Slashdot Mirror
A History of Video Game Controversy
Decaffeinated Jedi writes "Sex, violence, animal cruelty, and scandalous pixels -- GameSpot has posted an in-depth feature examining the history of controversy in the video game industry. The feature examines several "major offenders" dating back as far as Death Race in the arcades up through more recent games like Grand Theft Auto III and Manhunt. Also included in the feature is coverage of the so-called "retail rogues" (games controversial enough that they were pulled from the shelves), as well as a docket of game-industry lawsuits and a look at the lighter side of game controversy. Who wants to bet that that the use-confiscated-drugs-for-short-term-benefit gameplay of Midway's upcoming NARC will make the cut in future articles about video game controversy?"
People hem and haw about violent videogames but games like GTA are good games with violence put in.
On the other hand, excessive games like Manhunt and BMX:XXX (both mentioned in the article) have pointless violence and sex that doesn't drive the game forward. In many ways, this mirrors movies: a movie like The Matrix may be violent but has a decent story behind it. Other action films feature a lot of violence but lack a decent hook.
Violence may sell, but when the consumer realizes the lack of anything besides the violence, the game stops selling. BMX:XXX tanked, to my knowledge, as did DOA:Extreme Beach Volleyball. I think its too early to say about Manhunt (which is widely regarded as really disgusting and way too far, even by gamers).
God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
society in the U.S. has been going the past 20-30 years...away from any conception of personal accountability or responsibility. We look for someone or something to blame society's ills on, when WE'RE the problem. Frivilous lawsuits related to lack of common sense, warnings on music and video games, "outrage" over the tiniest slights or perceived lack of "political correctness" in word or deed... Maybe getting offtopic a bit, but video game controvery is just one example. An interesting read, kinda sad though.
Only effect the ban had was that every youth absolutely had to copy the game.
japanese pr0n games for nintendo? Did anyone really get off to these things? Has nintendo ever made any statements about these games? Do they make games like this for current consoles?
I want to know where the groups are to get games pulled for being absoulute pieces of garbage, and leave deep mental scars simply by existing.
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
The standard answer when youths "go bad" is to search for the evil influences that twist their minds. /. comment put it. Mass-production education, absent parents, junk food and junk society... these warp minds. Violent video games? Diversions that keep kids off the street and most likely beneficial insofar as they provide a release mechanism.
It's bullshit. Young minds do not need violent video games to give them ideas. What they need is decent supporting social contexts to show them the alternatives.
Society has to address the "economics of behavior", as one
But... hey, it's easier to blame the victims than address the real causes of social problems.
My blog
Since you're the parent, then you should be able to tell your child not to play these offensive games. Asking the government, wal-mart, or EA to do your parenting for you is absolutely ridiculous. Its not like these games don't have a big rating label on the front of the box; optionally, you could always just look around on the internet to get a pretty good idea of the content, or most shockingly of all, just watch them play the damn thing. These people are letting their children be the parents, then blaming someone else because they can't ever be bothered to show any interest in what their kids are doing. You're the one paying for the game...decide if they can have it or not.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
I've been playing video games for a long time (and I still suck at them.) I remember playing Pong on some tv console thing in the mid 70's. I remember early arcade games (very abstract :), and I've played my fair share of FPS's.
Other than some motion sickness caused by FPS's, I don't think they've affected me at all. It's a way of blowing off some stress from time to time. Just because I may get in GTA and start picking off random citizens doesn't mean I'm gonna find an M16 laying around and do the same thing in real life - never mind the fact that my aim is even worse in real life than in a game!
The only violence that I can think of that could be attributed to video games happened in the early 80s. And even then it's more of a parenting thing. We had an arcade in a strip mall. Some teen girl was in there while her parents had gone to the supermarket. She left the arcade with a couple of guys who raped her. The arcade then instituted a policy that if you were under 16, you had to have a parent in there with you. Pretty much killed their business. We used to ride our bikes up there just to play games. After this happened, it was a ghost town in there. And it wasn't the games or the arcades fault.
"Who wants to bet that that the use-confiscated-drugs-for-short-term-benefit gameplay of Midway's upcoming NARC will make the cut in future articles about video game controversy?"
Can anyone say:
Fallout 2
Any game with 'stim pack' such devices
Mind you, having the cool jitters can actually add depth and understanding to the drug usage, and hopefully become so sick and tired of the jittering controller or the blured screen that they actually get steared away from drugs. But that's not news so the first time someone gets high and blames NARC, you'll see headlines from here to Baghdad!
Bye!
The old Sierra game titled here happens to be one of the freakiest games that I have seen. There was no need for violence, but still when I originally went to purchase it back in my youth, I was warned that it would send chills up my spine. It is too bad that we don't see violence used to further a story line and now we have it projected as an element of entertainment. We do not need gibs in BF1942, but the violent noises of death really add.
I must say the gargling noises of people in that game still gives me flashbacks. It adds to the experience, but in a way that gibbing people in UT2004 does not.
I hope that we see this as a passing fad and in the future we place more emphasis in realism vs. violence. Afterall, watch KillBill. The experience is only entertaining for the first few minutes and then slowly gets boring when a simple use a realism could have changed the effect.
SP --- OT as usual.
I mean, really. Lame stuff like
In the game, you played as a comic facsimile of General George Armstrong Custer, the infamous 19th-century military officer who contributed to a seedier side of American history until he met his (and his entire unit's) death at Little Big Horn in 1876 at the hands of Native Americans. As the game version of Custer, you embarked on little more than a rape romp, as you ran literally across the screen from "enemy" arrows toward a Native American woman strapped to a pole. Once there, Custer would get it on with (or, according to many critics, "rape") the woman for points. Game over.
is for kiddies. Having outgrown all that, what I really need, is a game where I can murder helpless kittens.
The majority of the video game market is males, aged 18-35.. Google yourself for the demographics, I'm too tired too.
Bitching "what about the children!?" is pointless. There are plenty of age appropriate games out there, Mario, Sonic, Crash Bandicoot are still about.
But, there now exists a generation of adults who grew up on video games. They aren't kids stuff anymore.
The latest big budget kill-fest video game should be measured against the yardstick of the latest big-budget R-rated movie, not the latest disney flick. Compare it to HBO, not Nickelodeon.
A 20 year old gets the jokes and satire in the GTA3 series. An 8 year old doesnt. Games are rated for a reason. Time for some personal and parental responsibility.
That is all.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The earliest game I can remember that caused concern was Barbarian. This was a combat game for the Spectrum and others that had lots of blood, decapitation novel for the time. I think the cover of Crash magazine (Oley Frey, I think the artist was called) caused most of it, I reckon!
Syndicate was another memorable game, one of the first to allow mass carnage and easy access to fire.
Powered by onion juice.
I'm always amazed at the ignorance of easily offended people. It's easier to go into a public library and pick up mystery/thriller books by James Patterson (and many many other authors), which I would state are more violent and graphic by way of explicit details in what was done (murder), how it was done and why. Just go look at some of the published Editorials available on his books. The point is that apparently the first ammendment stopped these offended people from making noise about the authors! I fail to see the difference in video games.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
You can get away with near infinite violence in the media in the US.
You can get away with far less in terms of nudity. I mean look, we had a little breast flash on national television a little while ago, and everyone went agog. From what I have been told, europeans have far less tolerance for violence, and more tolerance for nudity.
-- benton.
It's not just video games that create controversy. Remember how Dungeons & Dragons was viewed?
Any game that doesn't fit the "norm" will create controversy. A little parental supervision will help in any of these games. Know the capability of your child to determine what types of games they can handle. If they can separate fiction/reality, they can probably handle some of the controversial games. Some kids may take longer than others to differentiate what they see on TV/video games/music/etc... and therefore should be buffered from the content. It's all up to the parents to make these decisions and deal with the consequences.
..I went and purchased a Remington 700 VS Sendero chambered in .223 and scoured high and low for a Red Ryder LE BB GUN. I started digging up graves in my local cemetery looking for chits and stashed loot. I broke into the local Brotherhood headquarters (sneakily disguised as a Teamsters Local Union) and started a gun battle with the tommy-gun wielding folks therein. I won because I had lots of stimpacks and they were too surprised to do much other than scream. Scored a bunch of criticals and blasted Tommy "The Nose" Lasagna's nose off. Then I went to "Jake's Pub" on Pines and Main and bartered for some better weapons. I asked to see his "private stock" but he kept on pretending that he didn't know what I was talking about. When I showed him the Colt I had liberated from some cops earlier, he ran away. I found some liquor, a Glock G36 and some condoms behind the counter.
I'm heading to New Reno now, travelling west along the Dead Zone. I hear that there are mutants in New Orleans. It's my duty to take care of them on my way.
Vault 13, here I come.
I don't know if anyone ever distributed it, but it toured the trade shows (1984) as a back-at-the-room demo.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
One that I never hear mentioned is Bloodsword for the Apple II computers. It was a 1v1 fighting game, and it came out around 1985. Needless to say, it had the blood of the early mortal kombat games with the ability to chop someones head off in mid combat. Then a goblin would come out and kick around the severed head like a soccer ball. You never heard of it, because it wasn't popular enough to be blamed for something. It's only the popular violent games that get pegged by people looking to place blame rather than assign personal responsibility
Take Doom and Colombine for example. Instead of blaming the teachers for letting those kids be teased everyday, or blaming the kids themselves for venting their frustrations in an unacceptable manner (ie shooting up the place) the media and the parents had to blame doom. Does anyone really think if doom wasn't around those kids wouldn't have shot the place up anyway?
Or at least, should have been sold only in adult bookstores. Custer's Revenge? That's fucked up right there. It doesn't mean I think it shouldn't exist, pretty fucked up no matter how you look at it.
A note on Wolf3D: Germany bans anything naziesque, whether you're being nazis, or killing them.
Incidentally I played (most of) phantasmagoria and aside from deciding it was a really cheesy game, I was nauseated by the experience of having my female character raped to further the story line. Given their track record i'm not sure "banned in Australia" really merits inclusion on the list. Although, I can't remember, if that's the game that has the sequence of a woman being killed by being fed her own guts through a funnel, I guess I can understand it. However, that's not mentioned here. The game was made by a woman though, the ever-famous Roberta Williams who is responsible for (in the old days) some fantastic games and (more recently) the stupidest puzzles ever known to man. So given that the main character is female, the author is female, I'd say it's man-hatin' if anything. Which should also hardly put it on the list.
The games that I feel are most justifiably contraversial are Grand Theft Auto 3/VC and Postal/Postal 2 (each game's second installment is basically the same game with different enhancements.) I feel this way because of all the different more or less realistic ways you can kill people in them. Postal (2, at least) is obviously goofy, like you can blow people's heads off while they're vomiting and vomit will come out of their neck. (Time for a MAD-style "Yeeeecch.") The thing that makes them different from, say, Unreal Tournament is that they are such a plausible setting, using (mostly) realistic weapons that the average person can get their hands on. (Obviously Postal has many departures from this, and GTA has a couple.) At least in games like Half-Life you're in a totally mythical situation.
Now, I like these games, I don't think they should be banned - but I can see why people get into such a froth about them. The bottom line though is that parents are responsible for parenting, not game companies. You don't let your kids eat rat poison and wash it down with antifreeze, even though rat poison looks like candy and antifreeze looks kinda like mountain dew. Why is this any different, besides the fact that we don't know if playing violent video games is actually harmful?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A VIDEO GAME ARCADE?
My friends, either you are closing your eyes
To a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the calibre of disaster indicated by the presence of an arcade parlor in your community.
Now I play PC games myself, mighty proud to say it;
I consider the hours I spent with Zork are golden--
Helps ya cultivate logic, and horse sense, and a keen mind.
But just as I say it takes judgement, brains, and
Maturity to solve a puzzle,
I say that any boob can punch a button on an arcade console
And I call that sloth
The first big step on the road to dee-gradation.
And all night long your River City youth'll be fritterin' away their hard-earned quarters
Stick the coin in the slot, don't worry about taking out the garbage--
And, my friends, ya got TROUBLE!
Yeah, ya got TROUBLE!
With a capital T and that rhymes with V and that stands for GAMES...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Bad parenting? Perhaps, but I discovered later that my nephew had finished playing the copy of Grand Theft Auto III he had received for this birthday. Yes, it could be a coincidence, but this about this: How else could a 7 year old child have learned that banging a prostitute can heal wounds except through that video game?
Are we going to continue to allow these games to poison the minds of our children? I pray that we shall not.
After WWI there was a great fear that the return of all the trained and experienced killers from european battlefields would create a violent crime spree of endemic proportions. Never happened. If real violence couldn't create that kind of effect, how come video violence is supposed to be a surefire violence trigger?
-- There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
This proves that more violence doesn't necessarily make a game better.
Well, that doesn't address the issue of what the game is FOR, now does it?
If the purpose is to make money, "better" means "make more money". Violence is a tool to attract male teenagers with pocket change in the "young warrior" stage of maturation. So the profit maximization function may include putting as much violence in as possible without getting banned from the arcade.
If the purpose is to propagandize the player, then it depends on what you want to propagandize him WITH. Violence remains a tool to attract players. But now it must be tied to a propaganda message. Which can be done by the effects of use of violence in gameplay and the situations where using it improves, rather than harms, the score.
But then the issue becomes "what message do you want to propagate"? Political Correctness? The current legal system's rules? How to be a better warrior?
The Roman Games were viewed, by the rulers at the time, as a way to (in modern terms) desensitize the Roman population to violent death, in order to make them better soldiers.
Which brings us back to the fundamentals of US law.
The choice of "message" in any form of communication or art is a free speech issue. As such it's very heavily protected by the First Amendment. This is because government selection of moral codes is, in the view of the country's founders, more dangerous to the population than letting them select for themselves.
Violence in video games may not be "nice" according to some moral codes. But limiting communication to a particular set of moral codes is NOT within the government's power.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Personal Responsibility! These kinds of stories should be moot. Bottom line, no one forces kids to play these games. Typically a kid gets the game from their parents or money provided by their parents. If this is not the case, the parents still have the right/obligation to NOT allow their kids to play the "violent" games. Parents, stop asking the government to raise your children and do it your damn selves!
--Ryan
People seem to want the government and other organizations to take care of them and take care of their children.
More importantly, they want the government to deal with their neighbors as well, in much the same fashion as the original Puritan colonies did. That is, "do things according to my moral code or I'll get the government to beat your ass."
The Constitution is of little concern to many Americans. They're far more invested in oppressing the people around them to confirm that they have the power to control their environment. Rights interfere with those activities, and because the Constitution is about rights it's an impediment to their goal to exercise power. The fact that such a view will come back to bite them in the ass is of little concern as they're sure that *they* will never become the target - since, of course *they* are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?