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.

Comments

A human in the vehicle

[henrik]

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.

Re:A human in the vehicle

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

In a free society you should be able to manufacture and play whatever games you like.

Unless I'm missing something, he's not saying anything contrary to this. He's saying that Atari had a particular guideline, not that the government had a law. Also he's pointing out (correctly) that we can point at these violent games and say that they are harmful and should be shunned -- after all he is just excercising his freedom of speech here.

A lot of laws don't make sense, but a little social reproach can go a long way toward affecting positive change. If drug addicts were shunned like lepers (instead of being glorified through film and books), it would probably go further to reduce drug usage that the stack of penal code we currently have written.

Re:A human in the vehicle

[Henry V .009]

No, not my morality, actually. Any morality at all would be kind of nice. I am a great fan of Asian culture. Judaism possesses an admirable morality. I find Islamic politics disgusting and evil, but I love the warmth and basic hospitality that they have as a people. Christianity is the morality of the culture I was born in, however, and that's the one I'll fight for here. I'd expect other cultures to fight for their own as well.

The American fertility rate is 2.08. The non-Hispanic white American fertility rate is 1.84 (in 1998, I believe from the same CDC study that found the total 2.08 figure). That's far better than the European rate of 1.4. Japan has a worse rate than either.

Now, in Japan, population decline will probably stop well before population hits zero. And because Japan is not importing vast numbers of immigrants to solve its population problem, it will probably maintain its culture. The problems it will face because of population decline will be primarily economic.

In the U.S., it is the Hispanic birth rate that almost entirely makes up for the sub-replacement white birthrate. By 2050, the majority white American population will be a minority and still shrinking. I don't have a problem with Hispanic culture. But I'm not eager to see it replace my own. (Utah is the big exception to the American demographic trend with a fertility rate of 2.71 -- Mormons, you know. Without Mormons, the white trend would be far bleaker.) Moreover, immigration not only increases population, but immigrants currently bring with them a far higher birth rate than our current one. The comparative immigration to native birth rate ratio is far higher than it has ever been in America (since Columbus, that is). And we all know how much fun the natives had after Columbus.

In Europe, of course, the demographic picture is far worse. And Europe is importing the difference from the Islamic world. There is no word for it but replacement. And it's a demographic event that is completely unprecedented.

If you want a better discussion of the figures than I have provided (and with a bibliography and all the fun stuff), check out Buchanan's The Death of the West. You may not agree with his politics, but he does lay out the demographic picture rather well.

it had to be said...

[Anonymous Coward]

Entertainment is often controversial. Whether one is speaking of stage productions, film, television, novels, or computer games, one often runs the risk that certain individuals will leap to the conclusion that the existence of negative behavior, self-destructive actions, and antisocial characters proves the approval of such behavior or characters. If there is to be conflict in a story, film, or game, there have to be bad guys. Bad guys make the art forms more interesting and the victory more satisfying.

In computer games, the gamer wants to experience and cause the results, not merely watch or hear. The easiest way to allow the gamer to cause the results is to build in cause and effect contingencies. Unfortunately, portraying violence and its reprehensible aftermath is the easiest and most commonly used means to give the gamer this opportunity to directly cause something to happen on the screen.

No, not against a human...

[tgrotvedt]

But what about all those aliens coming to Earth that only wanted to share their knowledge and love of flying in formation with us? Huh? Insensitive bastard...

Blowing Up Tanks

[patch-rustem]

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.

That's seems like some really relaxed rules you had. Where I work in the UK, the health and safety guy has banned us from blowing up anything.

Probably not a lie

[Sangloth]

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.

Re:Lies!

[robbway]

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!

Re:Custer's Revenge

[bigbigbison]

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.