posted 10-28-2000 02:51 AM               

The crusade against violence in video games is truly the witch hunt of modern times. You may not know it, but the actual witch trials have already begun in the form of senate hearings initiated by Senator Joseph Lieberman. (Here's Lieberman's testimony.) Video games caused that school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, didn’t you know? While Lieberman is arguably the game industry’s biggest opponent, its best advocate is largely unknown. His name is Professor Henry Jenkins, Director of the MIT Comparative Media Studies Program. In an odd footnote of history, Jenkins was actually my professor in a few classes when I was at MIT, and I assure you that any media industry—or indeed any one—would do well to have Jenkins as an advocate. I think much of his persuasive power stems from him not really being a supporter of any industry or company—he is a defender of popular culture for principle’s sake, and argues from solid academic grounding. It just happens that his principle’s are currently aligned with the interests of the video game industry. It’s daunting for me to even write this article, since Jenkins’s arguments in this senate hearing were so strong. You can also read about his experience testifying.

I’ll begin by examining the violent nature of all competitive games, and then comment on the separate issue of the depiction in violence in those games. I’ll then discuss the use of violence as a theme in film, games, or any other media. Finally, I’ll invoke some of Jenkins’s arguments to explain the role of violent play in youth culture throughout history.

Violent Underpinnings

Competition is violent. People win, people lose. Competition occurs in video games, soccer games, the business world, and—I would remind Senator Lieberman—political elections. Competition can be academically interesting, and it can also teach valuable life lessons about winning and losing. It’s ok for little Jimmy to learn those lessons in soccer practice, but many parents have the mysterious notion that it’s not ok to learn the exact same lessons in a competitive video game.

Let’s take an example of a violent video game: Street Fighter. In this game, two players engage in a fight and try to kill each other! We have to shield our youth from such abominations, blah, blah. Ok, let me tell you what Street Fighter is really about. Two players compete…to win. It’s a battle for position, for initiative, for momentum, and for resources. Players develop creative combinations of moves, traps, and tricks. It is a game of attack and defense, risk and reward. Players take chances, they reduce their risk of exposure to attack, and they learn to never give up until the end, because comebacks are definitely possible. They learn the lessons of winning and losing, since not everyone can be the best, but everyone can improve with discipline, analysis, and practice. Players form communities, meet friends, and even sometimes make enemies. Would I want my children to play such a game? You bet. It’s preparation for life.

What’s on the screen during a game of Street Fighter is a bunch of rectangles. The object of the game is to make your attack rectangles collide with the opponent’s defense rectangles while keeping your own defense rectangles safe. All of this happens to be covered up by a bunch of pretty graphics. The rectangles are disguised as cartoon characters who do punches and kicks, throw fireballs, and engage in various wrestling maneuvers. Disguising this intricate game of colliding rectangles as a fight between two characters is an obvious, efficient way of handling things. The characters include men and women of many races from around the world, and appeal to players. Players can relate to characters, but they can’t relate to colored rectangles. So…is this a violent game? In some sense it has to be since it involves competition, but it certainly isn’t anything we need to keep away from children.

Violence as a Theme

The fighting game is just one special type “violent game,” though. Other games, such as Resident Evil, are much more based on violence, and even use violence as a theme. What of them? To understand violence as a theme, let’s look at some films: Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, and Reservoir Dogs. I don’t think anyone is going to say anything bad about Schindler’s List. It chronicles intense violence and persecution of Jews, and turns our stomachs. Films like that could prevent another holocaust.

Saving Private Ryan begins with 20 minutes of the most realistic depiction of war violence I have ever seen captured on film. I felt like I was a solder on that beach, and it scared the hell out of me. This film exposed war for the atrocity that it is, and it’s films like this one that could help us prevent another war.

Reservoir Dogs is called a particularly violent movie, yet it’s body count is much lower than most action films. There are only about 5 times that weapons are fired, yet this film is criticized as being “more violent” than other films with much more shocking statistics. The reason is that Reservoir Dogs, more than many movies, is actually about violence. It’s a characters study of a small group of people who are incredibly violent. There’s a reality to it that, say, Lethal Weapon certainly doesn’t have. The torture scene is unnerving and difficult to watch, even though the violent imagery is very scant (we’re left to imagine most of it). The emotional power of violence is brought to bear. So sure, the criminals in this film look cool, they wear cool suits, they walk in slow motion at the beginning, they fire two pistols at once John Woo-style. They’re glorified. But I don’t think anyone comes away from Reservoir Dogs wanting to be a criminal. At least not anyone sees that in the end, they all die except the one guy who used his brain the most. It’s films like this one that could stop young people from being criminals.

In an interview, writer/director Quentin Tarantino was asked about his use of violence in Reservoir Dogs. His answer was that he used it as a literary device, just like any other. He considers it no different from using tap dancing as a device. If you don’t like tap dancing, he says, don’t see movies about it. In fact, I think he’s too modest, as he created a work which asks the audience to examine violence, to see it, to feel it, to realize its true horror and its inevitable, tragic conclusion.

The point is that using violence as a theme can be thought-provoking, important, even entertaining in film, as it can be in video games. But these examples must be in the vast minority, right? Most uses of violence don’t’ have such lofty morals. We all know Schindler’s List does, but surely something like…Casino doesn’t. That was what the Honorable William Bennett, Former Secretary of Education, used as an example, at least. I happen to think Scorsese has some valuable things to say as a filmmaker, and I don’t really want the government deciding which works have challenging, valuable depictions of violence and which ones don’t.

The General Case of Violence in Games

Surely all violence in games can’t be explained away from the few specific examples I’ve given so far. Critics love to pick on Quake, for example. Even I don’t claim the game is very strategically interesting. (Ok, I’m being harsh, oh well.) It’s a “first person shooter” game, where the player has a variety of weapons which he fires at everyone he sees. The designers of Quake wanted, more than anything else, to make a game that’s 1) fun, 2) fast, and 3) cool. Quake is certainly fast, since you die about once every 5 seconds. About one million gamers will tell you it’s fun. Sneaking in that extra “gib” shot to detonate a corpse is “cool.” So is the trail that the one-shot-kill rail gun round leaves behind. So is the feel of firing the rocket launcher. I’m not making much of a case for redeeming social value here, am I?

To understand the role of Quake (and basically ALL violent games), we’ll have to look at what Professor Henry Jenkins has to say. I’ll attempt to summarize a few of his points:

Parents have claimed, throughout history, that whatever point in history they were in was the most corrupt time for children. Books corrupted children, then music did, then movies, then television, then video games and the internet. The arguments we hear today about video games are same ones parents made about movies in earlier times, yet all these forms of entertainment have become mainstream.

“Boy culture” has not changed throughout history. Boys have always been violent. They have always formed hierarchical communities based on mastery of something (of fighting, baseball, video games, whatever). They have always done so in realms outside the knowledge of parents, especially mothers.

The physical world has become a much less appropriate play space for children of today, due to urban expansion and crime. In earlier times, “boys would be boys” out in the streets, where they would form their hierarchical communities. Now, they are able to do so in the much, much safer virtual realm.

The virtual world is mostly a space away from parents, since most parents today are not savvy about such things. Yet media in general is more ubiquitous now, so parents today are, perhaps, more aware of the competitive, violent tendencies of their children today than parents were aware of 200 years ago. The actual nature of children has not changed, of course.
So given all that, do you want your children to play Quake? Maybe in some earlier times, kids all went down to the river and formed hierarchical communities based on who could do the most dangerous dives off the tree branch. Or they met on the street and formed gangs based on who could do the most illegal mischief. When kids of today play Quake, they’re doing the exact same thing. They’re playing in a space where parents don’t go, and they let egos clash. The difficult thing to admit is that this is the nature of teenage boys—that it has always been the nature of teenage boys—and that it has absolutely nothing to do with video games.

So a kid had a frustrating day at school. If he plays a little Quake, I’m happy he had an outlet for his aggressions. I don’t even care if he plays Mortal Kombat and rips the heart of out his opponent’s chest (you can do that in MK). Those are red pixels on a screen. I’d much rather children play with red pixels than with actual guns. And don’t think that if they didn’t have access to those red pixels that somehow their nature would change. They’d wrestle with their friends, play in the streets, try dangerous stunts, and any number of far more scary things than sitting at home playing with harmless pixels in a virtual world.

And the best part is that some of those violent games have life’s lessons to teach. As I’ve discussed earlier, some teach that violence—real violence—is a terrifying thing. Others, the kind I play, teach the lessons winning and losing and of strategy.

And what of girls? I’ve talked as if the video game is a thing only known to teenage boys. While that’s by far the largest demographic, girls play games too, of course. As one of the all-girl Quake clans will tell you, they have a forum in which to compete with boys on equal terms, in a virtual world where physical gender differences don’t matter. Taken from a quote from Jenkins’s senate testimony, a female Quake player explained to him:

“Maybe it’s a problem…that little girls DON’T like to play games that slaughter entire planets. Maybe that’s why we are still underpaid, still struggling, still fighting for our rights. Maybe if we had the mettle to take on an entire planet, we could fight some of the smaller battles we face everyday.”

posted 12-23-2000 01:56 PM               

When questioned about violence in games, designer Ernst Adams said that it is desensitizing to children. Although Adams does not blame or attempt to answer the question of violence, nor does he object to violence in games, he still is cautious about it. The founder of the Lions and Lambs project says that violence is a learned behavior and that we are teaching our children to be violent.

People have ignored history and have ignored the popular culture. Violence is theme in history, in all cultures. As people we must learn wrong from right and those who cannot discern good from bad, ultimately become the dysfunctional people of society. We cannot help that some people are violent and these band-aid measures that we prescribe to the problems of society are not the answer to problems of delinquency.

In a way this is a conflict between individual liberity and honoring community. I believe that society is much more complex than what we view on TV and that people and their personalities are not determined only by what they see, but what they experience in our lives.

"Behind the red facade of war and politics, misfortune and poverty, adultery and divorce, murder and suicide, were millions of orderly homes, devoted marriages, men and women kindly and affectionate, troubled and happy with children."-Will Durant, The Story of philosophy.

posted 12-28-2000 08:11 PM               

I think my personal beliefs must stem from the fact that I value freedom of the individual far, far, far more than "the good of the community" in general. I still can't get over the fact that I can't go to a casino in California because the governement tells me I can't gamble here. I certainly don't want them telling me what kinds of games are safe for me to play.

Interestingly, Jenkins, I believe, is a strong liberal who places a great deal of value on the good of the community. I remember having debates in his class that stemmed from that fundamental difference between us. He sees regulation and stifiling of content--including violent and sexual content--to be a loss to greater good of society, since society needs as many free voices as it can get. Though he and I are in a sense coming from opposite ends, we agree on the bottom line about violence in media being ok.

I've strayed far from actually replying to normanbates's post, so I'll just stop now.

posted 07-22-2002 08:46 PM            

First, lets not kid ourselves, violence in video games does affect us, as does violence everywhere: if it didn't, we wouldn't be playing. Does this violence affect some people to a negative degree. Im sure it does. And Im sure that if violence in video games were banned, then yes, a decent number of these people might not crack. Ok having said that...

...lets not kid ourselves, alcohol in society does affect us, as does alcohol everywhere: if it didn't, we wouldn't be drinking. Does this alcohol affect some people to a negative degree. Im sure it does. And Im sure that if alcohol in society were banned, then yes, a decent number of these people might not crack.

But we haven't banned alcohol yet, and we won't, and its probably not a good idea to (wasnt the first time). Reason being, I can take that paragraph above, and shove anything into it. Assuming we banned violent videogames, we still have wine, women, and red meat to deal with. And thats just for starters. Moral: you can't legislate morality because for one, you can't possibly write enough laws. And by the time you got done writing laws, you couldn't possibly live like a human being. (look how many people have broken just 10 commandments...and we're supposed to keep several thousand...heh)

posted 07-29-2002 04:33 PM               

I recently lost in a realtively large online wc3 tournament a round before the finals. I lost because I couldn't gain control of the game, and I still can't figure out why I couldn't. That loss bothered me, so I played really hard for a week or so and challenged that guy a week later. Victory.

posted 07-31-2002 02:19 AM               

Alright, that being said, on to the real issue.

Every school shooting since the invention of the shooter has been the cause of bullying and social ostracism within the school itself. Most of said shootings had direct intended targets, being the bullies. Do the math and stop redirecting the issue.

Although, another significant problem is the use of this debate as a political stepping stone for certain politician's careers, which is why the issue is redirected in the first place.

Again, I say the real solution is to stop the bullying in the schools to stop the shootings.

posted 07-31-2002 10:48 AM            

quote:

---

...drugs kill off brain cells and are known to be bad for your health.

---

I don't want to sidetrack this, but can't help but mentioon: don't believe the hype. If you live in the USA, your government has been spending billions of dollars to brainwash you into believing the above. A little intelligent research will show it is not remotely the whole story.

In the UK, for example, we've just decriminalised weed. In Holland, famously, they sell magic mushrooms in the supermarket. Ecstasy sharpens the senses and perceptions, which feels like a celebration of your own body (which is why it's so popular to dance to in nightclubs) it enhances musical appreciation, encourages creativity, makes you more generous, considerate, social and loving. It simply makes you a better person.

Obviously, too much of anything is a bad thing - alcohol is a good example, not many would complain about a few friendly beers over the bbq, but a true alcoholic is a sad, desparate thing to see.

And equally obviously, some drugs really are both mentally and physically bad for you - I wouldn't advocate crack to anyone, it ruins families and lives.

But the examples I name above, and a few others, are harmless and fun.

Sorry to Sirlin if you don't approve of sentiments like this on your forum. I assume you are American, and in your current social climate I would understand if you want to censor this post.

--Tartley

posted 07-31-2002 11:51 AM               

the problem (if there is one) is that humans are preditors, and therefor violent by nature. our teeth are designed to rip flesh from bones and our eyes are set in the front of our heads. all other perditory mamals have their eyes set in the front of their heads. humans evolved to kill things, and based on this are violent by design!

todays society, however, tells us to not give in to our violent urges in public. video games are simply the most recent way for us to give in to these urges *without* harming another person (much like football, tv, movies, chess, etc...).

posted 08-20-2002 10:29 PM            

A few people, however, get this distinction muddied in their minds, and the more realistic the games get, the harder it is for them. And the dangerous thing is, there's nothing in the game itself that tries to make the distinction. When someone plays Quake, the embedded lesson is not "this bears no resemblance to the real world," it's "this is the way things work" and the player needs to use a minimal amount of outside knowledge and analytical thought to realize that this isn't true.

As I said, for most people this is no issue, and clearly the people for whom this IS an issue had a problem long before they started playing the game. But I still think that violent games (in any medium) can aggravate an existing problem, and that games designed to look more like real life do this moreso than other games.

Someone who plays Street Fighter doesn't see attack rectangles intersecting defense rectangles. They see one person beating another person up, and because this is designed to look similar to reality, it implies something about reality that isn't true.

That said, the solution is not to ban violent games. As others have commented, poor treatment in real life probably has a much greater impact. People unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality need to be actively helped, and people who are able to make that distinction don't need to have their games censored. However, if you know that someone is having trouble, exposing that particular person to lots of realistic violence is still courting disaster.

posted 12-24-2002 06:49 PM               

IMO One does not need to lose the sense of reality to have a distorted perception on violence.

Of course that alone does not cause a incentive for violence, as it is in the result of real anger.

posted 02-26-2005 07:37 AM            

My question is: why is society not more violent than it is?
In general the average citizen will spent his life peacefull. He will be told about violence on television, papers or whatever, but sustained direct confrontation with violence is highly exceptional and mainly limited to special people like policeman, soldiers or gangsters.

Consider the volume of 'violent' things: movies, television, games, papers, books, internet, magazine's, re-enactments, sports, army training, hunting, reckless driving, the death-penalty, shooting in self-defence, agressive business strategy.
The list is long and interesting enough some of it is deemed to be honorable or right.
Even if all this violence would have a very teeny weeny itsy-bitsy minimal influence you would expect human behaviour to be noticeble influenced given the sheer volume. However it seems very difficult to prove conclusively that this is the case.

On the other side it is known that when people grow up and live in a violent family, they have a tendency to be more 'violent' themselves. Yet again it is difficult to derive a golden rule.

Now consider the society as a whole: it encourages competition. Competition will arrange the social (and economic, in fact: any) hierarchy: the succesfull on top and the failures down below.
So accepted is this that being on top is considered morally 'good', and being below is considered morally 'bad'. In fact the argument is at times turned inside-out: if your down and out it must be because you are bad and deserve it, if you are on top, you must be good and therefore deserve to be.
Is it not strange then that this encourages moneygrabbing and aggrevates the shock when a accomplished man (the president for instance) commits a crime? Money is the measure of success and how can a good wealthy successfull person be bad???
And is violence not the result of the most extremes of competition?

One can wonder observing this if any banning of violence in games would work. Ban it and people will lose their interest in gaming and turn to something else 'violent'.Ban it all and society will collapse.

The influence of violence seems to be limited by other things: the fabric of society, conscience, inability, the fear of retribution or god, mercy or believe in principles, fellow human beings or justice. To become a massmurderer it helps a lot if you are sociopath: to have no conscience or other limiting factor on your behaviour.

Once people believe that society fails in furthering the common or personal well being
violence rears it's ugly head.
People grab guns because they don't want to become subjects of violence, not to dispense it.

It's therefore my believe that it is not the level of violence in games which detemines the level of violence in society, but the strenghts of society itself.