There are all kinds of gaps. There's the income gap between rich and poor, the gender gap between men and women; there's generation gap, the race gap, the digital gap, and the education gap. And of course there's the the Gap that sells cool clothes.
But one gap you might not have heard of is the one forming currently within the gaming community. I'll call it the maturity gap. Gaming is becoming mainstream, and as this happens, a divide is forming among the gaming community's "voice" between the thoughtful and the thoughtless.
In a solid post at Destructoid.com, ManWithNoName looked at how gamers and gaming have both matured, siting DNF's deserved bashing as well as yesterday's Supreme Court decision which continued to acknowledge video games as a protected form of expression:
"I understand that for us, the gamers, none of those signs should be important, as we always believed in the games as media. But it shows that we and society in general are growing up. And I fail to see why became more mature and understanding is a bad thing."
Many in the comments disagreed though,
sheppy: "When our industry finally does mature, and we're a long way from that point, we won't have our critics feel compelled to talk less about games flaws and more about how smart and evolved and respectable they are."
kid23455: "I hate all the people who feel games need to mature. If it all continues to "mature", soon I will have to listen to seven schpiels about why murdering is wrong and go to confession 18 times per day every time I accidentally back into someone in gta."
These are only two commenters among many, but the sentiment is not isolated to them. And the example that ManWithNoName rightly points to, the recent Supreme Court ruling, goes a long way toward demonstrating this split within the community more generally.
Many look at the ruling, and rightly so, as a step forward in gaming's increasing credibility, legitimacy, and respectability. But just because gaming as a medium is worthwhile and valuable, doesn't mean we need defend every thing that comes out of it. In the marketplace of ideas, all should be welcome, but all need not be equally defended, and many in fact deserve to be dismissed and even sometimes condemned.
Sexualchocolate makes a good point: "I mean sure, it's ultimately the parents who should be keeping an eye on shit, but when Mummy says no, over here it means no, over there it means you have to get the money together and buy it yourself. Is it the same for films? Like could a 10 year old go and buy The Human Centipede on DVD? I don't care how they do it, just so long as it's on par with how they deal with and respect age ratings on films."
But who could let that sensible statement stand? Many responded that the industry is "self-regulated" over here (in the United States), and that this law was stupid, redundant, and so on. The problem with that reasoning is that it cuts both ways. If the the law does nothing different from what's already in place, then who cares if it stays in place or not?
I mean, does anyone actually have a problem with prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors?
Apparently not, since no one I read seemed to be arguing that the law was bad BECAUSE it wanted to stop minors from buying violent games, only that that is was a waste of time and unnecessary.
As a result, you've got a bunch of self-righteous gamers who won't tolerate any attacks on their video games, or any attempts to regulate them, for any reason whatsoever, whether it makes sense or not.
Should an adult be allowed to buy DNF? Of course. Should gamers feel under-attack because the government wants to stop kids from playing it? Not at all. We can defend gaming without defending all games, and without resorting to shoddy arguments and political posturing. Sadly, this isn't where most gamers' heads are, at least not the most vocal ones. It's time to grow up guys.