The whole game thing is a byproduct of the survival instinct. It panders to the lowest common human denominator - kill or die.

How many games have ever been designed that promote construction and cooperation? Very, very few. How many of those have been successful? Even fewer.

The think-tanks consulted by corporations in th 50's on children's responses to new game introductions already confirmed that gameplay intensity and participation rose when they triggered the self-preservation instinct. By the seventies, a game like Stratego outsold Mastermind or Simon by 5,000 to 1.

So games had to have winners and losers where you attacked or attempted to defeat your opponents.

Early arcade games incorporated this. "Draw" did better than "Pong" and both drew many more quarters than pinball machines. Survival was king.

But what trumped mere survival? Offensive action combined with survival! A pinball machine is an example of pure survival. Keep the ball in play for as long as possible.

That grew boring. It was more fun to stay alive while others are actively trying to take you out.

This is the key difference between say Asteroids and Battlezone (the original recruiter), one is survival the other is survival and offense.

Asteroids and Missile Command had a futile quality. Why stay alive only to die eventually? For a high score? No, it's not enough to defend yourself from attack- one must attack in kind!

They quickly found that "game satisfaction quotient" was increased when a player played a game in which they simulated killing others.

A sort of perverse human trait that lingers in the subconscious. The kids would feed quarters much more quickly if they could kill other things in a video game.

Almost ALL video games involved killing by the mid eighties. "Indy 500" or other survival games just didn't cut it anymore. Even when one looks at something like Dig-Dug or Centipede you're seeing the constant need to destroy for satisfaction.

Blast. Kill. Destroy. Now you're having fun.

Then came the early 90s and the first person shooters and an obsessive amount of killing. Throw a bit more blood and realism in to boot. The old killing is postively lame and boring. I want to see heads exploding and bodies gurgling!

If a little killing was necessary for fun, then a lot of killing must be even more fun! At least that's what the gamemakers were hoping.

Where does one go from there?

If it sounds as though this is a long rant against video games - it is because it is a long rant against video games.

In case you think it's violence I'm worried about - that's not it at all.

It's not about violence at all. It's not Ender's Game at all. It's exactly the opposite!!!

It all about pacification.

Channeling all that violent human energy, time and thoughts into video games.

That's about control.

Why do you think we set up arcades in Iraq? Or let foreigners play America's Army?

This post may not stick around too long. Think about it a bit. Take a calculator and fiddle with the amount of mind hours that kids in America and elsewhere give to Xbox, Gameboy and Nintendo.