Nolan Bushnell Condemns Grand Theft Auto
Thanks to Newsweek for their extremely short, but somewhat illuminating mini-interview with Nolan Bushnell, timed to coincide with this weekend's Classic Gaming Expo in Las Vegas. The founder of Atari and creator of the RoboCat briefly summarizes Atari's glory days: "Since we were so limited with graphics then, we had to focus on gameplay", but is dismissive of today's violent titles, saying: "I don't like the ones that glorify antisocial behavior, like Grand Theft Auto and Vice City. We actually had a rule at Atari, which seems kind of quaint now, that you could blow up a tank, a plane, a car - but you couldn't do violence against a human." There are more complete interviews with Bushnell archived at the San Jose Tech Museum site and at Joystick101.org.
There is usually a human in the tank, plane and car. So I do not see the reason for this double standards. In a free society you should be able to manufacture and play whatever games you like. Anything else is a serious limitation of the basic human rights.
I guess Gunfighter was an exception to that rule, then (A game where two cowboys try to shoot at each other). And don't get me started on the violence of Human Cannonball. :)
I worked for Nolan Bushnell at uWink, very quickly I heard his complaints about the excessive violence of first person shooters. His opinion never strayed. He praised non-violent games, and was disgusted with violent ones.
A quick look at the games uWink has should show his outlook. All the games uWink has are non-violent. The only games which could be an exception was Scarab and Baloon Popper, and they were:
A) Not in the least bit bloody.
B) Part of the Software aquired from Playnet. While Playnet technically had Nolan's name on it, it didn't have his active involvment like uWink.
All the games created by uWink don't even have a hint of meanness in them. They are all like Pong in spirit, in that they deal with falling blocks, cards, or mental puzzles. These are the types of games that Nolan wanted to create. If there was a bloody Atari game, it was probably created after the point where Nolan lost control.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
That was the game of Outlaw. It was manufactured by Atari and mimicked arcade games of the same theme. I had to make sure there was nothing in the manual about robot gunslingers, and there isn't. It's definitely human murdering human.
Various other people-killing games were not by Atari. It's commented further down about Custer's Revenge and such. They don't count. However, the Circus Atari and Sky Diver games had the people go splat if they hit the ground.
I guess violence against people is a sliding scale, after all. However, in a game where human peril is part of the action, isn't it appropriate to show the consequences? If not, you get the Tom & Jerry effect (spoofed on Simpsons by Itchy and Scratchy) where people complain about examples of violence with no consequences. I think all this proves is that people will complain about games for the sake of complaining.
Lemonade? Please!
Atari didn't have a licencing program or any lock-out chips like nintendo, therefore anyone coupld make atari games without asking permission. atari did not make custer's revenge. i'm sure that bushnell was talking about games the he or his companies made, not games that were made for his company's hardware.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players