2013 doc relies heavily on gory imagery rather than fact based evidence
Not only is “Joystick Warriors” boring, but it brings awareness of violent video games for new generations.
Boy oh boy, there is a lot of gory imagery in this documentary. This is a major contributor to why this documentary is so boring and such a headache.
In the documentary, we as the audience are shown different videos games with gory and bloody deaths. Most of the gory and bloody deaths are from “Grand Theft Auto V”, “Call of Duty” franchise, and many other titles. The message of this documentary is to tell their audience that violent video games affect real life decisions.
But that is the problem with this documentary, it keeps showing bloody and gory games instead of focusing on why video games are violent and how it affects an individual ‘s mind.
This documentary goes a different route and has random guests talk about violent video games and how it affects the mind and studio companies using real-life, violent kills.
I find it senseless the guests lack the sources of the material they describe. For example, Nina Huntemann said, “I felt that the NRA’s shift to look at gun violence through the spectrum of video games was very smart.”
Because for most people, that is, in fact, their relationship with guns. And if you shift the conversation back to entertainment then that becomes your context for talking about them.”
When I first heard this statement, I was confused, and I felt like it didn’t make any sense. Basically, this woman was commenting on a news press about congress talking about guns in video games.
However, my problem with this statement is why would you link the word “video games” to gun violence?
When you use the word “video games” you are referring to every category of video games that are available for anyone to play.
Not only has this woman used video games; what about films and books? Both can be violent and gory as well, so, why not bring up this topic as well? There are movies I could list that are very gory and quite violent for anyone to watch.
There are good points with this documentary and how it can affect a person’s mind. For example, in most video games they always have the main character as a hero, masculine, and portrayed as a slim muscular male.
While women are portrayed as skinny, feminine, and filled with a stimulating body for anyone to play as.
I find this annoying and it can make anyone frustrated. Why do studios portray characters with simulating bodies and an aggressive personality? There are many games that don’t draw the main characters appearances.
For example, in a horror game called “Amnesia the Dark Descent” you play as a male character who lived in Mayfair, London. However, the audiences are not shown the main character appearances, so audiences are relayed to imagine the character with their own minds.
This is perfect because the audiences can focus on the game, story plot and ignore the main character appearances.
In the end, the film was interesting to watch, however, the guests lacked resources on the material they are discussing. This is a key point when it comes to arguing; you have to back up points with credible sources that are up to date.
No one can make up a theory without a source to back it up. Another issue with this document is the usage of bloody death scenes from random videos games. It was random and didn’t make any senses with the guest’s theories.
You can watch this document on the website called Kanopy with your star id and password.