Feeding Frenzy Over Violent Game

25 to Life isn't even out yet, and already it is under fire by everyone from NY Senator Charles Schumer to CNN host Nancy Grace. Commentary on the illogical feeding frenzy is available at Gamasutra, Press the Buttons, and Game Girl Advance. From the Press the Buttons article: "As you read this transcript, pay attention to how Grace and her guests frame their sentences. Although this plays out like an off-the-cuff debate, each and every spoken word is primed to invoke outrage. There are plenty of loaded words and phrases in there: 'murder simulators', 'rewire the brain', an attack on Bill Gates for personally allowing this game to exist (as if he himself is out there coding it), and so forth. The program also showed photos of real police officers who were killed in the line of duty at the same time the game's preview trailer was on screen."

Comments

OH NOES! Videogames kill blue-eyed baby jesus!

[Seumas]

Who needs a murder-simulator when you can join the police force and experience the real thing?

+ Shoot a young unarmed black man to death with 41 shots!

+ Kill a young woman by shooting a "non-lethal" pepper-spray projectile into her eyeball!

+ Needlessly taser young children, women and elderly people with 50,000 volts as you see fit!

+ Beat up, shove to the ground, handcuff and arrest blind elderly women in their own home!

Yes, order POLICE-FORCE today from your local videogame retailer and you too can be a civic-minded hero!

And by the way:

"This is what your kids will be digesting if you buy this," Grace said as game footage was shown. "One law officer after the next gunned down in the line of duty."

Kids will only be digesting it if adults buy it for them. Presumably most kids too young to be (theoretically) impressionable enough to go out and kill cops becuase they played a videogame about it don't have the $70 for an Xbox game.

"Here's a philanthropist and a powerful man, the richest man in the world, and yet he's making available to children around the world on Xbox a cop-killing game."

How much of the game centers around killing cops? For all we know, killing cops is just a small incidental portion of the game that they're focusing on because they're sick fucking perverts trying to exploit the public by making it an issue. And how is it a cop-killing game? I assure you, the cops in the game are not real. They are rendered animations displayed on the television. Kind of like a cartoon. No real cops are harmed.



Well, if you want those kids to be susceptible to your recruiters in a couple of years, you better start breaking down their inhibitions now so they'll be blood thirsty killing machines when you want them to be.

Re:OH NOES! Videogames kill blue-eyed baby jesus!

[a whoabot]

"I assure you, the cops in the game are not real. They are rendered animations displayed on the television. Kind of like a cartoon. No real cops are harmed."

You're talking about Nancy Grace and CNN. Their world is one big simulation. They don't know the difference between abstractions and real life anymore. No way they could with all that poor acting they call sincerity and after they played their nth computer simulation of a an F-1A bombing a radar installation or of Hurricane Charlene or some grizzly bear attack or whatever.

They seem to all honestly believe they're all very sincere people. And that Pantene Pro-V really does have advanced molecular microcells that bond your hair making it look 25 years younger. And buying that Ab-Buster will actually give you a sixpack like that person on the commercial has, as compared to just burning more calories than you intake to lower your body fat %. And that buying Manulife insurance will actually stop you from dying(the commercials actually suggest this -- the car won't even hit you if you get good life insurance!). If they can't tell the difference between something as integral to proper human functioning as sincerity and insincerity, then why should they be expected to know the difference between reality and simulation? The insincere can define their reality.

I'm only slightly exaggerating with such a suggestion.

Re:OH NOES! Videogames kill blue-eyed baby jesus!

[elrous0]

You're talking about Nancy Grace and CNN.

Yep. This is the woman that had an hour-long special on psychic detectives, for Christ's sake!

Nancy Grace has single-handedly destroyed whatever remaining shred of diginity and credibility CNN had left. They are now no better than Fox News.

-Eric

The reality is

[obeythefist]

The gaming industry deliberately invokes this kind of "negative" publicity to move product. The same kind of thing happened when Take Two made Manhunt.

I had a look at Manhunt and yeah, the murder in the game is pretty gruesome (stabbing people rather vividly, suffocations with plastic bags, etc). The game itself was pretty godawful though. Gameplay was repetitive, nothing outstanding in the game to set it apart except for the violence.

I guarantee that sales will be higher for the game as a result of CNN's free publicity. Won't make the game any better though.

Fearmongering

[Anonymous Coward]

or join the marines. True story. Friend of mine just graduated from the marines with high marksmenship. The CO of the base came to talk to him after the graduation. he made plesant talk for a bit. then pulled my friend aside to talk to him privately. my friend came back looking spooked. after a while he told me what was said.

"you know what the best thing about the marines is? You get to kill people and it's legal."

and these congressmen are worried about murder simulators. hasn't anybody noticed games like this have been around for ages?

Re:Fearmongering

[SuiteSisterMary]

Let me preface this with: Although individual peace officers may very well stray and go bad, I have nothing but respect for the vast majority of the men and women who form the Thin Blue Line each and every day.

One day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, and the head of the LAPD are having a drink in a cop bar, and an argument starts over which force is most effective.

They decide to have a wager. They'll take one square kilometer of forest, with one rabbit. They'll take turns finding the rabbit; the fastest one wins.

The CIA goes first. They set up some SIGINT, recruit some agents amoungst the forest animals, set up some dead drops, and within a few days, they have pinpointed the rabbit's usual schedule, where he hangs out, what routes he takes, and so on. A quick snatch-and-go, and they have their prey.

They release the second rabbit. The FBI immediately surrounds the forest with paramilitary types, calls for the rabbit to come out peacefully, and then sends in the APC. Within a few hours, the forest has been burned down, and the FBI are claiming that the rabbit had a stash of assault weapons. They never do find the rabbit's body, though.

Moving the game to a new section of forest, they release a new rabbit, and the LAPD sends in a single squad. An hour later, they come back out. In their custody is a large bear, obviously severely beaten and worked over, yelling 'OK, OK, I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!'

Re:Fearmongering

[Pluvius]

The first Uplift book by David Brin has a society where people who have the potential to be criminally violent (known as "Probationers") are ostracized and have less rights than normal citizens. At the end of the book it's suggested that some of Earth's colony worlds should allow Probationers to freely live on them (or perhaps even be Probationer-only) because "we might need them later." The obvious implication is that what is undesirable in peace may be very desirable in war.

Rob

It's time for a nice, long rant...

[Anonymous Coward]

Violence has become a part of our world. Furthermore -- though many ultra-conservatives would disagree with the thousands of historical documents to prove this --- violence has been around since before the written word. There is no force on Earth stronger than our own animal nature to nurture our individual bloodlust. Anyone who says they've evolved beyond this is either a liar or has been subjected to severe neural impairment and probably not fit to coexisit with the rest of us.

Violent games and movies allow us a kind of buffer-zone to live out our repressed thoughts and feelings and desires.

I honestly believe that without such products available, there would be far more incients of extreme violence occuring in the world today. Yes, there are those few who don't know reality from fantasy and commit horrible acts against their fellow humans, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Furthermore, I blame neglegent parents, other family, educational officials, friends and other individuals who frequently interact with these people for not noticing strange behaviour sooner and addressing it. There are always warning signs. Always. Don't agree with me? Tough. Read a book. Take a course in psychology. Most experts will tell you there are plenty of warning signs the present themselves early on. Know some young kid who hurts animals? You'd be well advised to red flag such a person because you'll be seeing them in the newspaper someday.

Pornography plays an important role as a buffer, too. I'm certain there'd be many more rapists and other sexual deviants out there if it weren't for adult entertainment. However, the government seems to have found a way to make it difficult for many of these individuals to get their fix.

As far as members of the media are concerned (and I'm ESPECIALLY talking about those that report for CourtTV) let's keep your opinions to yourselves. The news is not your personal bullshit outlet to voice your feelings on the goings-on of the world. You are there to report the facts. That's why it's called the news. In fact, let me offer the dictionary definition:

"new information about specific and timely events"

Also, you might be interested in this:

newsworthiness: the quality of being sufficiently interesting to be reported in news bulletins"

Opinions are simply NOT newsworthy unless set in a forum that supports such discussions. As I mentioned earlier...this is no more prominent on any other network as it is on CourtTV. Nancy Grace should receive an award for the number of times she finds a way to tack her personal feelings into the cases they report on. I honestly don't care if you think John Q. Defendant is guilty and should burn for his (alleged) crimes. Guess what? He was found innocent by a jury of his peers. Shut the fuck up and move on. What's that? One of your guests has a different opinion than you do? Oh, that's horrible! Now's the time to attack him and then cut to a commerical before he can offer a rebuttal. Bitch.

And now I'm going to move on to family. Parents...guess what? THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT HERE TO RAISE YOUR CHILD FOR YOU. The government is busy with far greater projects...stop wasting their time, take some god-damned responsibility, and BE A PARENT. Definition:

"Parenting comprises all the tasks involved in raising a child to an independent adult. Parenting begins even before the child is born or adopted and may last until the death of the parent or child. Parenting is a part of the relationship within a family."

Did you read that part about parenting comprising ALL THE TASKS involved in raising a child? I saw it too. Since a child is ill-equipped to make the same distinctions as adults when it comes to violence, sex, and other questionable parts of life, it is YOUR responsibility and no other's to

Sick

[mwvdlee]

The program also showed photos of real police officers who were killed in the line of duty at the same time the game's preview trailer was on screen.

What kind of sick fuck would use such images for the purpose of defaming a game? It is completely out or proportion and demeaning to the officers. Whether it's relevant or not is not important, it just shows an incredibly bad taste and lack of empathy for the people victimized by these killings.

That's just what I've been wondering

[Moraelin]

Yes, that's just what gets me wondering. As you've noticed, a certain segment of the game industry seems to live _only_ to one-up last year's ultra-violent game. Games are made and advertised with the _only_ claim being "we're even more gruesome."

It's not even that new an issue. Soldier Of Fortune, for whatever other merits it may (or may not) have had, was AFAIK only marketted as basically "hey, look, we have more blood and gore textures than before."

Which, on one hand, doesn't scare me or anything, since like any FPS gamer I've been largely desensitized by now. Meh, another game with lots of gore. Nothing new here.

But on the other hand it gets me sorta wondering where it will stop. As I've said in the above paragraph, "like any FPS gamer I've been largely desensitized by now." That's the whole issue: you've seen it once, you got used to it, next year they have to claim even more blood and gore to make the news.

We're already years past the point where kills are surrealistic. You have people being split into "gibs" by sniper rifles. (No, even emptying an AK-47 clip into someone wouldn't gib them IRL.) You have more blood sprayed around than a human physically has. Etc.

Well, what next? Up to what point _can_ this farce continue? To the point where they paint the whole map red with the blood of the first kill? Or?

"The gaming industry deliberately invokes this kind of "negative" publicity to move product. [...] I guarantee that sales will be higher for the game as a result of CNN's free publicity."

Actually, I'll be even more cynical and say that it's probably a deliberate PR coup.

PR companies are a wonderful thing. They can generate a lot of hype all over the news, by masking it all as a news instead of as an ad. We've become desensitized when it comes to ads. "News" on the other hand, give you far more bang, for far less buck. (Think of how much it would have cost to get this much screen time for ads instead.)

So what I'd be willing to bet is that the whole scandal and frenzy was deliberately started. I wouldn't be surprised if some helpful PR company gave the media and everyone not only a tip of the game, but also conveniently the photos of dead cops and everything. Just to be sure it does explode with a big flash and a loud bang.

More Jack Thompson from the transcript:

[mwvdlee]

The military, Nancy, uses these murder simulators, killing simulators...

GRACE: Oh!

THOMPSON: ... to break down the inhibition of new recruits to kill.

False. The military IS using computers to train their recruits, but it's purpose is not to break inhibitions but to train combat tactics, you know; so you can win with minimal casualties on both sides.

there`s a University of Indiana study that came out three days ago that showed that kids process these games in the part of the brain that leads to copycatting.

False. The study showed brains respond similarly to videogame violence as real violence. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18625 053.200). A nice note is that the research involved a violent game wherein the players would kill terrorists and rescue hostages, so according to mr. Thompsons' logic, these kids should be copying the behaviour of killing terrorists and rescueing hostages.

The rest of the interview is pretty funny with Nancy proving herself to be a bad listener and in general arrogant and unable to solidly back up her own opinions. When mrs. Opri is on a roll, Nancy's only options seems to cut her off, and so she does.

There's also this little quote:

THOMPSON: Children don`t have a 1st Amendment...

Is this actually true?

Re:More Jack Thompson from the transcript:

[jayhawk88]

There's also this little quote:

THOMPSON: Children don`t have a 1st Amendment...

Is this actually true?

Yeah, pretty much. You'd be hard pressed to find a court in this land that would rule in favor of a minor-aged child having the legal right to play GTA or go see Faces of Death 9 or whatever if their parents had told them they could not.

Re:More Jack Thompson from the transcript:

[karnal]

Because most teenagers don't know that "Freedom of Speech" does not imply that you can say absolutely anything you want.

Yes, I'm grouping them, possibly unfairly to those who would think before they speak. However, knowing how I was in High School, if I would have been told I had free speech, I probably would have taken advantage of it on occasion, and hid behind that fact. Same with most people in my grade.

Re:More Jack Thompson from the transcript:

[amliebsch]

However, knowing how I was in High School, if I would have been told I had free speech, I probably would have taken advantage of it on occasion, and hid behind that fact

You can't "hide behind" free speech. The right to free speech is not a right not to suffer consequences for your speech. It is simply a right against the government from having your speech forcibly surpressed. In point of fact, public school students do in fact have free speech rights in school (see Tinker v. Des Moine), subject to reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions just like everybody else.

Re:More Jack Thompson from the transcript:

[Grab]

You can't have rights that infringe on other people's life, liberty and happiness without responsibilities. Children have different legal status bcos they're not old enough to make those kind of calls.

Check any playground at break/recess. Primary school ("elementary school" in the US? up to age 11 anyway) will almost certainly have multiple fights break out per day. High school (11-18) will have less, but still a significant number (a week won't go by without a fight). Now if this was the adult world, all those kids would be on assault charges, but we recognise that kids can't deal with keeping their physical instincts under control. So kids don't get judged by the same rules as adults. But equally, they can't expect to have the same rights as adults, for exactly the same reason.

Grab.

Re:More Jack Thompson from the transcript:

[Seumas]

Because children are not full citizens until they're adults. They don't have the right to vote, work, marry, drive, sign a mortgage, sue someone in court, drink, smoke, etc.

Children have some basic rights, but they are still essentially the property of their parents until they're either adults or emancipated.

Re:More Jack Thompson from the transcript:

[demi]

False. The military IS using computers to train their recruits, but it's purpose is not to break inhibitions but to train combat tactics, you know; so you can win with minimal casualties on both sides.

I suspect that this is true; because the military has other techniques for breaking down a soldier's reluctance to kill, and has been using them for years. It's actually quite difficult, and it is a big part of combat training.

I think it's probably telling that they don't use video games to make recruits more willing to kill; it implies that it isn't very effective for that purpose.

Re:More Jack Thompson from the transcript:

[Hugh Lilly]

Obligatory Simpsons quote:

The Simpsons watch yet another edition of 'Eye on Springfield', with your host, Kent Brockman.
Kent,: "Tonight, on 'Eye on Springfield': just miles from your doorstep, hundreds of men are given weapons and trained to kill. The government calls it the 'army', but a more alarmist name would be The Killbot Factory ".

They seem to have forgotten

[uglysad]

the fact that you can play either side of the war in this game. In fact, I typed "25 to life" into google and got this link: Choose your side You can play as gangsters or cops, but I suppose it isn't as morally satisfying to these asshats to: A) Report on the whole story or B) Complain about a game where cops kill gangsters.

Re:They seem to have forgotten

[mconeone]

He never said that it was less morally reprehensible... I took it as they should give as much attention to games where ANYBODY is killed. Who cares if its cops, gangsters or nazis?

Thank you, CNN!

[Xaroth]

You've just made my decision of whether to purchase this game a lot easier!

You see, when an alleged bastion of free speech - such as a news outlet - starts attacking others for exercising their free speech, it makes it simple for me to pick which side I should be on. Partly because I enjoy defending free speech, and partly because I really enjoy pissing off people who get riled up about something without paying attention to context or reason.

Awesome!

[saintp]

Sounds like a bitchin' game -- when can I buy it?!?

Now I Know!

[blueZhift]

Now I know what I need to do! No need to work hard at all.

1. Build crappy but cheap/free 3D engine.

2. Put lots of cops/reporters/hookers/whatever in the game to kill.

3. Contact the news media/self righteous watchdogs/politicians about horrible violent game

4. Profit!!

See, I always got confused by the ??? part before, but now it is sooo easy! Why have I been wasting so much time?

Re:Solution

[macshome]

Around here they do card to purchase M rated games. I got freaking carded to buy GTA: Advance and I had my wife and kids with me at the time. I figured a 5 year old was ID enough...

Games don't kill people, people kill people

[jasonmicron]

I hate it when people think that it is the games that do this kind of stuff. Like certain people can't "tell" when a game real or fake. They think that gamers go into this waking state when playing games and just start going on murderous rampages.

It all started with Doom. Nothing happened with that (though people still blame it for outbreaks of violence).

Then it went to Duke Nukem 3D. Nothing. Then Carmageddon (so bad that the UK version has "zombies" instead of pedestrians). Nothing.

Up to today's games where Grand Theft Auto is now the focus of so much scrutiny. Give it up people. No one is responsible for your actions except for you. Games aren't going to send anyone on a murderous rampage who wasn't going to already go on it any way.

I will tell you this though: If all games do indeed go to the next-gen consoles don't be surprised if we see a signifigant reduction in video-game violence. Due ot the closed and controlled nature of the console market and consoles themselves, government officials can regulate that a lot easier than anything they could on the PC. That was what made the PC so popular in the first place: all of the violent games were there (Wolf 3D anyone?).

Re:Games don't kill people, people kill people

[Rallion]

Come now.

I think it's safe to say that every single time that somebody ran over hundreds of pedestrians in an outing, it was because of Carmageddon.

Bitch about it on Slashdot all you want..

[Winterblink]

... but if you really want your feedback to go somewhere that it might do some good, consider the CNN Feedback page. I can guarantee you that CNN higherups aren't paying attention to Slashdot, but there's at least a sliver of a chance the opinions might get heard if the Feedback page gets bombarded with comments about this.

Simple solution?

[Khuffie]

Parents should watch their kids. And it's no excuse that they're not in tune with the child / video game culture, because its bull. As parents it's their responsibility to be in tune with that culture. No, I'm not saying parents should be skateboarding punk listeners, or whatever the heck it is kids do these days, but they should know what their kids are doing, and attempt to steer them in the right direction. They should make an effort to find out what this whole video game thing. They should find out what games they're buying their kids and what their kids are doing. No time you say? That's no bloody excuse: maybe you should have thought of that before getting a kid? I mean look at this, and then they turn around and blame the gaming industry.

You know what else is good? Put the console/computer in the living room, where everyone can see what the child is playing, instead of having it holed up in their room where no one has any idea what they're doing.

Re:The problem is responsibility

[KamaDragon]

"Right to create games"? I'll decide what games I buy and which not. I don't like it if some moral-ubermensh is going to tell what I can and can't buy. Those people don't have any right to decide any aspect of my life. So if you don't like violent games, you don't buy them. If you don't want your kids to play them, don't let them. Take responsibility yourself instead of trying to force your morals up on everyone. If you can't take that responsibility then don't have kids. Wouldn't hurt the gene pool.

I agree. My mother had no idea what she was getting into when she had me. She was 17 when I was born. As a result, I grew up with some pretty lousy parenting. She never questioned any game she bought me, she never monitored the music I listened to, and she never said I wasn't allowed to watch certain movies. I've been exposed to more than my fair share of violent movies and games, and I turned out just fine. (If that's what you would call being an engineer...)

But, what you have to realize, is that these people believe this crap. They really do think that games are going to make kids kill. What does that mean for you and I? It means the "stop forcing your morals on us" argument is not going to work. It is the same way the Constitution works. It provides us with rights as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. If a kid starts shooting people, it is having an impact on other people. So, in their twisted vision of reality, the advocates of censorship in video games are not really enforcing their morals. What they are trying to do is protect themselves. I can hardly blame them for that.

But that doesn't mean I won't blame them for being complete morons.

What A FUCKIN' Waste of CODE!

[webzombie]

Come on... what fuckin' purpose could games like these possibly serve... Grand Theft SA pushed it too far as it is... assault your prostitute, kill your pusher competition...

Now that's what I call entertainment!

If the gaming industry keeps this shit up they'll end up were Hollywood is today... tons of shitty content and a massively shrinking audience!

Re:What A FUCKIN' Waste of CODE!

[Holi]

So it's a bad game, so what, does that mean it should be banned? You may not like it, I know I won't play it but that doesn't mean I think it should be banned. Let the game sink or float on it's own merits.

Console-Looking

[hexed_2050]

I had a look at the screenshots, and quite frankly, the ones that they are displaying are very console-looking and really quite bad. If they ever want to really win over anyone in the gaming world that is over the age of 18, they're going to have to try harder than that.