Perhaps in your opinion. Videogames and computer science would be nowhere near where they are today without the war mentality and things like the "Star Wars Missile Defense" programs.
That is simply speculation, unfounded speculation at that.
It's not a coincidence that early videogames had a lot of shooting and destroying of things.
Or so you say. People have been shooting and destroying things for ages, long before the Cold War. How about a plinking gallery at a carnival or fair 100 years ago? You and the show's creators are trying to look far too deep into these things.
And it doesn't matter what the technology was developed for, no more than it matters what paper was developed for when you are talking about a drawing or a novel which uses paper as its medium.
One of the things that is a bit disturbing about some of the comments made in response to this documentary is that some don't even agree with the commentary made by the folks who were there living it at the time. You might think some of Nolan Bushnells comments about women and "equaling the playing field" were silly or in poor taste, but that was really the case. For the first time, video games offered a competitive challenge that males didn't necessarily have an immediate advantage with.
What percentage of the video gaming records out there are held by females?
Emotional attachments to video games in that time period were not uncommon. As an arcade player, you really didn't care about the mechanics or the politics that happened behind the scenes. Much of it wasn't even public knowledge. With the 70's over and the "war on drugs" underway, videogames offered escapism from a world where everything was not wonderful, and where there was constant talk of nuclear armament and doomsday scenarios. I'm happy you were born after the worst of it, but some of us were nearing draftable age when you were starting kindergarten. We probably noticed some of these things and related them differently than you did. It doesn't mean it was incorrect to feel either way about it.
That's exactly the type of exaggeration I'm talking about.
That's a joke, right?
No. You maintain that there was no threat, yet it was important to "neutralize" it. It is a contradiction in logic.
Good grief. Do you know what the word "neutralize" means? Once a threat is neutralized, is it still a threat? I'll repeat this. They were not a
significant threat because for them to attack us with nuclear weapons, they would have killed themselves in the process, and everyone was well aware of that.
I'm going to insert you into my criminal with a gun analogy. You can be the police chief:
You: So what is the situation? Is there a threat?
SWAT: No Sir. The threat has been neutralized.
You: You say that there is no threat, yet it is important to "neutralize" it. It is a contradiction in logic.
SWAT: Say what??
In terms of eliciting an emotional response to the game, DK was far different than PacMan. But even so, "cute" is mainly a term describing visual aesthetics. PacMan was, like most games before it, functional with a very basic goal and mostly abstract graphics. DK was a step in new direction, both visually and in player experience.
Not only is that an opinion, but it is irrelevant in regard to defining a game as "cutesy" or not. Without Pac-Man there may not have been DK. Nintendo was banking on Radar Scope, which was another space-themed shooter.