3 ms·
Actually the TL;DR is even shorter: "I won't work on FPSs". If you read it closely you'll see that he talks about someone who shielded his children from violen
by inopinatus 14y ago
Actually the TL;DR is even shorter: "I won't work on FPSs".
If you read it closely you'll see that he talks about someone who shielded his children from violent computer games, then he says that he'll never work a FPS again citing "ethical reasons", but never produces any kind of argument connecting these two points, or stating what those ethical reasons actually are.
I know it's just a blog post and all but I saw the length of the text and was therefore hoping for a more reasoned discussion rather than anonymous anecdote and soul-searching.
He seems rather hung up on "protecting children" from something, although what outcome he is afraid of is entirely unstated. I was not shielded from the horrors of the world as a child so it is unclear to me what has changed in the last twenty years, or what makes, specifically, the first-person-shooter genre such a travesty in his eyes.
- scott_s 14y agoI was similarly confused. I think I know what his reason is, but he never explicitly stated it. I may not even disagree with his reasons, but it's difficult to know for sure since he never actually stated those reasons. He only alluded to something that caused him to think of those reasons.
- Groxx 14y agoYeah, it's reading between the lines. But the story is about how a father wouldn't explain the truth about the game, and I got a fairly strong sense of guilt from the article as a whole. I read that as 1 + 1 = 2 in the absence of anything explicit, since why else include it?