Violence in Video Games
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.)
 |
| Senator Joseph Lieberman (bad guy) |
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
 |
| Professor Henry Jenkins (good guy) |
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.
 |
| Here we see some attack rectangles overlapping some defense rectangles. It's all dressed up with fancy anime graphics of Sagat (right) and Sodom (left). |
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?
 |
| Damn, this guy killed the whole room and gibbed all the corpses...with the rail gun! |
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."
March 21st, 2006 at 10:01 am
Video games simply cannot continue to increase their violent content. The more violent they become, the worse they make video gaming look entirely. Somewhere down the line there has to be a set of limits. Otherwise people are finally going to crack down on the industry and impose limits themselves. Doesn’t matter if Americans enjoy freedom of speech, that won’t protect the gamers if gaming becomes an increasingly uglier thing to the public.
March 21st, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Hi Sirlin, I have been a long time fan of your play to win articles, and I’m glad to see that your site is updated.
With regards to violence in video games and their affects on children becomming violent, the research is inconclusive at best. I have a B.A. in Psychology (and currently going for a Masters in Psychology) where I studied under a professor who has done video game research. She ran a study that basically said that children are mostly positive while playing video games. It is extremely important to note, that the children exhibit mostly positive or neutral behavior DURING the time of playing. A lot of video game researchers survery either before or after gameplay.
I believe that only doing the studies on video games is half the battle for whether or not it incites violence. So at best, it would be CORELATIONAL, meaning that either A)Violent video games does insight violent behavior, or B)Already violent children play video games that use violence as a tool to succeed.
Studies need to focus on background of the children who play video games. By background I mean, how violent is their neighborhood? How violent is their home life? How violent is their school? How popular is the kid at school?
The reason I asked for their popularity is because in all of these school shootings, I have never heard ONCE that a high school starting quarterback (usually the most popular guy in school) bringing guns into their school and unloading their magazines into children. Why is this? An anecdotal reason would be (as I have no research for this) that kids that do school shootings are social outcasts. The kids who shot up columbine were social outcasts who studied hitler regularly and contemplated violence everyday. People like Jack Thompson want to blame video games? Come on. At this point, there is no research that can isolate video games as a single variable for causality, only correlation. But the government, and ignorant parents who can get money for their selective stupidity via lawsuits, will continue to ignore that research, despite the fact most of it is done by professionals will no agenda, only wanting to seek the truth.
What can we do when society decides to ignore the facts to have something to crusade against, and when frivilous lawsuits can get people who do not want to learn the facts paid.
April 2nd, 2006 at 12:37 pm
^^Amen to that. Violent games don’t cause violence, violent kids cause violence.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
wow. i have never read so much bullshit in my life! a bunch of rectangles overlapping a bunch of other rectangles?! okay, first of all, this may be true but do children, say around 12 years old, think to themselves while playing video games: “its okay, its just a bunch of rectangles, nothing to worry about…” No. the fact is that children, whos minds have not developed to the thinking level of “oh, its a bunch of rectangles”, see it as two characters, or more, violently harming the other(s). Yes you mention Street Fighters, okay thats not so bad, but what about Grand Theft Auto? That violent video game, allows children to shoot, and even get rewarded, for killing not only bad guys but innocent people who are not even involved in the game. It also allows them to rape women and steel cars. Is this the message that we should be giving the children? Yes, it is a bunch of rectangles, but the reality is that no one, while playing these games, thinks of it like that. The truth is that people get so emotionally involved with these “first-person” shooters games that they actually find joy in killing. slowly the children start to sub-consiously think that there is no consequences to killing or harming an individual. It also teaches children that violence is the way to solve problems and it is definatly not. look at the words you use to descirbe the video games. you use “slaughter and rip their heart out”. Frankly i would much rather children wrestle in the streets then actually rip a heart out, whether in a video game or not. These video games stimulate the mind into thinking that what they are doing is okay. You really really need to re-think this artical you have written because i have never taken something less seriously in my life. Not only is it very bias (its obvious that you are one of these 24/7 violent video game bums) but it has no real arguments. good luck with other articals and may you research more next time.
April 26th, 2006 at 8:27 am
I feel really strange after reading the most recent comment posted about this article.
It says: “Not only is it very bias (its obvious that you are one of these 24/7 violent video game bums) but it has no real arguments. good luck with other articals and may you research more next time.”
It claims that people should do research and have arguments when writing somehing. Sirlin actually researched (like the links he provided are sources for what he wrote) and the content of his writing was argumental.
I’ve been playing games for a long time. Maybe 15+ years now and in all my time playing, not even when I was very young I found “joy in killing” in nay way. And I was in a very impressionable age when MK was first released. Actually, I prefered to play Super Mario World over MK because I four the later very boring and not interesting at all once you got over the Fatalities and buckets of blood. What was left wan’t very fulfulling.
If the person that posted the last comment made a little research on his/her maybe it would have clicked the links that Sirlin provided and had better arguments to say the article was bullshit.
When playing most people forget what they are looking and they only set themselves to reach their goal in the game. Before playing SF I don’t think about how much I’ll enjoy using a pixel based foot to kick some people out and made them suffer; I think about how I’m going to play to finish the game the best way possible (actually, I suck at SF.)
Oh, and the previous person commenting said that video games stimulate people to think what they are doing in them is ok. I’d love to see where the studies that prove that are, and if they stand the criticism that Henry Jenkins has made about them.
Not to mention that most games that are usually used as examples of “they teach our kids to kill” shouldn’t be played for kids. The package of these games clearly states so. Oh well.
April 28th, 2006 at 12:18 am
Comment 4 is probably just fallout from Sirlin’s article on Gamasutra about World of Warcraft. The problem with being controversial (as Sirlin is) is that (1) it brings idiots out of the woodwork, and (2) they’re more likely to speak than the rest of us. As they have done, numerous times, all over this site. Save your words, Zegim. You don’t want to waste them on the scrubs.
May 13th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
“Not only is it very bias (its obvious that you are one of these 24/7 violent video game bums) but it has no real arguments. good luck with other articals and may you research more next time.”
Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t ridicule those who live in glass houses.
May 20th, 2006 at 12:32 am
There are some points I’d like to add (even if I’m being late):
Violence for easy access: you don’t care if the guy in Quake that just was ripped into chunks of flesh was a robot, if he will reappear in some seconds or the arena is a piece of metal in mid-air. You have got a gun, the enemy has one. If your enemy is blown to pieces he won’t harm you. There’s no need for tutorials to explain the rules, it’s a game to pick-up-and-play, simply because it uses real life assotiations to explain the rules.
CounterStrike might just be what American Football would if it could (can be applied to many other games). It’s a conflict simulation under a set of rules that minimizes the danger of being hurt. Needless to say that the danger of being hurt while playing computer/videogames is minimized by having virtual representations carry out the battle, so abstraction/restriction of the violence is not required.
People like to say there were ‘no consequences’ for killing someone in a videogame. They don’t notice that there are. If someone transfers the rules of videogames to the real world, he is probably clear that he won’t survive it (if he doesn’t he watched too many cartoons). There’s hardly a match of CounterStrike or Quake (or…) in which even a better player doesn’t die. If someone decides to do such a thing in reality, the message is probably ‘Look, I *do* have a value for (impact on) the world (before I leave it)’. The whole argument sounds a bit like ‘We want hopeless children to dispose of themselves without attracting attention by not letting them know how they can’.
About the witch-hunters: People like to blame things they don’t need. If you don’t find any point in having people fight each other on the TV-screen, it’s easier to blame the games for children’s behaviour instead of the (potentially) own influence or that of people your job depends on. Another point is perspective. While a Quake-player seeing his opponent leave a red mess often already supposes him to be somewhere else (not dead or dying but respawning) and concentrates on possible threats nearby, a spectator (especially if biased) might be focussed on the actual dying sequence which is merely a (clear) notice for the player to not care about a threat anymore.
About the rectangle-point: That’s another example of the perspective-problem. Spectators tend to care about the fancy sprites that hurt each other. But if you want to win (and we suppose the 12-year-old kid wants, if you constantly fail at a game you probably don’t want your life to be that way) you will have to focus on the game, not on the graphics. In the game the rectangles rule the world. You need to know when you will get hit by the fireball you try to jump over, even if the pretty sprite of your character doesn’t touch the fireball’s.
May 22nd, 2006 at 5:39 am
“It also allows them to rape women”
Huh? Name a single game where you are allowed to do this.
I’ll give you a hint: It’s not Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. NO. IT ISN’T. The only thing remotely close to that is the hot coffee scene, which is CONSENSUAL, and can only be accessed IF you buy an EXTERNAL, UNSUPPORTED component for your PS2 and HACK the game to allow it!
May 23rd, 2006 at 1:48 am
** Said:
“good luck with other articals and may you research more next time.”
Its funny that the only comment that does not agree with Sirlin’s point is the one with the worst grammar. But thats not the point.
If you want to get technichal, in GTA:Vice City you can sleep with prostitutes in your car, but that is not rape. I have also yet to see the part where you get rearded by killing innocent bystanders.
** Said:
“It also allows them to rape women and steel cars.”
I wonder what it would take to rape a steel car. And how different it would be from raping an iron car, or a steel truck maybe.
And when I was 12 and playing Street Fighter II what I was thinking was: “Those guys can shoot stuff from they’re hands! I wanna learn how to do that!” But martial arts was not one of my strong areas. So all i learned was qcf + P. Has served me good enough.
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:32 am
I don’t know about GTA. The concept of the game itself never appealed me so I never played. Most people that don’t play games but want to talk about them usually just scramble them in a big package like they were all only one big thingie called ‘game’. I believe she refers to that old game called Carmagedon where you actually are rewarded by killing innocent bystanders with your car. It became very (in)famous when it was released and such things really stay on people’s memories. The posteer number 4 should be aware that such games are rated for adults and if such games fall on the hands of a children for it to play, it is not the game indutry’s fault but the parent’s themselves that allowed it. Actually, it is much easier (and much more fun imo) to go on a crusade against videogames without knowing a line about what you are talking about than actually giving yourself the trouble of monitoring, watching and learning what your children is doing / playing. Mind you, you could even have to say ‘no’ to your children and deny them to play the game and the idea of it would terrify some parents out there. This all said, I agree with the first poster. Though games are games and all, there must be a line that we can’t be allowed to cross. Sadly, the game industry doesn’t seem to think so.
June 10th, 2006 at 3:55 am
We live in a violent world. Your kids will be exposed to violence one way or the other, whether you like it or not. It could be in a video game, on a movie, on the news, in a book, etc. or they themselves could be the victim of violence or know someone who is. So what good would it do to hide violence from them when at some point in their life exposure will be inevitable? Hiding the issue of violence doesn’t protect your child from it, it makes them blind to it.
To an extent, I think it weakens their coping mechanism. I mean, think about it: why do we write stories of brave heroes fighting hordes of monsters, movies about daring thieves pulling off dangerous heists, etc.? In real life these things would horrify us, yet in art form the violence is controlled, it is something we can walk away from safely.We get our temporary emotional jolt that the art provides and afterwards are free to return to our everyday lives. These works allow us to excercise our emotions and how we cope with them. Sad stories can make us cry, coedies can make us laugh, action movies can keep us tense and on the edge of our seats, etc.
With violence in art and video games it is one of those activities in our lives where we can laugh or be entertained with something that in reality is devastating to us. It gives us temporary control and mental security against something tragically tears through our world every second of every day. With violent games, sports, art, etc. we are not glorifying violence, we are using it as a tool to excercise our emotions and also as a means to subconsciously prepare ourselves for the horrors that true violence causes in our society.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:59 am
MorbidChylde, however strangely inappropriate his name may be, has a point.
To hide children from violence is rather like never giving them vaccinations. If you don’t expose them to the disease with the vaccine, they will not build an immunity to it. If they aren’t exposed to the horrors of violence, they won’t build an immunity to the allure of using violent means to achieve selfish goals.
There is a reason Disney movies are about (a) Good Guy(s) defeating (a) selfish, violent Bad Guy(s). It reinforces that using violence to achieve selfish ends is not acceptable, and that stoping those who would do so is good. Many video games also reinforce this. Final Fantasy, anyone? Let’s take a look at, say, X, since I happen to be replaying it and the story is a bit more fresh in my mind (Spoiler warning). The party starts out trying to stop the Big Evil Monster (aka “The Big Foozle”), Sin, from killing everybody. Then they find out that to defeat Sin, their summoner and friend, Yuna, must die. They don’t really like that idea, but they can’t let Sin go unchecked. So they decide to stop him anyway.
That is, until they find out that Sin will never stop coming back. Ever. So they decide maybe having Yuna commit suicide to get rid of him for ten years isn’t quite worth it. So they kill Yunalesca, Crazy Psychopath #31, so she won’t make any more summoner’s sacrifice themselves, and Seymour, Crazy Psychopath #73, who won’t stay dead and wants to destroy all of Spira. Note that the player’s party uses violence reluctantly and in self-defence, to stop psychopaths who use it wantonly for selfish purposes.
Other video games also use this theme, and constantly. Castlevania. Kingdom Hearts. Pretty much every Star Wars game ever. Almost every game I played when I was younger had the same theme.
As a side note, I’ve never finished SW:KotoR as a darkside character… I was too disgusted with the things you had to do for it.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
I always find it ironic when the government takes part in a “war/campaign/crusade” against something they deem harmful while providing and sanctioning similar products. Overzealous politicians wish to eliminate violent “first-person shooters,” yet any child can download, for free, America’s Army–a simulation of being a member of an organization that is 100% about training people (as young as 18) how to kill. Another example of this hypocrisy that I saw comically portrayed by Chris Rock in a stand-up special of his is the American war on drugs. While I agree that drugs such as Cocaine and Heroine should remain illegal because of their impact on the lives of the people that live in the countries where the production of such drugs is a dominant industry, our government mounts its drug war under the pretense that it is concerned with saving/protecting our lives, yet they willingly license and sell similar products that are just as, if not more, deadly to us (i.e. tobacco). (Chris Rock’s point) They don’t really care if that you’re killing yourself through addiction andover-medication, just so long as you’re addicted to and spending money on drugs THEY approve, which happen to be made by domestic companies.
I’m looking forward to becoming a parent in the years to come and I’m glad to know that I will never kid myself into thinking that the government should be doing my job for me. As a semi-libertarian I understand that attempts to engineer other peoples’ happiness for them is almost always going to end in failure. You can provide people with the means to an end (i.e. an enforced and logical rating system for videogame content) but never the end in and of itself (i.e. bans and censorship).
July 23rd, 2006 at 11:29 am
I’d like to say that I agree with this article. Frankly, some kids may be violent, but if a kid is said to be “stimulated to violence by a videogame”, I rather suspect that problems can be traced back to AT LEAST parents, peer pressure and alienation, etc. I play videogames a great deal. Sometimes, I play fairly violent videogames. However, violence for it’s own sake has never been a compelling reason to play a game for me. For example: the game Manhunt. The game is frankly all about killing people in twisted, violent ways. It’s also boring, repetitive, and poorly paced. I played it for about an hour before deciding that the game was terrible, and sold it later. Violence, sans anything else, makes for but a poor game. A similar game of stealth, Metal Gear Solid for the PS one, did pretty much everything better, and a lot more besides, and had little in the way of gore or graphic murders, and was in general a great game (see the Pacing article for Sirlin’s take on it), and I played that game for a great deal of time - at least 40 hours over multiple playthroughs. Most videogames are perhaps less graphic, in most respects, than the majority of movies centered on action and violence, partially due to the technical restrictions and partially to the target audience.
Parents should take responsibility for their children. I wouldn’t let a young child of mine, if I had children, play an extremely violent videogame. I also wouldn’t let them watch an extremely graphic and disturbing movie, and nor would I let them have access to any other material, of whatever medium, including, for example, novels, containing extremely explicit violence. I would do much as my parents did for me: allow them access to mild material and violence that is not at all graphic and, before the child is an adult, slowly build up to more and more mature material - In this world, not letting a child be exposed to material such as this so they won’t be disturbed is like not teaching them self defence so that no-one will ever rob them.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
The comment about the overlapping rectangles I think does not really need to be in this article. It explains game mechanics, but I think most arguments for the banning or regulation of video games are not concerned with mechanics. Also, even though post #4 has been largely ridiculed for his/her post, I think it does bring up a good point that the rectangles are probably not what players think about when they play street fighter.
I think that assuming that ALL children will believe that violence is allowable in society just because they play violent video games is ignoring several things, two of which are: Children do not receive stimulus from any other source (media, environment, peers, parents) about what is acceptable behavior (previous posters touched on this, see post #15), and secondly that children do not realize that video games are not the real world.
In valiantly trying to defend children from the evils of video games, I think that many advocates find themselves less and less willing to see the virtues of video games.
That having been said…
Several posters have already mentioned that by making video game publishers “rate” video games using ESRB (in a similar fashion to the rating system used for movies), parents can make informed decisions on whether a game is or is not suitable for the child. Video games are a form of media, and should be regulated the same way as other forms of media.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:35 pm
The flaw of the whole logic is that it’s impossible to protect children. Everyone WILL be exposed to violence sooner or later, and the more you shield a child, the bigger of an impact it will have when he is exposed to it(I assume the females are not the demographic of concern). The best thing is to expose a child to gratuitous amounts of violence from an early age and to make it clear how horrifying it is. Perhaps they will lose a few fistfights and discover how poor violence is as a way to resolve problems. Open discussion and working hard to teach kids to think(as in don’t try to simply impose your own values; teach them how to arrive at their own set of values) helps this too. What is an inevitable catastrophe is to shield them from all violence entirely and then their friends will sneakily show them violent video game 235 or show them a particularly violent movie. Being unaccostomed to such a thing, they’ll be deeply impacted and the violence might actually reflect in their character. I think we need to ban protective parenting more than violent video games; video game developers who continue to increase violent content are, if anything, helping children as it’s much preferable to be exposed to violence virtually where no one is getting hurt than in real life where people do die.
Seriously, rating media like this, including video games, is ridiculous. Not only is it not actually helping anyone but, more importantly, it violates the spirit of the first ammendment pretty heavily. The word “except” does not appear in the first ammendment, and there’s a good reason. The fundamental principle of our government is that it’s freedom first. “Give me liberty or give me death” is not just mindless rhetoric; it is the fundamental philosophy and a principle to live by. If you truly do love freedom, it should be nothing to endanger your safety and the safety of everyone you know and love for the sake of free expression. I mean, the very existance of private property and homes is an acknowledgement of this. They are a good place to hide dangerous things. If safety were more important, routine government inspections could easily reveal anything dangerous we might have. Of course, we value the freedom of owing our own homes and having privacy over the security the restriction could bring. This is the same case if you actually believe that the violent video games are causing violence. The right of game makers to express themselves totally superceeds the safety of the community. If you disagree with this, then you have abandoned the philosophy of freedom that has defined our country for the past 230 years.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:53 am
To bring out a few historical examples of violent means of entertainment, to be compared to “violent” videogames (which actually rarely include physical violence - plenty of virtual, but almost no physical).
Gladatorial matches.
Human sacrifice.
Various rites of manhood, including hanging from hooks embedded in the soon-to-be-man’s back.
War.
Duels of honor.
And the list goes on. Videogames making society violent? Our generation, the video-game generation, is the least violent to have ever appeared on this planet.
October 20th, 2006 at 9:13 am
Our generation, the video-game generation, is the least violent to have ever appeared on this planet.
A fact which is scientifically backed.
http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames
November 8th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Our generation, the video-game generation, is the least violent to have ever appeared on this planet.
A fact which is scientifically backed.
Exactlly, they say video games trains kids to kill, yet most the people I know play Halo most of the day, does that mean they like killing people, or even want to? No. Personally, I can’t stand the sight of blood, in real life. However in a videio game, the blood isn’t real, nor is the person who’s bleeding from that headshot. It’s all digital data on a screen, I can make it go away any time I want.
This is what I think most researchers fail to realize, just becuase we like seeing someone getting their head blown off on the TV doesn’t mean we want to try it in real life.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Guys, are you really doesn’t see problem?
Most of video games just hasn’t other options for player but carry weapon and kill!
Why instead of modelling, for example, some psychological relationships, games modelling only shooting at other target, causing damage? Did you understand, that words like “finish him”, “head shot” became USUAL? It’ all anti-humanistic!
If you compare any FPS with any action movie, you should notice how one-sided games are. There are no relations, that could change plot flow. Only shooting. In most games, your character will be chaotic, or self-claimed lawer. But if you are lawer, why you haven’t option to persuade enemies, or at least handcuffs them? Ever in war-time killing all enemies just because you see them could be treated as war crime.
Root of the problem is that all first games were created by programmers, and as usually, programmers are more familiar with abstract numbers that human relatuonship. Of course, it’s easy to compare “damage number” to “hitpoint number”, than, for example, effect from playing “confidently chatter” card against girl with “confused” state which she gained because her previous move was countered by “strict gaze” action.
And remember game “DOOM”. It was created nearly 20 years ago. But what changed since? Only video cards performance, not AI or gameplay. You still can’t drop your weapon and forced to go and kill.
P.S.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:38 am
Midcyver,
Although I had some difficulty reading your post, I am assuming that your main point is that there are a lack of options in-game, other than shooting and killing things. If you feel this is the case then you are playing the wrong game, or your children are. That argument is a lot like reading a murder novel set in the 20th century and asking “where are the unicorns?”
There are plenty of games that dont involve merely killing things, but some games do in fact, have killing as a theme. In such games, dropping a gun would be pointless. The player is not being “forced to go and kill”, they have elected to do so by starting the game in the first place. What’s more, they may elect at any point to turn off the game and cease playing. For the game developers to take the time to code a function allowing one to drop ones weapon would be not merely pointless, but an active waste of time and resources on their part, as well taking up valuable space in the controls screen.
January 18th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Midcyver.
I assume you never played KotOR, KotOR 2, or NwN 2. In fact, over half of the time spent in the games I mentioned is used to build friendship (or emnity), and influencing (or being influenced by) them. So much for not having a choice. And i’m not just talking about party members, either. In fact, bot KotOR 2 and NwN 2, are one of the most devious virtual personality tests I’ve encountered. KotOR 2 demands reasons for your behaviour, be it violent or otherwise.
Doom is a poor standard. Hell, that game, however critically acclaimed as it might have been, is well over 10 years old. Even if you take the closest linear descendant of it, (let’s say, Half Life 2) it’s miles ahead in concept. Not satisfied? Check out Outcast. Still not satisfied? Thief. Go play Thief 2 on expert difficulty and come back and tell me that you are forced to kill people.
If that’s not enough, how about trying SimCity? Or maybe Transport Tycoon? Do those involve headhots and killing people too?
As for the linearity of the game. Try Oblivion. Or Morrowind. No choice? Wrong. In fact, most games today shun linearity as the absolute bane of, well… gaming.
There are very, very few games out there in which violence is an end in itself. In fact, the only one blatantly violent for the sake of violence I remember is Postal. And even that is a remarkable satirical jab at, well… let’s just leave it at that. Those who played it, know.
Another thing abou the tragedy at Columbine. Everybody seems more concerned about those kids having acess to virtual guns than oh, let’s see… REAL GUNS? So, I guess those kids just took their copies of ‘Doom’ and clobbered everyone to death with them, hmm?Riiight. Then again, the right to bear arms is defended by the ever-so-right and beyond scrutiny American Constitution, eh?
January 26th, 2007 at 7:02 am
People dont play violent video games to kill. They play to complete the games objective.
When playing extremely violent gore fests such as Quake or Unreal Tournament the player plays the game to increase his frags(score) not to relish the view of the flying limbs when killing someone.
Grant theft auto - People dont play it to drive over pixelated people they do that as a condition to complete the objective and continue with the story.
You might ask why feature violence if people dont derive entertrainment from it ?, well they do games such as Doom 3 use Atmosphere and violence to trigger the same emotions youd experiance on roller cost ride e.g. arenaline, the need to test yourself.
Imagine a murder mystery book where they replaced the name of the criminal with ‘you’ would the book suddenly turn you into a murderl ? No? neither will games.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:39 am
You make great points. People at risk for violence in mainastream society will find rationalizations and excuses most anywhere. When I was young, Dungeons and Dragons were turning us all into souless Satanists and murderers. Before then, Rock and Roll was the reason our youth were becoming (?) corrupted. Before that, Comic Books were going to be the end of civilization as we knew it. Irresponsible parents will always find scapegoats to insist that they have no control over their children’s behavior.
March 17th, 2007 at 3:53 am
The sadly the ” Jenkins’s arguments in this senate hearing” link is dead.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Wow, ***, so you think you have any valid arguments? You say things like “It also teaches children that violence is the way to solve problems and it is definatly not.” Well, I have played lots of video games but I don’t think that violence solves problems.
The article may not contain any actual proofs, but your comment does not either. But anyway I find the article much more believable than your crap.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:57 am
that has to be the best argument against all those paranoid parents that i’ve ever seen
i thank you
May 18th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
I actually found a video of the scene in Night Trap that got Joe Liberman so outraged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u_eIwQhhmY
I, for one, agree with him. It is outrageous to allow our children to be exposed to such pitiful excuses for acting, let alone gameplay.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I agree that the argument of games like Street Fighter being skinned rectangles is a moot point nowadays, but it is technically true. I’ve studied this argument a lot over the years and I’m pretty sure that no one was complaining about violence back in the era of Atari games like “Tank”; this was literally a game comprised of triangles and rectangles, yet it abstactly symbolized two opposing tank drivers attempting to kill one another. It has occured to me that there is a direct correlation between realistic graphics and the fear of game-inspired violence. I think this is because when we play games with symbols, like chess, we’re visually separated from the the idea of violence as we know it (people, weapons, blood); symbols inspire us to think more left-brained (mathmatical), more about the game as a puzzle. Beginning with Wolfenstein and Mortal Kombat, graphics allowed us to start depicting humans realistically, showing the weapons, blood, and (I would argue, a very important factor) the specific emotions conveyed in victims’ faces as they’re attacked. Likewise, in games like Duke Nukem 3d and Grand Theft Auto 3, women can be depicted realistically, but the women are objectified as sex objects for the male main character to “use” at his diposal or to simply kill. As these games get closer to appearing realistic, I think they’re shifting gamers’ brains from the left-brained symbolic problem-solving to the more right-brained human-oriented subconscious. This is what scares me, personally, because, as other posters have pointed out, studies aren’t conclusive yet; the disposable nature of prostitutes (young women) in Grand Theft Auto may be subconsciously reinforcing sexual objectification of women, just as killing innocent bystanders on the sidewalk may be subconsciously reinforcing a desensitization to violence. No one yet knows, but if I were going to wager my child’s subconscious, I think I’ll err on the conservative side.
Now, just so we’re straight on this, I’ve so far talked about the subconscious. In regard to the technical subject of this debate: I’ve played all these games, and I absolutely don’t think they’ve inspired me to be physically violent. I agree with the posters who say that violent kids commit violent acts, period. I think that the majority of what shapes children is their home life, specifically their parents. Bad kids likely come from bad parents. (I also think good kids can come from bad parents, if inspired by other sources, such as amazing teachers or siblings, but I digress)
Anyway, here’s a restating of my argument:
- symbolic, abstract games (such as Tank) inspire left-brain problem-solving
- realistic graphics in games (such as GTA3) can potentially inspire right-brain desentitization to violence, subconsciously
- BUT, my guess is that no amount of abstract or realistic virtual violence will inspire a well-rounded, well-brought-up kid to even think about trying any of the same violence in real life
- BUT, that doesn’t mean that games should keep pushing the envelope of violence and blood and gore (like Silent Hill) or female objectification (GTA3) just because guns and boobs sell
- most games are extremely fun and can be amazing teaching tools. I’m a game fanactic, and I’m sure my kids will be too. But I will draw the line with what games I allow my kids to play, because, despite the fact that GTA probably won’t inspire them to run over old ladies on the sidewalk, it might subconsciously reinforce trashy thinking, tainting their innocence at a pivotal point in their psychological development. I think the game ratings are appropriate, and should be taken seriously.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Games and all free speech should, in fact, push the envelope. I fully support games with zero redeeming value in the same way that I support other free speech that I personally disagree with. The last thing we need is the government to decide what’s ok and what’s not. That said, it’s perfectly fine for you to vote with your dollar and not support GTA in the monetary sense.
“Boys will be boys,” just as always. Boys have always formed hierarchical groups and gotten out their aggressions, it’s just been further away from parents’ reach in the past. Today, it’s right under their noses in the living room with video games. Given that boys will be boys, I would much rather that they explore these aggressions with games like Mortal Kombat and slosh some red pixels around than anything they might try in the real world. So I would err on the side of allowing too many violent games, rather than too few. Violent games serve some purpose while censoring them serves no positive purpose.
We’re all still waiting for anything even semi-solid linking violent games to violent behavior. It seems common-sense that one doesn’t CAUSE the other, though they could be correlated if already violent people are looking for a game to play. In that case, again, I’d rather them have an outlet in the virtual world than the real world.
If only I still had a link to a great article showing the US crime rate over the last 20 or 30 years with marks for when the PS1, PS2, GTA3 and things like that came out. The more games, the lower the crime rate!
–Sirlin
June 5th, 2007 at 1:13 am
You mean this?
http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames
Also, read this.
http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/324354.html?thread=24326146#t24326146
June 5th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Alex, thanks. That’s exactly the article I meant. The follow up post rightly points out the less-than-academic statistical analysis of the first article, but there is still something to gained from it. Notice the lack violence spikes during the times violent games became most widespread. Also, the overall downward trend in violence is “kept secret” by arguers on the other side of the issue.
In any event, supporting free speech and the free exchange of ideas surely does far more good for a society than abridging or censoring speech, even given the “price” that goes with free speech. So I’m wildly pro supporting Rockstar’s right to make a game like GTA3 and for allowing them to sell that game without a pile of restricting laws that basically amount to censorship. Maybe that’s the wrong thing to bring up though, as I can only barely even imagine anyone willing to take up the position that Rockstar *shouldn’t* be able to make and sell GTA3.
–Sirlin
June 5th, 2007 at 9:10 am
I do appreciate free speech, and the fact that America was founded on it. Developers should definitely be free to make whatever kind of game they wish. I don’t think anyone should stop them from making games, but I wonder: why make games with such smutty content? For the sake of free speech? In developing my own game (rpg), I’m considering what life lessons can be learned through it, as though it were a book or movie. Games might not be molding our kids completely, but they are sending messages. I just think that GTA3 isn’t contributing to our culture in any positive way. It’s causing an upset, but not one which can revolutionize any way of thinking. For example, Gore Vidal was the commencement speaker at my graduation; he is famous for creating an uproar in the fifties when he published a play which depicted homosexuality. Conservatives went wild at the time, but he was simply helping to cast a positive light on a discriminated lifestyle, which has definitely helped move society’s perspective towards tolerance, understanding and equality. Conversely, GTA3 is helping move society’s perspective on women towards objectification, the opposite of equality. (I’m realizing that I’m more concerned with the prostitutes in GTA3 than the violence; because GTA3 - prostitutes = Twisted Metal + Need For Speed 3)
Perhaps it’s true that violent video games are merely a safe outlet for aggression (which would be wonderful! I hope so!) but would you also argue that they’re an outlet for lust? Being male and heterosexual, I would argue that sex appeal is infectous in the male, testosterone-driven mind, and spreads like wildfire. The more we see, the more we want. I would just be curious about other kinds of studies related to GTA3, such as: as these men grow up, are they abusive towards their spouses? Are they more apt to cheat? What kinds of behaviors are learned through these games which may surface later in life?
I know I sound like such a conservative minister/senator/know-nothing, but truthfully, I’m just a kid, a video game dork entering his early twenties, concerned about the consequences of unbridled freedom. I think there’s freedom of speech on one side of the spectrum, and safety on the other side. Again, freedom of speech is necessary, and without it, we wouldn’t have meaningful revolutions in how we collectively think. You said, “In any event, supporting free speech and the free exchange of ideas surely does far more good for a society than abridging or censoring speech, even given the “price” that goes with free speech.” But sometimes, the “price” of freedom of speech can disrupt one’s pursuit of happiness. For instance, I don’t think that internet child predators coming to those children’s homes is a balanced “price” for freedom of speech. I understand that children should be warned about the dangers of shaing personal information, but as you say, “boys will be boys”, and likewise, kids will be kids, and not always heed these warnings. If there were less freedom of speech, there would probably be less kids getting kidnapped and raped.
Freedom of speech isn’t a total, perfect rule anyway. It’s illegal to yell “Fire!” in a public place when there’s no fire. Why? Because it’s dangerous. Freedom is nice until it’s taken so far as to cause rioting crowds for no good reason.
I’m not trying to stop games like GTA3 from getting made, I’m trying to question why they’re being made, and bring up concerns about the consequences of freedom.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:19 am
“The consequences of freedom” shouldn’t be an argument in favor of letting someone else restrict it for you. I’d rather ignore a person who is speaking than trust someone else to decide whether that person should be speaking at all. And…kids getting kidnapped and raped because of freedom of speech–that was just a proofreading error, yeah?
June 6th, 2007 at 8:58 am
I’m not in favor of restriction. I’m in favor of tasteful products.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Also, I read the articles, and despite the connection that they attempt to make between “the playstation generation” and lower teen crime, that’s quite the stretch to assume that they must be linked, just as the article suggests that one might assume operas make people rich. I might wager that, if 2004 had the lowest teen crime rate in forty years, it might be, rather than prostitute-killing games keeping kids off the streets, that it’s actually the thousands of after-school programs, anti-drug and anti-violence programs which have sprung up all over the country. Just a guess, which is of course as valid as anyone else’s.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Adam, you are unusually thoughtful for someone on the internet who mildly disagrees with something.
Freedom of speech is a harder concept than most people give it credit for, I think. When you look at it hard, you see that bad kinds of speech can have a real negative impact on people’s lives, so maybe it doesn’t sound like such a good idea anymore. But I would argue that if you look even harder, there is really no other reasonable way to do things. You really, really, really don’t want a government deciding what’s ok to say. And you really do want all the great things that happen when people can freely communicate any crazy way they want. So suffering through the bad speech goes with the territory. It’s unfortunate, but I don’t know what to tell you. It’s inherent in the concept and on the whole produces a better society than you could otherwise get, or at least I think so.
Incidentally, yelling fire in a crowded theater isn’t so important to focus on here. Yeah, if your speech directly and foreseeably causes violence and doesn’t even express any viewpoint at all, but is purely to cause people to die, then yeah we say that has crossed the line. That is a line that is no where even close to real violence that a violent video game may or may not indirectly cause.
Regarding GTA3 specifically, I think you are far too harsh on it. If we can get past “should it be allowed” (yes, it should) and get more into “does it have any value?” then I would say it definitely does. For one, it really launched the notion of “sandbox games.” Sure there were other games you might put in that category that came before, but GTA3 really crystallized it. For that alone, I say it is one of the landmark games in the industry’s history.
I was at some game conference somewhere where Will Wright was spoke. He talked about how he thought players are much better than people realize at figuring out the underlying structure of a game. Like, does the game basically offer you a linear track? Does it have a few branching options? He talked about how The Sims gives you quite a lot of options (it’s a simulation game, after all). He also said they found very unexpectedly that the catalog of items you can buy is the main thing that let players learn the underlying structure of how all the variables worked and so forth.
Anyway, a woman in the audience said to Will, “You are so right that The Sims gives the player a so many options about how to play the game. I have never seen any other game so flexible like this. Are there any other such games?” Will Wright said, “You won’t like the answer, but the best game for this is Grand Theft Auto 3.” The woman’s face turned white at this scandalous statement.
GTA3 is a simulation, sandbox world that lets you do a lot of things from ambulance missions, to taxi driving, to car crashing and evading police. Can you imagine how sucky of a game it would be if you had to drive in your lane and obey traffic lights? I mean, go try to actually play it like that and you’ll see what I mean. It lets you just do anything you want! What a fantasy! And what happens when you do any old damn thing you want? The cops come after you harder and harder until they become impossible to avoid. I really don’t think anything’s wrong with that. Maybe something’s right about it.
Another point: I have seen screenshots of people doing horrible things in GTA. But those screenshots aren’t so much a reflection of the game; they are a reflection of the person who took the screenshot! Imagine when we have a holodeck like in Star Trek and someone takes a screenshot of that showing some horrible thing you can do in there. Is that a problem with holodecks? I think it just holds up a mirror to the player. If that mirror shows some horrible fantasies, well, maybe that’s something to look into. Maybe you can learn something about yourself when you get a chance to act out fantasies in a safe virtual environment.
Finally, the point about hookers in GTA. I have to start by pointing out that in 20 years this point will be quite a joke if people look back at GTA3 and it’s low poly-count hooker models where the car rocks back and forth without even showing any sex at all. It’s so primitive. But you could say, “Sure, but my point still stands in a future version of the game that looks hyper-real,” so I still have to answer. My answer is that in the course of actually playing the game (not reading about it, or listening to what senators say about it, but actually playing it) I find that hookers are less than 1% of the experience. They are a minor detail in the grand scheme of this simulation game. The main mechanic is driving, not sex. A complaint about car-jacking would be far more relevant than a complaint about women, in my opinion.
It looks like some people are really fixed on these GTA hookers though, and again, that doesn’t tell me much about GTA (which is less than 1% hooker) but it tells me a whole lot about whoever said it! When given all these things to do, apparently that person was most interested in beating up hookers.
I am all for making an rpg that makes a positive contribution to the world, and I have spent time planning just such a game (though I prefer to call it an anti-rpg, but that’s another story). That said, I am pro GTA. Incidentally, the things I would personally try to teach in an (anti)rpg would be very controversial, but in my opinion, good for the world. So if my game someday comes to be, I’d sure hope that some GTA developers would return my favors and remind everyone how important free speech is, too. ;)
–Sirlin
June 6th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I thank you Sirlin for so respectfully and constructively debating. I like you, and let it be known that I have read all your other articles and I think they are genius, must-reads for game developers.
I am definitely familiar with the sandbox freedom of GTA3 (and Vice City). I never owned them, but my best friend in high school did, and we spent many nights playing them, running around killing people for the sake of killing people, and having a great laugh about it. I used to love coaxing police cars down into the subway, then hijacking them and stacking them in the path of the oncoming subway train. I really used to get into it, screaming “Kill! Kill!” to get my buddy laughing even harder. Great fun. And oooo, the tanks!
Of course, I know what you mean about the prostitutes comprising about 1% of the game. They were totally unimportant, and I never bothered with them. So I’m just wondering, why did Rockstar include them? Because they could of course: freedom. But if they weren’t even in the game, I’d probably feel better about the game overall. Before GT3 I owned and mastered Duke Nukem 3d, Mortal Kombat, Twisted Metal, Silent Hill. I’m glad I played them, but I’m glad I played them at an appropriate age (as in, not 8). It’s just that, all the things that make those games so controversial, are usually things that comprised 1% of the game, and could have easily been done without. Twisted Metal could’ve done without pedestrians (and still be an awesome car-shooting game), Mortal Kombat could’ve done without the flesh-tearing fatalities (the SNES version didn’t include blood, if I remember correctly), Duke definitely could’ve done without the strippers (though it probably wouldn’t have stood out and made as much (cheap) money), and Silent Hill could’ve been scarier without mutilated corpses hanging from barbed wire everywhere. To me, the scariest things about Silent Hill were the demon babies emerging from the dark school hallways, the radio static of nearing creatures, and a moment in a locker room when a locker bursts open and a cat jumps out. Likewise, I don’t know if you’ve seen Pan’s Labyrinth, but I thought the same thing: great story, but way too much graphic violence. I don’t need to see people’s faces being smashed in with pointy glass. I covered my eyes at many points in that film because I didn’t want to be having such horrific nightmares for the rest of my life. I very much disagree with the poster who thought the best thing parents can do is show kids as much graphic violence as possible, as early as possible. No, sorry, I could hardly watch Jurassic Park when I was eight without having a panic attack, but now it’s my favorite movie. I don’t think I was ready for it at eight. Apparently some people agree with me, and that’s why it’s rated PG-13. They could’ve thrown in more blood and guts and made it R-rated to make it more hardcore, but they didn’t have to. In fact, there’s really hardly any blood at all (besides goat leg); even Muldoon’s death-by-raptor is obscured by leaves (in my opinion, a fine idea). Likewise, I bet GTA3, without prostitutes, could’ve been rated T for Teens, like Twisted Metal. Then perhaps it would’ve been carried by Wal-mart too. I guess I’m considering it kind of like a test. Can comedians crop racial stereotypes out of their routines and still be funny? Doesn’t that make them more funny, fundamentally? Can bands crop out swears and still produce amazing songs? Can games crop out their gratutitous material, and still be great games? The answer is yes. Unless they rely so heavily on surface smut that that’s their only selling point, like a bad comic book with a busty girl on the cover. I think developers should be asking, how can we make a great game which avoids using cheap tricks for money’s sake? If you were the developer, wouldn’t you feel better knowing that people like your game because it’s a great game, rather than because you purposefully made it controversial to boost its hype?
June 6th, 2007 at 11:16 am
P.S. That cool smiley face was an accident, I meant for it to say ( as in, not 8 ), but it connected the 8 and the ), and bam, I look like I’m trying to be all cool. Oops!
June 6th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
I hope I’ve made an argument about why GTA should be allowed to be made and sold, and about why it actually has some value. Now we’re down to the 1% of the game about hookers, lol. I don’t know to say other than “it is what it is.” It surely got some attention and a lot of sales, so that’s why it’s there. If you want to criticize a game for doing X just to get sales, then you’re opening the door to a whole LOT of things. Perhaps even MOST games in their entirety. Why did they make the Pirates of the Caribbean game at all? Some artistic merit or statement? No, it was to 100% to make money off the movie. That actually offends me more than hookers in GTA, if you can believe it. At least GTA is a pretty fun game, but most games out there are transparent grasps for cash and little more.
I think Pan’s Labyrinth is an absolute masterpiece. I would go as far as to say best non-documentary film of the year. It’s almost shocking how strong of a point it’s making, as I’m used to films with almost no message. Anyway, I’m sure you know the message is one of anti-authority. It even goes so far as to show that standing by and allowing blind authority to commit crimes is wrong: you have a duty to do something to stop the serious suffering of others. The use of violence seemed integral, maybe one of the most justified uses of violence for a point in recent years. Or at least that was my take.
I’m not sure there is much of a debate here, really. Even though I got a lot out of Pan’s Labyrinth, you can just make a game with no violence or hookers that contributes positively to the world. I would personally incorporate violence in my anti-rpg though, to shine a light on how authoritarian dictators rule, and how much of a crime it is.
–Sirlin
June 6th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Oh yeah, last note: GTA *is* sold at Walmart. I think Walmart’s policy is “stuff we sell must conform to our religious values…unless it can sell a shitload.”
June 7th, 2007 at 12:13 am
My bad on the GTA WalMart thing… What game is it that they refuse to carry?
On the topic of Pan’s Labyrinth, I simply think I could’ve gotten the same message, and felt it just as deeply, but while obscuring (not cropping out, just obscuring) the face-mashing. It would help my imagination, if anything. Again, like in Jurassic Park, when the fenced raptors kill the cow; we saw none of that, just people’s grossed out reactions, and then a skeleton on a crane. I’m left to fill in the blanks, but the message is still inherant.
You said the message of Pan’s Labyrinth is “You have a duty to do something to stop the serious suffering of others”, which I agree is a great message. Sometimes you should stop dictators from killing people, and sometimes you should stop people from saying things that cause suffering. Recently, Michael Richards (Kramer) exploded with racial slurs at a comedy club, which caused a lot of people to suffer.
In the same regard, I think Disney’s kid-oriented chatroom/virtual world “Virtual Magic Kingdom” (VMK) is genius for implementing a dictionary of usuable words to use in chat. Kids need a place where they can speak safely, without being bombarded with racial, sexual, or other slurs that can deeply affect them and hurt them.
It’s been quite a good discussion (at least I’ve enjoyed it), but I imagine that our opposite viewpoints will never compromise, and that we’ll be in stalemate forever. With that said, I’ll reiterate that I think you’re a smart cookie, and I look forward to your future game design articles.
Peace, freedom fighter
June 7th, 2007 at 1:07 am
It’s not much of a disagreement, Adam. We seem to agree that people should be able to make these games and movies that say things we don’t personally like (or at least I think we do). It’s just that you don’t personally like some of them that I do. Isn’t that just an artistic call? I don’t like the movie Get Shorty, for example. Maybe you do. That’s not much to argue about. You can’t really fault an artist like the creator of Pan’s Labyrinth for implementing his vision a bit differently than you would have implemented it. That’s why it’s his movie, and that’s why you should write your own line in the cosmic play.
Oh, and when you do, someone will come along and say they don’t like the way you did it. But who cares really, because someone somewhere will always say that no matter what you do.
–Sirlin
June 7th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Well, I think there is a difference between liking something artistically, like the color red, versus liking something which causes suffering, like racial slurs.
Sure, our forefathers had some great ideas, they loved freedom, great. But sometimes their ideas of freedom superceded the freedom & happiness of others, like say, slaughtering Native Americans, and kidnapping Africans to use as slaves. That’s what I call greedy freedom, or insensitivity.
Freedom of speech was founded on good intentions. Like, hey, we didn’t like it when we couldn’t critique the king, so over here in America, let’s be allowed to critique everything! Great, that helps to make sure that no leader takes advantage of the people, so the people don’t suffer. But being allowed to verbally abuse people doesn’t help anyone or prevent suffering. It’s just insensitive. It just hurts.
I think another message of Pan’s Labyrinth is that a person has a duty to think for themself. One might consider it actually blindly traditional and conservative to support a set of rules established so long ago, when African Americans were enslaved and women couldn’t vote and were getting burned at the stake left and right.
I just graduated from an art school. In our critiques, we weren’t allowed to say that someone’s piece “sucks”. All that would lead to would be hurt feelings. Instead, we constructively and humbly pointed out design flaws, and talked about how they could be better orchestrated. And of course we could talk about their strengths. This was a peaceful way of communicating.
At this school, I had a particular teacher who preached about how insulting people and ideas was just bad practice. He’s right. It doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t help anything.
In the comments proceeding your Suspense article, one poster called you an “idiot” before explaining his alternate reasoning for why Silent Hill was scarier. I don’t think that insult was appropriate or necessary, but I do think that the constructive debate of citing examples was fine. Because really, the victim of an insult is just going to become angry and put up a wall, and be less likely to listen to what could be a smart counterargument. Insults hinder communication. Constructive communication of ideas is what we should strive for.
I think it’s important for people to question for themselves why they think uninhibited speech is important now, versus why it was important hundreds of years ago.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:16 am
(I tried to leave this comment 2 days ago, but it hasn’t let me… sorry if the comment repeats)
I think there is a difference between liking something artistically, like the color red, versus liking something which causes suffering, like racial slurs.
Sure, our forefathers had some great ideas, they loved freedom, great. But sometimes their ideas of freedom superceded the freedom & happiness of others, like say, slaughtering Native Americans, and kidnapping Africans to use as slaves. That’s what I call greedy freedom, or insensitivity.
Freedom of speech was founded on good intentions. Like, hey, we didn’t like it when we couldn’t critique the king, so over here in America, let’s be allowed to critique everything! Great, that helps to make sure that no leader takes advantage of the people, so the people don’t suffer. But being allowed to verbally abuse people doesn’t help anyone or prevent suffering. It’s just insensitive. It just hurts.
I think another message of Pan’s Labyrinth is that a person has a duty to think for themself. One might consider it actually blindly traditional and conservative to support a set of rules established so long ago, when African Americans were enslaved and women couldn’t vote and were getting burned at the stake left and right.
I just graduated from an art school. In our critiques, we weren’t allowed to say that someone’s piece “sucks”. All that would lead to would be hurt feelings. Instead, we constructively and humbly pointed out design flaws, and talked about how they could be better orchestrated. And of course we could talk about their strengths. This was a peaceful way of communicating.
At this school, I had a particular teacher who preached about how insulting people and ideas was just bad practice. He’s right. It doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t help anything.
In the comments proceeding your Suspense article, one poster called you an “idiot” before explaining his alternate reasoning for why Silent Hill was scarier. I don’t think that insult was appropriate or necessary, but I do think that the constructive debate of citing examples was fine. Because really, the victim of an insult is just going to become angry and put up a wall, and be less likely to listen to what could be a smart counterargument. Insults hinder communication. Constructive communication of ideas is what we should strive for.
I think it’s important for people to question for themselves why they think uninhibited speech is important now, versus why it was important hundreds of years ago.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
I am a 17 year old boy attending my local high school.
According to many of these accusations, people who play violent video games, have the lowest grade averages. This is of course, completely un-true. I myself am an honour role student with a grade average of 86.9% at the current time. 2 of my freinds are also on the honour roll, and several of the remainder are quite close. We all play violent video games, sometimes up to 10 hours, straight through the night. Mainly these games consist of Halo2, Killzone, and our favorite to date, Gears of War. This exposure to such violence should, according to all research, make us the most violent and delinquent students in our school. Those scientist would expect to find our names in the morning news about a horrific shooting in our school.
Of course, no teenage male can go through high school without throwing or blocking a punch. I have only had one fight to date, with my own brother, which we ended up laughing about less than an hour afterwards.
I have seen absolutely no evidence that playing violent games for extended periods causes anything more than sore wrists. So much for those scientists “30 hour lab tests.”
August 24th, 2007 at 1:35 am
What exactly could they do to video games to make them more “Violent”. What is considered violent by the people. Almost every first person game made within the 06-07 years have enemies that can be completely torn apart by a weapon. Gears if War is a good example. So is a game called Soldat. Oh yeah that little gem called Unreal. Its “violent” I believe the only way games can get more “Violent” is by the cut-scenes and CGI sequences. They are like watching a movie. But of course I digress. We are talking about a
video game
–noun
1. any of various games played using a microcomputer with a keyboard and often joysticks to manipulate changes or respond to the action or questions on the screen.
2. any of various games played using a microchip-controlled device, as an arcade machine or hand-held toy.
Also called electronic game.
What does that mean. It means you control it. Thats what people are worried about, so how much more real can it get. As I said before these CGI sequences are becoming so good that they look a movie. If you ask me, that is the only thing that can get more “violent” due to its realism.
BTW if I remember correctly most games such as GoW and Halo have a something called an ESRB Rating which only allows a certain age group to buy the game. It sounds to me like people who disagree with the “violence” in video games are worried that 12-13 year old kids are playing GTA:SA. But for the kids to get these games their is a middle man. Who is that you ask? Ummmm….. The Parent. If you worried about the game then follow these steps. 1.) Look ate ESRB Rating. 2A.)Tell your damn kid that he cant have the game. 2B.)He/She can have it. But dont come bitching at Sirlins wonderful blog. KTHXBYE
If some are confused about my comment. It has nothing to do with Sirlins or the other peoples opinion. If anything its taking Sirlins point and taking it to my thinking and thats it. I do agree with Sirlin 100 percent. Wish I could say the same for some of these damn liberals making ridiculous comments
October 8th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Hmm, someone is confused.
Liberal thinking is equal more or less freedom of whatever.
Liberalism = personal freedom, bar nothing.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
how can you possibly say quake/DM is not that strategic. It’s the sickest game ever created, and it’s still played on a highly unevolved/simplistic/unbalanced design (players just spawn, with nothing, in a ‘jungle’. The only thought to gameplay basically goes into this playfield’s structure and resources). I will agree that because of this design it doesn’t offer that many fluctuations. But theres still enough tactical playing and switching up depending on game situations, and the aim mechanics themselves take years to hone and are 100% strategy, and i shouldn’t need to get started on the geometry involved in the game, much less about a dozen other things. It’s the most skillful game there is with an unreal high ceiling of skill that hasn’t even been close to being reached (too many players B+ certain attributes but fall short on others).
Thanks to stupid games like halo, and off-handed carefree/narrowminded impressions such as yours here, you won’t see any evolutions in it anytime soon.
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Quake isn’t “strategic” because there’s no strategy to it. You spawn, get a weapon (or die), run around (or die) and then kill somebody (or die) until you get killed…or die.
And Quake isn’t meant to be strategic. It’s supposed to be somebody running around and shooting people. And you can’t honestly say that accuracy is in any way tied to strategy. Neither is being able to Ocelot your shots.
None of that makes it a bad game. But in terms of actual strategy, as in planning, prioritizing and measuring risk vs. reward, it falls laughably short of games like Team Fortress 2, Rainbow Six or even Halo.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:34 am
I think the biggest problem with this whole debate is that, bottom line, people just DON’T KNOW. On the one hand, violent people DO commit violent acts, but on the other hand, what’s to say that certain factors (like violent video games, for example) can’t incite non-violent kids to do the same? I’ve heard of research that supports both sides of the issue, which basically means that we still don’t know. People are frantically grasping at little shreds of “evidence” and then saying “Look, look, see? The research proves my point!” This is one of those things that will take quite some time to really pin down, or we may never discover the truth, period. I personally believe that it would be impossible to completely crack the mystery behind human psychology and all that, and thus I also believe that it would be impossible to make a case for or against violent video games based on the “research” that’s going on.