Slashdot Mirror
Twenty-five Years at the Heart of Gaming
Andrew Leonard writes "Salon has a loooong interview with Eugene Jarvis, the creator of legendary arcade video games Defender and Robotron, up today. Jarvis talks about why he is pro-emulators, anti-Grand Theft Auto, still focused on arcade games, and deeply worried about terrorism. It's a good read, even if you have to watch a ten second ad to get access."
I know plenty of people who play violent games and dont commit "crimes"... this means there is something else at work if it insprires people to kill people and steal cars. dont take away my freedoms because some kid has problems and cant handle the game... spend your energy to help the kids who grow up in poor homes and upbringings.
This isn't meant to be a troll post, but hasn't every generation said this about the newest generation? I remember my parents being concerned at the violence in the video games I was playign in the early 80's.
My parents told me stories when their parents were concerned about the music that they were listening to.
I'm not a fan of GTA, nor any of the games that are similar. I'm not tring to defend GTA. I just think that we are too quick to say that it is because of the video games in our childrens lives that cause them to became so desensitized to the world.
Just my thoughts. Flame suit is on.
But it's NOT a young audience. The audience has grown up.
Links even a year or two old, I saw more recent demographics from neilson that had even more in the 18-25 category.
Anyhow, fact is, the big money is in that 18-25 year old male demographic. That's where the money is.
GTA has an M rating. Parents know what this means.
The old-school plots and family-friendly characters are still around in droves. Sonic, Mario, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Rayman, etc, etc..
But the simple fact is, that now there is a very large adult audience for video games. Those of us who grew up playing Adventure and Pitfall are still around, just older.
GTAs appeal was its immersive environment and sense of humor, btw, not simply over-the-top violence, titles of which are a dime a dozen.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Tradewars!
Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.
If you lack the ability to monitor and care for your children in a manner that you see fit, then don't have kids.
I grew up playing video games, hey, news flash, there were some pretty gorey games out there even back in the day if you knew where to look. I remember one I used to play called Speed Racer? Or somesuch, you ran over little old ladies. *splock*
Haha. It's a game, stupid. You filled in the violent details in your head back then. I'm a responsible member of society, I fully accept responsibility for my actions, I vote, I have a University degree, and I love playing GTA. For that matter, I drink beer to excess too!
Keep your ghoulier-than-thou hands off my video games and monitor what your children do. Teach your children to have minds of their own and to think critically rather than worrying about a video game. Maybe the reason there are so many irresponsible people out there is nobody explains the whole concequences-for-your-own-actions thing? Because it's the state's fault for LETTING me get these evil drugs and noodie-pics and video games. It's not my fault!
I like violent fiction and horror movies, too. There are some pretty offensive "holy" books out there too, at least to my sensibilities. Censorship is EVIL. You get to control your kids until they're 16 or so. Have fun.
I don't even bother playing the game in GTA. I laugh my ass off driving around running over people. I know I'm not the only one out there either! *haha* It's ENTERTAINMENT.
Don't you have a people-against-funny-cartoons meeting to attend, or something?
..don't panic
And then there is Nethack...
Always was and still is addictive as crack.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Blasting invaders from space is one thing; a game that lets you steal a car and run over the owner or murder prostitutes is over the line.
This logic is kind of disappointing. The parent and the article take issue with violence in games; however, Pitfall Harry being eaten by an alligator in low resolution or the mass shootings taking place on the "show" 'Smash TV' somehow make it an acceptable form of violence?
Is not a killing or "murder" always violent and a death someone's "life" regardless of the quality level of the image?
I find it a tad hypocritical to suggest the violence in NARC was acceptable because your character was "justified"; while the violence in GTA is an affront to society because the lead character is a "villain".
Violence is violence regardless of the level or the one perpetrating the act. The real point is to remember that you are playing a game.
Does it stike anyone else what a hypocritical fuck this guy is? He's not against advocating massive, cruel forms of violence in his video games--he just wants a hollow, conservative, Reganesque (his words) justification for doing it, which apparently "Grand Theft Auto" doesn't neatly provide.
This is whitewashing morals to a disgusting degree--the games he's making aren't any less violent or graphic than Grand Theft Auto--it's just more ok if you say "you're defending your country!" at the beginning of the game before you start the slaughter. What bullshit.
Exactly. It's similar to that concept, where "NARC" was you're going after the drug dealers in a very Reagan-esque way. The motto was: "Say no, or die!" That was a lot of fun. Here, you're defending America. It's funny, the marketing guys were saying, "Well, you know, we can't put the White House in there. That's just not going to work." And I go: "You know what? Do you have a problem defending your country? Maybe you need a new country." It's almost like we don't realize how lucky we are and what an easy life we have here in America and all the great things we have. Yet, it seems like we're not even willing to defend our country.
He's kidding here, right? He's just joking? He's not actually saying "gosh, the best way to defend America in the 80's was to randomly shoot drug dealers?" I loved NARC. It was an amazing game. But how can he criticize GTA for violence and depravity? Even if you think drugs should be illegal, what you did to them in NARC wasn't exactly "due process."
I'm mis-reading this somehow, right?
If you lack the ability to monitor and care for your children in a manner that you see fit, then don't have kids.
... there are no excuses to not have kids anymore. If you don't want to quit your job to care for your own offspring, then don't! We've got daycare, live-in-nannies, gangs, and community programs. Now, parents need not sacrifice their freedoms and professional lives just to get bogged down with the boring, menial task of raising one's own children. Heck, with all the video games and TV channels we have available now, kids practically raise themselves!
<TONGUE-IN-CHEEK>
Nonsense! This is the 21st century, for crying out loud. We have government programs, daycare, surrogacy, artificial insemination, adoption, gene therapy, genetic counseling, selective fetal termination,
When I think back of how my family had to give up caviar and luxury cars and only live off one salary so my Mom could stay home and raise me, I'm filled with sadness. Think of all the fun times with shallow fellow corporate slaves that she missed out on to sit around and watch me grow up. If only we'd had MTV and Nintendo when I were young.
Parents today shouldn't have to trade in their Mercedes SUV and GSM cellphone and downsize from their 4-bedroom mansion and live off of one salary! BOTH parents can continue working as long as they want, and need only interact with their kids for a couple hours a day! I mean, after a long day at work, who has the energy to quiz a kid over the basic algebra they're studying for tomorrow's test? Can't someone else do it?
Can't someone else raise our kids? In this day and age - yes!
<TONGUE-IN-CHEEK>
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Exactly, the problem isn't video games. Its parents who dont belive they should have to have any form of interaction with their kids. I grew up with D&D, quake, duke nukem, and tons of war games. I am fine. My parents made a point of explaining the difference between fantasy and reality. Fantasy was me ninja kicking down the small tree outside. Reality was me doing hard labor in the yard for 6 straight weekends to pay for that tree.
No, Keen is NOT abandonware. If you download the full version, you are participating in illegal warez, and this is one of my hugest pet-peeves with the gaming industry.
Does anyone actually pay $20 freaking dollars for Commander Keen these days? There are so many good games out there that stupidly can't be distributed as abandonware because of paranoid companies. They're not making money on these old games any more, so why the fuss?!
I just don't understand why more companies can't realize that by demanding hard cash for >15-year-old games, they're only shunning the people who love them the most. That, and they'll probably go elsewhere & find a warez copy for free.
Oh we got trouble, right here in River City. They'll be listening to ragtime, talkin' about horse race gamblin'. Not a wholesome old trottin' race, no! But a race where they sit right down on the horse! Like to see some stuck up jockey boy sittin' on Dan Patch, make your blood boil.
Mass hysteria!
Yeah, we've been here and done this before. Strauss's waltzes, now virtually the epitome of staid music for old people, was once considered the ultimate in youthful depravity. The violin and the pennywhistle were banned by the church at one time as being depraved instruments because women were unable to resist their allure and might be prone to wiggle to their tunes.
On the other hand beating up a temple whore would have been considered a holy act in the right time and place. Thou shalt not suffer the witch to live.
Depravity depends a good deal on the mind viewing the act. In the words of Tom Lehrer, "When correctly viewed, everything is lewd."
Worrying about virtual depravity is silly. If anything it acts, on the whole, as an outlet and thus prevents more meatspace depravity then it could ever cause.
But you can't point to events that didn't happen so the one nutcase who does something becomes a big deal.
KFG
... I don't get this. Okay, let's accept the fact that this person once made a few popular arcade games. Check. That was before my time so I'll just have to trust Salon.com on this and whoever else on here thinks the same. Fair enough, so 25 years later he's still running around and respected as the technological father of some of the most ancient yet best arcade games. Okay then!
Then we end up in the present. While his previous work is worthy of respect, for sure, I think all that respect has been completely shattered by this interview. Read the paragraphs about his latest game called "Target: Terror". First of all, it just screams out that he just plans to ride along the wave and hype created by 9/11. I can imagine someone wanting to make a game about the US kicking some terrorist ass. I suppose that's being patriotic and that's what you US people supposedly revel in. Fine with me so far. However, slapping a "KILL TERRORISTS FOR 9/11!" sticking on a game and adding a turban to all in-game badguys with plenty of 9/11 referrences so it can ride the hype to kill anything terrorist is just... Wrong. What's wrong with making a game without terrorist referrences, hmm? Why not a sect trying to bomb the GG Bridge? Or maybe some nice juicy conspiracy? Hell, maybe the Canadians would like to see San Franciso bridgeless for some obscure reason but for the love of Eris, keep the terrorist hype out of it. Please.
Second, he berates games like GTA for being amoral. This coming from the same guy who manages to quote himself to the press saying "You know what? Do you have a problem defending your country? Maybe you need a new country." and who also scores another hype point for mentioning Columbine. Damn. So, let me get this straight, it is bad for games to be violent, it is bad for games to contain anything indecent like drug abuse, prostitution, gambling and all that. But as soon as it involves killing terrorists and defending the US, it is okay. Uh huh. Turns out one of his previous games used to ride along with the current US public enemy number one. At least he's consistent about poor subject choice.
Seriously, what is wrong with this person? Right now I do not care wether he's to be respected for what he did in the past. What he said in the present reeks of overhyping, bad decisions, double standards and overzealous patriotism and to me, the present matters more then the past.
Hate me!
or labor strikes, or disease, or bad food...
I'm not certain that people were better - they may have been but that had fewer choices and less say in what choices they had. Bad magazines could easily be noted by other people. Lack of attendance at church or other events would be known. You couldn't go online to see anything unusual - you would have to journey far (if you could afford it) or order through the mail which would be seen.
I can't argue that what society holds as good is so, but the choices people had were restrained. Knowing what they would have done in the presence of choices we have now isn't possible, and prevents me from understanding how we've improved or worsened over time.
Another point. Objectification of women might not be good now, but it existed then - just not as blatantly sexual. Women were wives, mothers, or schoolteachers. They could not be trusted with power or choice (what jobs to hold, where to live, etc.) They couldn't hold property or vote. They could sporadically express their will, but their acts were constrained by the expectations of others, for the desires of others. They may not have been exclusively sex objects, but they were likely objects just the same - vacuum cleaners, or money counters, or social ornaments. In a sense, women have more choices and fewer are likely to be objectified now than previously because they can choose their paths and do not have to conform so strongly to the wills and desires of others. There will always be objectification - people want what they want, and sometimes can't see others as anything other than a means to those ends.
P.P.S- Immoral behavior? Guess what- there is no wrong and no right. There's only pleasure and pain.
If there is no right and wrong, then your statement cannot be right. You have stated a paradox that is at odds with human sentience. In a world where there is no cognizance, your statement is correct since it is null.
However, in a world in which a sentient mind evaluates, there must be right and wrong, or there is no way to evaluate.
It's a nice theory, as it justifies anything, but it fails if you bother to think about it.
Yes, yes, and yes.
No matter what Jon Katz and Michael Moore would like you to believe, your chance of getting brutally killed in or around an American school is far lower today than any of those three periods you just mentioned.
If nothing else, it's a radically safer time to be a minority in America now compared to back when lynchings were commonplace.
Seeing violence every day in the games they play can't possibly be good, can it? Seeing women objectified without realizing the consquences and effects it has on the women can't be good, can it?
Good point. Those dime novels of the 1910s, B movies of the 1940s, and exploitation movies of the 1970s were... oh, you were talking about entertainment of today? Yes, shocking. Very shocking. Almost, but not quite, as violent and sexest as entertainment from previous generations.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Except that most people are stealing games that you can play anywhere and movies that you can find in Blockbuster. And I notice you didn't include music in that statement.
Two responses:
1) I don't know what most poeple are doing, as I'm not involved in the modern game warez community. I do know that sometimes I want to revive games that I loved as a kid and want to play again. I downloaded Super Dodge Ball, River City Ransom, and Bubble Bobble because I didn't know where else to get 'em. Admittedly, I played them for about 15 minutes, but it was great to play them again.
2) We're not talking about music. That's why it wasn't mentioned.
The preservation argument only gets you so far, and it doesn't address the concept that the game's owners might and should have control over how their stuff is "preserved." Nintendo certainly speaks loudly on this issue, since they "preserve" all their old games by continually re-releasing them. If a game company declares that Game X is public domain, then by all means, preserve away. Until that time, it's still stealing.
So we have to sit here and *hope* that some company will release an old game? I know people that have been waiting for either a re-release or a faithful update of Kid Icarus for many years now, but there are no signs of that happening. Your theory ONLY works if the publishers will work with the community, which they haven't done so far. They don't decide which games they think they can re-release in a collection and make money, then release the rest as freeware. Instead, they hold onto everything they've ever created, even if there are a grand total of 5 fans out there on the intarweb, and only release the ones that are the most popular. The tyranny of the majority and all that.
I don't think this would be a question if the smaller games were released as freeware. If Nintendo would go through their rom library, identify all those that they think they can make money off of, then designate the others are freely distributable as roms, there would be no discussion. In the current situtation, there's nothing that makes this any more than a few fans who would like to relive an old memory vs. a company that doesn't stand to make any money. It's a no-win situation, one that could easily be rectified by releasing the game, a win-win situation in which the old fans get to relive their memories, and they, in turn, now like and will support the publisher.