejudice and racism to anti-USA countries.