Slashdot Mirror
How Violent Media And Game Censorship Interact
Socrates writes "GamerDad has an article up called 'The Media War', a feature discussing videogames in the context of violent media and the well-meaning groups who try to censor it. 'The war against violent media is not new. Learn the history of media controversy, and take a sobering look at what's in store for gamers down the road.' The piece includes quotes from Douglas Lowenstein of the ESA and IGDA spokesman Jason Della Rocca."
It is my understanding that the ISDA it out there to fight censorship, among other things. They have been touted as a fighter for the video game industry and the myths behind violent videogames that have become "facts" to people in congress. In the article there was a thing about chains like wal*mart having influence, since they are huge, and if a violent videogame doesnt get carried in wal*mart, then it wont sell. It seems that the issue is more of a self censorship thing, kind of like the movie industry (cutting back a movie from nc-17 to R), but then again, i could be wrong, i just skimmed the article.
"Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
Really, the violence just bores me and gets in the way. I was playing the newest Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban game on PC with my daughter, and the constant need to fight monsters both teaches bad lessons, and detracts from the enjoyment of the game. It also distracts from the game in that it requires a constant lesson in morals, as opposed to just playing the game.
...
... and mental ones like figuring out that you need the dragon to place the fireball in the FIREPLACE, whereas before, it always placed it on that ceiling tray thing) ... and got rid of the monster fights, which just tend to interrupt the action.
The game would be just as good if not better if it just kept all of the exciting mystery rooms and challenges, such as
(physical ones like jumping far enough across chasms
The violence in computer games is always boring. I LOVED Half-Life - except for the monsters. I could never figure out how to play in God-mode, but I would have done so in a millisecond. I just wanted to explore new, secret rooms and tunnels and things, I can't stand when the game interposes some dumb "shoot this thing" requirement that gets in my way of doing that. To me, it's a sign of dumb coding. It's the easy way out in writing computer games. "Hey, we can't figure out anything new to do on this level! Hmmmm, I know, let's throw another monster in there!"
Does anyone know of games similar to Half Life but which exclude the violence? I would snatch up tons of that type of game in a heartbeat. And, I would feel more comfortable playing such games with my kids, too.
On a serious note, what makes them think video games are more harmful then say movies or even the public education system?
Frankly, the nightly local news scares the bejeezus out of me, that's why I've stopped watching it and instead hit up CNN or Fox News. I suppose living near Washington, D.C. lends itself to having especially violent, depressing news coverage, but I think it's gotten worse in later times.
What I could never understand about Lieberman, et al, bashing GTA was that, in the game, you were actually *punished* for doing bad things. Kill too many people for no reason, you get a star. Kill a cop, automatic 2 stars (which you can't get rid of by running around). Hold up a store at gunpoint, get up to three stars within 15 seconds. Fire off random rockets in the streets, get stars. Screwing hookers for health never quite registered with me, but most other 'crimes' in the game had the police on your tail. Was it just the fact you were able to do these things? Sounds like a case of free will, to me.
--trb
Gamespy just published the <a href="http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/539/539197p1<nobr>.<wbr></wbr></nobr> html?fromint=1">second part of their d&d history series</a> which talks mainly about the controversy around d&d and some kid who tried to kill himself. Some people with their own agendas twisted it to their own purposes, trying to ban d&d. It just goes to show that some people are obsessed with this, and no matter the curcumstances they will try to stop things like this.
In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
I always find it interesting that the arguments on this matter can get labeled "liberal" and "conservative" when the people that have introduced most of the legislation in this area have been on both sides of that particular set of labels. It only gets worse when people try to set them to political parties.
I think I probably agree, but it's worth checking that you're not making the common mistake of associating "liberal" with "left-wing" and "conservative" with "right-wing". There's actually something of a 2D system, like AD&D alignments - Democrats are Left-Wing Conservative, Greens are Left-Wing Liberal, Libertarians are Right-Wing Liberal, and Republicans are Right-Wing Evil^H^H^H^HConservative. Although, of course, the individuals involved might break the rules, so occasionally you find a Democrat who's gone Liberal without wasting valuable levels multiclassing as a Green, or whatever.
Hmm... the analogy fits rather well, if I do say it myself. Maybe we should introduce d20 rules to the election? "Bush rolls a 19, does 5 points of political damage to Kerry with his Campaign Ad of Great Persuasiveness +2. Kerry casts Expose Lies; Ashcroft saves, Cheney takes 3 points damage..."
Media controversies about game violence are said to be bad for the industry, but they often seem to be good for game sales. Manhunt sales surged following highly critical media attention when it was believed the game contributed to a nasty teen-on-teen murder in the UK. It turns out the media accounts were mostly wrong off-base (the cops said it was related to drugs and theft), but by then the game had been mentioned in news stories around the world. No game maker wants to see their work implicated in a violent tragedy. But game publishers know what presses the media's buttons, and I think some of them count on that to generate buzz about a game. GTA San Andreas is a good example, as the NY Times is already writing about it.
RichM
Data Center Knowledge
All active entertainment (and most passive) involves conflict. Conflict can be of many different types (emotional, ideological, etc), but the easiest to depict is physical. Thus, violent games are the most common, simply because they're the easiest to create. There are games with other types of conflicts (Purple Moon games, though very crappy, are examples of emotional conflicts.), but violence is still the predominant form. I guess we'll just have to wait and hope for innovative designers who manage to make compelling games with other forms of conflict. The all-but-disappearance of commercial adventure games is particularly sad in this light, as it was the only type of game to contain a 'man vs environment' conflict that was, for the most part, nonviolent. Judging from this, I expect that games with nonviolent conflicts will spring from the adventure genre, and from the independent game designers who keep it alive.