Slashdot Mirror
On the Advent of Controversial Video Games
First I'd like to discuss the basic complaints many people have over these video games. The phrase "too soon" gets thrown around a lot. But what are the specific complaints about these controversial games? I've tried to divide them up from most serious to not-so-serious attributes (which a controversial game may have one or more of, and which is by no means a comprehensive list):
- Human life was lost.
- People who survived the situation or are survivors of victims of the situation still remember it, as it happened less than one generation ago.
- It spins the situation too much as novelty or entertainment and thus disrespects those involved and/or detracts from the gravity of the situation.
- It deals with a very real life issue that some people aren't comfortable discussing, such as: race, religion, sexual orientation, slavery, politics, the law, prostitution, drug use, etc.
- Stuck in a think-of-the-children mentality, the "M" or even "AO" rating does not deter groups and people like Jack Thompson from arguing that it is not appropriate material for minors and therefore should not be distributed. Popularity of a title and great game mechanics may exacerbate this.
I'm going to start with an easy game to discuss: RapeLay — an obscure title by a Japanese publisher that focuses on forced sex situations. There is something special about sexual crimes that make them even worse than murder in the United States. I don't know why, but Hot Coffee in GTA3 drew far more criticism than the normal killing rampage in that game and games before it. This same phenomena occurs at parties where they play games that a murderer is at the party. Yet, if a rapist was at the party, people would probably be mortified. While the sentencing isn't as harsh, sex offenders are registered and tracked for the rest of their lives while murderers can be released or paroled under good behavior. I see RapeLay as nothing more than a game concentrating on a particular crime — a less serious crime than many I commit in some of the games I play. I've no desire to play it, but people who derive entertainment from that have a right to it. RapeLay is merely another adult game like Dangerous Toys for the Dreamcast.
Nothing could be more recent than making a simulation game where you're a Somali pirate invading other ships. You have an impoverished community with people starving to death and people being taken captive. A player is most likely deriving entertainment from horrible situations on other continents today. This isn't Disney making three Pirates of the Caribbean movies based loosely on a very real and life-threatening situation four hundred years ago. This is completely a function of when it happened. On the other hand, piracy on the water has been a classic platform for games, and if the game is historically accurate, how much different is this than an in depth news article? Keep in mind that this is the same game company that partnered with the History channel to bring you WWII and Vietnam games in the past. I think it is very much arguable that games based on war can be informative if done correctly.
A quick note on a more wide spread release for the Playstation 2 is a game that some Hindu groups say is offensive to their religion. Along the same lines, several online games have depicted Mohammad which is a no-no in Islam causing unrest. These situations are offensive to a small part of the population and — unless done in very disrespectful ways — aren't going to gather much more controversy. They're no Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide, but they are reportedly offensive to some groups of people. On the other end are religious games that gain controversy by targeting non-members of that faith. Left Behind: Eternal Forces was controversial because of violence against non-Christian characters in the video game. Video games like Ethnic Cleansing express extreme prejudice and hate towards a particular ethnicity or nationality. Murder and violence are still murder and violence whether you are religiously motivated, racially motivated or have no clear motivation (like GTA). It is difficult to argue that these games should be outlawed while claiming that it's our right to enjoy games like GTA. Is it because these games are used for propaganda or recruitment tools and mainstream games are not? Is it because of a controversial message in the game? If so, I would like to know why this is any more dangerous than murder in video games.
None of these games faced the wide distribution that Six Days in Fallujah was looking at. And that game is now canceled, the deciding factor most likely being that it was a big name publisher with wide distribution channels. Not that the content was any more or less controversial than some of the games Kuma has made about Vietnam and WWII, but it would have had a wider release and been about a present day war that is still in progress. Books written about the Iraq war have to be careful; news about the Iraq war has to be sensitive to families. Games — a form of non-necessary entertainment — have to be even more careful if they want to enjoy popularity and avoid criticism. As a society, we are just not ready to accept games as a dignified medium. Other mediums faced this same barrier and overcame it, and it's good to have these games testing the waters.
In the United States, it's easy to claim freedom-of-speech this and freedom-of-speech that, but the lawsuits will flow from interest groups with money — no rating system will satisfy them. Letting the popularity (or lack thereof) of a title speak for its quality and message is not enough for some people. The general populace do not yet accept games as an art form like books and movies. Entertainment and even edutainment are not seen as appropriate ways to portray current events, and they may not be for a long time.
Where do you stand on controversial video games? Should publishers and developers be able to release whatever they want? Super Columbine RPG? RapeLay? Six Days in Fallujah? Are they protected by free speech? Will games forever be entertainment and therefore never be able to cover current topics? How would you effectively regulate content if I should be able to play a game like GTA but not Six Days in Fallujah? Do these titles hurt the social standing of gamers and gaming as a medium?
I am about to become very unpopular...
Does anyone read To Kill a Mockingbird or Scarlet Letter for entertainment? Hardly. People read these books to explore the human condition and take a hard look at where society fails the individual.
Does anyone play an "adult" videogame to explore the human condition. Heck no. It's all about juvenille self-indulgence. Real adults are far past that stage and have no real desire to subject themselves to unsavory sights and sounds.
The funny part is that the Fallujah game is the type of controversial topic that can use video games for exploring the human condition. Which is exactly why it's blocked while *cough*"adult entertainment"*cough* runs rampant. No one really wants to take a hard look at the unpleasentries that need to change. Books like Mockingbird were once burned for their controversal nature. Let's see if someone has the guts to watch a few of their DVDs burn.
Ok mods. I've said my piece. Backlash time.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Six Days wasn't cancelled. The developer is still working on it, last I heard. Konami simply decided they wouldn't be the ones publishing it.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Not only do I vote with my dollar, the games a publisher publishes or distributes affects its reputation in the eyes of the buying public.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
detracts from the gravity of the situation.
Death to Mario games that glorify the squashing of poor little Goombas! Goomba rights now!
I feel that "Six Days in Fallujah" should still be released. If done right, this game could be a tool to educate the small minds and willfully blind of the masses of how horrible this conflict is.
-sid216
I have long wondered why particular actions are more "taboo" than others in the media. For instance, you can have a heck of a lot of blood and gore in a movie and still get a PG-13 rating, but if you show boobies in a sex scene, you almost automatically get an R.
Why is that? Is it "for the children"? If so, why are we more tolerant of allowing our kids to see brains scattered all over the set instead of *gasp* sexual intercourse?
And why is it that violence for the sake of violence (a.k.a. the Grand Theft Auto series) is OK, but violence for/against certain specific causes not OK? It seems to me that there are certain people groups that need to stop being overly sensitive.
I have a bad feeling about this...
No, I'm not trolling. I'm quoting 4chan when people complain about offensive (and I mean *really offensive) content.
This is the Conflict. Between those who value freedom even to be insanely offensive, and those who think freedom must be measured by some authority.
Napster thought that real world laws did not apply to them... remember what happened. For a while, it was explosively popular, then the court cases started, and the business was crushed.
But today what Napster was offering is 1000x more available.
Games authors will push the boundaries, every boundary, until they feel resistance, and when there is resistance, there will be a fight. And in every fight the Digital Majority will eventually win. There is just no way a conventional industrial intelligence can beat a digital one.
The freedom to offend is the same as the freedom to defend.
My blog
Of course every game cited above is protected by the First Amendment. Should the government keep these games off of the shelf? No, of course not. The government should not be the keeper of the public's morals. That is the public's job.
It does not necessarily follow, however, that those games should be on the shelves. If RapeLay, for example, sat next to Disney Game Du Jure at Toys R Us, parents would rightly complain. Toys R Us would get bad press, and they would pull it for what they would call "bad judgment." And it would be bad judgment, because it would make their customers mad at them. This is essentially a self-correcting problem. Anything that, as a society, we won't tolerate will quickly be forced out of sight where most people won't have to deal with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to actively search for RapeLay if you want that sort of thing.
Final point: the accuracy question. Does a controversial video game become more acceptable by being more accurate? The above poster has it dead right: nobody plays games to reflect on the nature of the human condition. Maybe a game could be made to get you to do that. I'm holding out hope that video games could mature into some kind of new art form. So far, though, there hasn't been much more than puerile bang and flash. Accuracy only enhances the literary merit of a work if that accuracy is used to further some artistic objective. I haven't seen any video game with a coherent artistic vision.
Anywhere you want. I typically stand on them in my kitchen, to get an extra couple inches when trying to reach the cookies my wife hid on the top shelf.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Sometimes people lie and claim things like "To protect the children". But you don't see people outlawing drinking in America, which kills more children than video games. Nor do we put speed regulators on cars, preventing speeds above 40 mph.
The real reason we censor is to MIND CONTROL. Not the silly tin foil hat kind, but the real kind. The ability to affect attitudes. I am talking PR, not scientific rays.
PR works. You show pictures of the Vietnam war and the war ends.
The attempt to censor nudity is an attempt to make sex shameful. It is an outright attempt to twist the minds of a population against sex. It's a beg help when it comes to population control as well as STD control. Far better than silly "Abstience only" programs.
Similarly, the censorship of violence is an attempt to reduce aggression. Not physical aggression, because we are not trying to prevent physical aggression. Censorship of violent media is an attempt to reduce mental aggression. To put it in crass terms - an attempt to wussify people.
But these are complex social issues that have NOT been well thought out. The censorship resulted from old, conservative movements that are no longer as relevant. The anti-sex taboo was very helpfull back before we had effective birth control, just as the anti-violence taboo was very helpful back before we had an effective police force. It is particularly funny that he same people that are against condoms are in favor of the sex censorship. When you think about it, a condom is really censorship of the actual sex act. You can't even touch your partner with the part you most want to touch. As for aggression, a reduction of aggression would not only reduce violence but it also in police work, in the military, and in busienss.
The US government was founded on freedom of expression. It has NO business attempting to do any kind of censorship, particular ones that are as ill thought out as the sex based and the violence based.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Spoiler alert.
The "nuclear bomb" scene in Call of Duty 4 stands out, in my mind, as a moment in a video game (one which otherwise did a middling job of realism) that really wanted to approximate a real experience. You're flying along, la de da, "What the hell?" And suddenly, you're on the ground with no legs, dragging yourself toward nothing, and then you die.
That's war. Not chucking respawning grenades.
I was crestfallen when "Six Days in Fallujah" got canceled. If really intelligent people had been on the design team, and collected oral histories from the men and women who were actually there, and built the environments from actual photos (or even a field trip to those sites), SDiF could have been extremely good--no--it could have been transcendent. It was the perfect idea, just waiting for a near-perfect execution.
I have the right to ignore it and not read it. I also have the right to voice my opposition to Hitler's policies. That's where my rights end. Unlike Adolph Hitler and Joeseph Goebbels I do not think anyone has the right to ban or burn publications. This argument extends to video games.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
...those who mind their own business and those who do not.
mmmm...forbidden donut
Aren't most of the games that really stir controversy just in it for the short-term popularity? Thus, can't we expect to see games come out "too soon" that are "too violent", only to just fade away since the actual game itself just isn't that great?
A strong history exists of controversial games with good gameplay that have outlasted their detractors by a long shot:
Street Fighter
Wolfenstein 3D
Mortal Kombat
Doom
GTA
etc.
stuff |
I might disagree with a games content, but I do believe in the right for anything to be made. It is an art form and should not be censored. The old "I might disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" applies here.
I think the market will self censor games well enough, as we saw with the fallujah game.
People may have cries of censorship from game companies, but its better than laws being applied. Once a law is made, it's open to interpretation and we will see a lot less chances being taken in the game world.
There have been several games that have been released to "reflect on the nature of the human condition" or words that mean the same thing. AFAIK, none of them went anywhere to speak of.
Games of this nature have been around for a long time in Japan. They're known as "eroge" or "galge." There's not much difference in the terms, but the games range from just trying to date someone to full-blown rape. The games are generally pornographic in nature, but not always. I (a girl) have played some of these games, not because of the pornography, but because they are games that have subtleties rarely found in other, more violence based games. At their basest, they are simply text-based adventure games with a very narrow set of goals.
It is every bit as expressive an art form as "the world" is an expressive art form for "god."
We build things with a variety of interests in mind. Initially, many games were designed increasingly with "realism" in mind. And year and after year, "realism" had improved. But realism isn't the only factor driving game design... just one of them.
As games become increasingly more involving, the use and expressiveness of games are expanding. Universally, games are an escape for people just as books can be. It enables people to enter other worlds and become other people and play other roles. Initially, people were VERY troubled by "Dungeons and Dragons" because it was very advanced "make believe" and some people, no doubt, took it too far or too seriously. It's not something I ever got involved in, but I recall one freaky guy in Navy technical school who attempted to convince me that a quartz crystal he wore around his neck actually burned him... I found him 'disturbing' to be around.
Eventually, we will have some sort of brain/mind interface and allow us to not only to experience what it is like to be someone else, but to actually become someone else. Many science fiction movies have been made under these notions. And I am quite certain that if such technologies were to ever come to light, they will be protested and motions to ban them will be made.
We make our real world in our own image. We make our imaginary worlds in our own image as well, in a wide range of media including books, plays, music, role play, computer games and probably numerous others that don't come to mind.
What "expressions" should be forbidden? What "ideas" should be forbidden? What "media" should be forbidden? What purposes should be considered noble and what should be considered vile?
As we seek to pass judgement upon one another, it is quite helpful if we were to actually say what we mean and to understand, if only for ourselves, why we seek to silence others.
And as to the guy who attempted to convince me that his crystal had supernatural powers? I called him an idiot and asked him not to bother me with his nonsense. I never sought to have his game banned. I recognize that there are LOTS of things I find objectionable. And as a "powerless average guy on the street" I have learned to accept that they exist and do my best to keep objectionable things out of my life. (For example, I program my TV channels to exclude religious content and spanish language content! I don't seek to have religious content and spanish languages BANNED!)
It would be nice if other people could maintain this sort of sensibility, but unfortunately, some people live in a fantasy world of their own. They find it important to objectify other people, control them, limit them, even kill them while they play their games of war, business and domination. Some people, do INDEED take their games a bit too seriously...
I find no subject untouchable. Fuck anyone who disagrees.
I personally don't stand anywhere on these games. To have an opinion that I would push on to others and what they choose to do for entertainment in their spare time would be morally presumptuous. We're all adults, so lets let people do what they enjoy. That's the essence of freedom.
The American censor board has it backwards
Most hormone crazed teens are only looking for an outlet for that pent up energy. Tons of violence accompanied by a total demonization of sex can only lead to frustration, couple that with a small arsenal in everyone's basement and you get a columbine
Promote more love and sex in movies and video games along with free condoms, pills and sex education, I'm sure mindless violence will go down a lot.
How fortunate that the medium of games is, by it's nature, more than feasible for the hobbyist or non-commercial to contribute to. I'm never really concerned about the Jack Thompsons of the world and those who favour yet more nanny-state laws. Censor what appears on the shelves until you are blue in the face, you will not stop modders and independent developers from releasing their stuff for free.
RapeLay â" an obscure title by a Japanese publisher that focuses on forced sex situations. There is something special about sexual crimes that make them even worse than murder in the United States. I don't know why, but Hot Coffee in GTA3 drew far more criticism than the normal killing rampage in that game and games before it. This same phenomena occurs at parties where they play games that a murderer is at the party. Yet, if a rapist was at the party, people would probably be mortified. While the sentencing isn't as harsh, sex offenders are registered and tracked for the rest of their lives while murderers can be released or paroled under good behavior.
I think there are a few points here that often get muddled by gamers, leading to confusion and outrage. I don't feel like american parents are more okay with violence than sex. I think parents are more concerned about sex than violence because they think their kids are more likely to engage in sexual behavior that is risky and/or morally repugnant to them. And they're right, they're much more likely to get pregnant than shoot their school up.
It's still misguided in my opinion. Sex on games isn't going to make your teenager want to have sex, his hormones are. But that's a seperate point, it's not so dumb as "I'm okay with my teen murdering, as long as they don't have premarital sex." At least in most cases.
There's also a bit of going along with the group. Other parents are more concerned with sheltering their kids from learning about sex than is reasonable or realistic, so those who may start out reasonable start thinking this might be an actual problem. Again, irrational, but hey, we ALL follow the crowd more than we'd like to admit.
Lastly, the sex offender issue is oversimplifed and muddled to the point of ridiculousness. It again isn't that americans are okay with murder but deathly afraid of sex, we're overly paranoid about both. There's a belief that certain sex offenders have far more recidivism than some violent criminals. That's one of the main rationales for the tracking. I'm not going to say whether or not it's true or justified, only that that is the thinking behind it. The opinion of many lawmakers and groups is that a child molester will always be a child molester and evil, wheras a murderer sent to jail might not do it again. It's also easier to understand and sympathize with the motivations behind some murders than sex offenses. We've all had the urge, to varying degrees, to commit violence. For me, it's whenever someone suggests that censorship works, is needed, and should be done to videogames. (Also whenever Rush gets jacked up on painkillers and starts ranting about potheads, or whenever corporate suits try to put on a hypocritical PR campaign, but that's neither here nor there.)
So again, it's not that most americans live in fear of sex but are cool with the odd murder. And, not for nothing, even if we were, pointing that out is not going to prevent some moral conservatives with the urge to censor from coming after our games.
The question is, are the folks who do NOT support "immoral" games adversely affected by their existence?
My gut reaction is that yes, games like GTA and RapeLay, played mostly by men, contribute to the subjugation of women. But that's just the uninformed gut reaction of a guy who's never played either game. I don't trust it much at all. I'd like some data.
There are tests that see how quickly you associate terms. They basically work like this:
1 - A word or person's face will appear on the screen.
2 - If the word has positive connotations or if the person is white, hit the left button. If the word has negative connotations or the person is black, hit the right button.
3 - Your reaction time is measured.
I am, regretfully, faster at reacting when it's good/white vs. bad/black than when it's good/black vs. bad/white. Try it yourself if you like.
You could do the same thing with RapeLay. One group plays RapeLay, one group doesn't. Choose some associations (e.g. submissive and strong words, male and female faces), test the groups before playing... then right after playing, or 1 week after playing, or one year after playing every day for a month, etc.
Anyone know of studies like this? Data, even with it's caveats and conditionals, beats the pants off gut reactions.
They're just games, FFS.
You know, this is actually fairly well disguised flamebait. It took me a good 30 seconds to realize they didn't actually mean it. 7/10. Would rage again.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
The above poster has it dead right: nobody plays games to reflect on the nature of the human condition.
If a game was made with the intent of doing such a thing, it would get played for that very reason. No one read "To Kill a Mockingbird" or "The Scarlet Letter" because they were looking to "reflect on the nature of the human condition" either. They read them because they were either forced to, we're looking for intellectually stimulating entertainment, or had the book recommended by a source they trust.
Books read with the intent of "reflecting on the nature of the human condition" are philosophy, sociology, anthropology, medical, and psychology texts. You have to purposefully go for those items too.
The big mistake is that there is an assumption that the intent of the reader/player is directly linked to the affect on the player/reader. I know that "The Dragonlance Chronicles" had a greater emotional impact on me than "The Scarlet Letter", yet guess which one I read under the auspice of "consuming great literature" (that I was forced to).
If we want to criticize games for not delivering an emotional and spiritual impact in the same volume and manner as books, you have to compare them on an equal scale. Books have been being written for Thousands of years, video games have been being made for 50 years. In a metaphorical timeline, that's about equivalent to "we just got an alphabet together yesterday".
Just to point this out, Hot Coffee wasn't for GTA3. It was for San Andreas.
Been playing GTA: Chinatown Wars. I'm only 1/4 of the way through (hey, I know it's been out for a month, but I'm slow) and I've already had $100K in sales of illegal drugs. Getting there, I've killed 500 people, most of them innocent bystanders and a lot of them cops. Who, far from being vindictive when they catch me, simply confiscate my weapons and stash and accept a bribe for letting me go.
Similarly unrealistic is what happens when I get killed. Quick trip to the hospital and everything's back to normal.
Will this turn anybody into a criminal? Somehow I doubt it. Unlike most consumers of violent fiction and games, I don't buy the idea that there's no connection between media violence and real-world violence. I've certainly seen the effects on my own personality of growing up in a culture where violence is something you see every time you turn on the boob tube. But let's look at it a little more objectively.
What kind of media violence turns people violent? Not the gross-out violence you see in video games or Tarentino movies. That kind of violence is only attractive to people whose lives are so screwed up that becoming a gangsta and being gruesumely dead before you're 30 is an improvement over the alternatives. And I doubt that such a lifestyle is made any more violent by exposure to the cartoonish violence in the media.
The media violence that bothers me is the kind that makes violence innocuous. The hero gets knocked out and wakes up 15 minutes later with nothing worse than a splitting headache — no concussion symptoms such as extreme nausea and neurological impairment. Our plucky band of heroes shoot guns all over the place, and never kill anybody, except maybe the occasional badguy.
That last one disgusted the summer camp dude who taught me to shoot. The thing he was most concerned with drumming into our heads was that guns are dangerous. This was even more important to him that his strong believe that the 2nd amendment was a last safeguard against communist invasion. Which is pretty damn important.
The big problem with violence is people having their heads in the sand. And I don't just mean idiots who want to ban everything that even suggests violence. I mean you mister I've-got-a-shotgun-so-my-home-is-secure.
Do these titles hurt the social standing of gamers and gaming as a medium?
Yes, I think they do. I more or less gave up games when my old C64 conked out and I couldn't play Elite anymore (yes, I know...I'm looking into DOSbox). My point is, this current trend of violent games just makes non-gamers wonder what the f**k is up with 'kids today', even if the 'kids' are adult. Your average Joe probably doesn't know that these games are not for minors, and just sees another example of the world going to hell.
Also, it must be said, there is enough REAL violence in the world without churning out even more, albeit 'only' virtual violence. Perhaps once in a while a genuinely psychotic individual might find an outlet for their anger or whatever in a game rather than real life, but that argument can be used to justify kiddie porn and all sorts of crap.
As you've probably guessed these games do nothing for me at all...personally I prefer something more intellectual or thought-provoking... and I'm afraid I do (like so many others) look at some of these games and the people who play them and just ask WHY?
Smivs on the intertubes!
I really don't care whether it's offensive to your religion. You have a right to practice your religion, you have a right not to be subject to discrimination, but you do not have a right to be protected from offense.
Quite to the contrary, offending people is a necessary and intrinsic part of political and religious change. Or do you think that the Reformation and Enlightenment happened without offending anybody? Without offending Catholics, we'd still be stuck in the Dark Ages.
What kind of games did you play? Every game has some sort of message. Final Fantasy games are notorious for pushing Eastern Mysticism.
The best games are the ones that pull you into the story. Its been years since I played Deus Ex but I recall it having a very strong message at the time.
What about about Bioshock? I only played the demo, but even in that short narrative a message about Utopia and body augmentation was already being developed.
There are a lot of games with "a coherent artistic vision" you're just playing the wrong games.
Although I'll give you that developers could spend a lot more time developing a story/narrative and a lot of games would be improved greatly. Gameplay isn't everything.
I'm glad to hear that it is best to avoid topics that are too recent, and go with settings for games that are several generations, or more, in the past.
So I guess I won't have any trouble at all with the game I am currently designing, its setting is thousands of years ago.
I plan to call it "Jesus: Itinerant Preacher."
I suspect that a lot of the creators/publishers of games that fit into the questionable mold don't really care about what other people or organizations think about their creation. They measure their ability to produce and sell a game based upon market opportunity/demand, differentiation from other products, and what has or has not already been ruled on by the courts.
You can bet that if the combination adds up to profit and manageable risk, titles will be published. Now if there is enough backlash that it becomes unprofitable or too risky, then they get cancelled. I doubt there is very much gray area here.
Super Columbine RPG == good and should not be censored
Six days in Fallujah == bad and should be censored.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
If a game was truly offensive to everyone, nobody would buy it, and creating the game would be economic suicide. Obviously the people paying money for the game DO NOT find it offensive, and those that are offended by it should neither pay for nor play it. So, what is the problem? Claiming that I shouldn't have access to material that YOU find offensive is not just irrational, it goes against the very principles the USA was founded on. Claiming these games "desensitize" people to violence is also insane seeing how nobody objects to CSI and Law and Order. In addition, I watched a movie this weekend where 6 billion humanoids were murdered when their home planet was destroyed... that same movie grossed $72.5 million in it's first weekend, and I don't hear anybody complaining about the genocide depicted in it!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I am a mass murderer. I'm also actually a war criminal. Even back in 1987 I used chemical weapons liberally to win a conventional war in Europe against the NATO. And let's not count the thousands if not millions of innocent bystanders I happened to kill when going on killing sprees in various cities all over the globe. I feel no remorse. I feel no guilt. Actually, I feel nothing special about it. Maybe a little joy that I managed to pull it off and win.
Huh? Yes, in computer games. Are you nuts, suggesting I'd do that in reality? I could get hurt!
I think the real problem are people who cannot distinguish between a computer game and reality. And I do not mean the people going on real killing sprees. I'm thinking more of certain politicians and people who wish to blame their own problems (and the problems of our teenagers) on games.
Has anyone ever wondered why those madman shootings happen at schools? Of all the places where teenagers spend a lot of their life, from their home to the mall to public transport, it's 9 out of 10 times in a school. More specifically, their school. Could there, just maybe, be some kind of connection?
Oh. Sorry. My bad. How dare I even think of blaming the kids that mobbed him and made him an outcast. After all, they were shot by him!
Wonder why...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If I remember correctly, the Hot Coffee mod allowed your character in GTA3 to have sex with prostitutes, which is a completely different thing than raping a woman. That's why I disagree with the assumption that our aversion to rape in entertainment has something to do with our culture being prudish/puritanical/etc. For this to be true, it would seem to also follow that societies with a more liberal view of human sexuality (like in Europe, for example) would also have a more lax view on rape in entertainment. However, I seriously doubt that a German or a Swede would somehow be more relaxed about playing a video game with rape involved than an American.
Rape is a particularly heinous crime because, unlike murder, once the act has been perpetrated the victim's suffering has only just begun. And unlike killing someone, it's never morally justified. There's nothing a woman could do to somehow justify a person raping her. If someone attacks you with a deadly weapon, however, you're well within acceptable moral and legal boundaries to kill that person. We're less averse to violence in games and entertainment because we can take "baby steps" with justifiable violence. Start with "Call of Duty," then move on to GTA and then once you get to Manhunt it doesn't seem all that bad. Hell, even in Manhunt you're only killing people because you're essentially being forced to.
Don't get me wrong; American moral sensibilities about sex are fucked up, no pun intended. For some strange reason, when we go to see a movie about a guy in a mask stabbing people in the woods, nudity and sex are almost expected but when we go to see a love story, anything but the most white-washed sex scene will offend the audience. It's like the time I watched "Amelie" with my mom. She freaked out that a movie about two people falling in love might actually have some sexual content in it. But rape will always be taboo, as it should be. From what I gather, this isn't an exploration into the tortured psyche of a rapist (like a book or movie on the subject might be), but rather a rape simulator of sorts. Therefore, people are justified in their concern that folks would want to play such a game. Of course the developer has a right to publish the game, just as consumers have the right to boycott and criticize it.
(sorry for the rambling post, kind of out of it today)
Hey! When is the video game 'The Last Temptation of Christ' coming out? Before Starcraft?
If RapeLay, for example, sat next to Disney Game Du Jure at Toys R Us, parents would rightly complain. Toys R Us would get bad press, and they would pull it for what they would call "bad judgment." And it would be bad judgment, because it would make their customers mad at them. This is essentially a self-correcting problem. Anything that, as a society, we won't tolerate will quickly be forced out of sight where most people won't have to deal with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to actively search for RapeLay if you want that sort of thing.
If by self-correcting you mean every retain company that offers games physically refuses to sell a game that has a rating of "adult Only" (18+) but still has a copy of every "mature" (17+) game, i think society is very wrong...
Making every single game that has any sexuality unmarketable is just like making it illegal...
If people can't buy it, why make it?
The games you mentioned, especially Deus Ex and Bioshock, make gestures towards art, but don't fulfill their visions.
Probably the best part of Bioshock is killing Ryan. You've been told throughout the game "Would you kindly" do this or that, and every time you do it. Then "Would you kindly" kill Ryan and the game takes control of your character and makes you! A really interesting comment on the genre of video games and freewill inside of video games. "A man chooses" but does a video game character (or player) choose? Never.
But even amidst this admittedly very large step towards art, Bioshock is at heart rather hackneyed when compared to serious artistic endeavors. Why do you have to kill everyone? Why is everyone in Rapture so angry? They were all driven insane by their modifications is what the game tells you, but the truth is that it is an FPS and it wouldn't be an FPS if it didn't contain a bunch of people to kill. The parts that you're calling "artistic" are really just window dressing to the FPS mechanics.
I suppose the response to this might be, "Why is that painting flat? Not in order to better express the artist's message, but because paintings are always flat: that what makes it a painting!" But FPS is not the medium that Bioshock was set in. The medium is an interactive three dimensional world. Until there is a video game that takes advantage of its whole medium to do something with artistic merit, I'll continue to believe that there is no video game with a coherent artistic vision.
On the Atari 2600 (I believe, its been a while) there was a game called Custards Revenge. In this game you killed Native Americans and raped their women who looked to be tied to cactus's. While the games graphics are horrible, the content was worse than most of the games today. So its nothing new, it just looks more "realistic" now.
I can't see the Republican party continuing to function in this manner. Either the puritans will get pissed off and take their marbles home to Sarah Palin and the rest of the party will break off in a different direction or the rest of the party will kick the puritans out. The only thing still holding them together is they know if they do this it'll be decades before they can challenge the Democrats again in the political arena.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Sounds like my dream game starring a now-deceased former Enron executive!
All things considered, WaterboardLay or BumFightLay would be more appropriate.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. And if you don't want you or your kids to experience it in any way, play an active parenting role in their lives and enforce their abstinence to use of the material.
This is not unlike alcohol, tobacco, guns, knives, poisons, pornography, or even simply "INFORMATION".
Parents can cry and lobby and try to prevent the world from producing things they do not like, but that will have very little impact. Somewhere, somehow, those knives and porn will be made and blackmarketed to your kids' neighborhood... All that pissing and moaning and banning for nothing....
Be a PARENT. Man up to the job and TEACH your kids, take the extra effort to CARE about them and have a conversation with them daily. They are people too and you will not always have the benefit of standing over their shoulders. If you wish the best for them, give them the best you can.
Which is the more realistic approach? Attempting to limit free will and hoping it works? Or, teaching your kids values and responsibilities, and respect for their elders' wishes?
Sure, you can be a shitty/lazy parent and take the easy way out by pushing paper around. But I can almost guarantee you that without proper parenting, your kid will find the games, guns, porn, and drugs despite all that effort you made on paper.
There are artistic games, just as there are artistic books. But the artistic games are hidden under the mountain of mass-marktet games, just as the artistic books are hidden under the mountain of mass-market books.
A quick Google search (string="artistic video game") turns up a list of the "7 most artistic video games". Note that none of the reviews are "it's fun to shoot people in the face." They focus on the visual style, originality, and story.
As for the larger question of controversial video games, I ask you to consider what would happen to a classic academic game if digitized. The Prisoner's Dilemma flash game would be called unrealistic, desensitizing people to the real issues of discrimination and injustice in the prison system. The think-of-the-children crowd would scream about how it glorifies prison life and teaches children to betray one another. The sequel would be in 3d, with Hollywood voice actors and writers, and would clearly depict the decapitation of your fellow prisoners, who you beat in online play. The academic and social value of the game wouldn't deter it's controversy, and in many ways would fuel it.
We can't afford to really inhibit controversial (ideas | books | games) as a whole, because every good (idea | book | game) is at first controversial. Better to teach people to separate the wheat from the chaff and let ideas roam free.
Think about it for a second...
Yes, the U.S. has a First Amendment that guarantees the right to free speech. But with that right comes responsibility. Just because you have a thought doesn't mean you have to broadcast it to everyone within earshot.
In the end the will be only one game left.
WOW
Now that would really suck. There's your drugs; World or Warcrack?
Should publishers and developers be able to release whatever they want?
Yes. When did videogames become something so other-worldly that the first amendment no longer applies? And seriously, if you do not like the games, do not play them (and do not let your kids play them).
The various interest groups out to get the violent video games pulled are wrong. No group of people (the players and producers of these games) should be singled out and legislated against because they choose to partake in a certain activity. In no way are the acts of playing and creating these games negatively effecting the lives of anyone but the players and creators. A game about Somalia does have the potential to offend a large number of people, but those people should be able to avoid the game as though it were a food allergy. Everyone else can still eat shellfish even though eating it would kill you. Also, just because you realize that it may be offensive doesn't mean that it is your sacred duty is to save the rest of the world from the madness.
Say the rating system is faulty. Require psychological side effects be printed on the boxes. Just don't you dare take away our freedom to express what we wish to express and how we wish to do so.
P.S. US = nanny state, and my bottle's been empty for too long.
Of course you should be able to release any kind of content you want. As long as you a distribution channel and an audience, the content in question shouldn't matter. (Assuming you haven't broken any laws in creating it, like child porn or snuff films.)
No matter what you create, someone is always going to be pissed off about it. If not for the content, then for their own greed. If there's money to be made off an idea, these folks are going to continually crawl out of the woodwork... either to make money off you through litigation, or to make sure you can't turn a profit if they aren't going to.
8==8 Bones 8==8
The difference between a game where the avatar commits rape and a game where the avatar commits murder is simple. Society recognizes, whether consciously or not, that play is a way of preparing for the future. Boys are naturally drawn to war games because making war effectively has for untold generations been a key element of male survival. So the question then is, which is potentially more acceptable in the future: rape or non-sexual violence?
Every large society has approved violence. There are cops. There are soldiers. There are situations called "justifiable homicide" or "self-defense". And there is the belief that sometimes even the authorities need to be fought, such as in the American Revolution. A game like GTA may, in the precise details, represent a morally decrepit situation. But the skills that it appears to teaches have the potential for good. Avoiding getting caught by those who pursue you could be a good thing. Defending yourself with a gun when people try to kill you could be a good thing.
On the other hand, rape is never considered a good thing? Ever here of a situation where a women was violently raped and society today says "regrettable, but necessary"? That is what society says about many of the killings in war, insurrection, and police work. But it never says that about rape.
And so, while society can understand and perhaps even approve of someone enjoying practicing honing and perfecting their fight or flight reflexes, society does not understand or approve of someone enjoying the practicing of rape.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
...based during WWII, Korea or Vietnam. Those wars match several of the criteria you listed.
The issue is not whether violent/sexual games are good or bad. The question is if it's appropriate for children.
What type of society do we want to build? A kick-ass mentality or a friendly, helpful mentality?
Kick-ass can be good in some aspects, but in real life you don't respawn. Kick-ass does not pay off for most people, unless done without violence.
I am a parent, I do not allow my kids to play games with ratings way above their age. Nether do I think it is appropriate for my 3-year old to watch the news. Unfortunately other parents are not so restrictive. Some are clueless, some just give in to the "I want" mentality.
The escalating violence in society is most definitely due to media, media in all forms, not just video games.
If nobody informs you that you can; kick people in the head; put glass in food at super markets that other people will eat; or bring your gun to school and shoot people at random, these phenomenon would be less common.
Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag.
I would like some message telling people that doing things depicted in media is wrong - really wrong. Media assumes people know its wrong, most adults know it's wrong, but it's very rarely articulated so that the children and Aspberger types get it.
Many kids roaming the streets are educated by media, thinking that doing the wrong thing is the right thing.
"I don't like you - headshot"
Truly sad.
Lumping gamers together, should be like lumping book buyers together; you can't.
I mean I could start lumping all Nintendo players together with the pre-pubescent 10 year old running around the house in dirty underwear screaming in a scratch voice: "I want to play Nintendo!"
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
What kind of games did you play? Every game has some sort of message. Final Fantasy games are notorious for pushing Eastern Mysticism.
Just because a game references something doesn't mean that it is pushing it. By the same equivalence a game where you are in a graveyard with crosses would be pushing Christianity.
Having played most Final Fantasy games I really haven't seen this "notorious" push towards eastern mysticism. Sure, there are mages, and other "mystic" classes, but its just the setting the world is in.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Perhaps it is not that the games themselves are violent but that they represent a violence already present in our world. Perhaps it is the fact that developers have inspiration from reality to create these things that we should take to heart. Within every little bit of fiction there is a sliver of fact.
It seems to me that if we have the stomach do something like Falujah in real life, we should also have the stomach to tolerate a game recreation of the thing we did.
Conversely, if we don't like seeing a game recreation of something, maybe we should reconsider doing that thing in the first place.
Controversy is a matter of taste.
If you don't want your kids playing GTA or playing pseudo-realistic war sims, don't buy 'em. Don't play 'em. But don't try and protect me from them either.
I never really understood, and I'm not sure I will ever understand, what makes some people take up a crusade expressly to abolish ideas that they find offensive that they could just avoid, in turn exposing themselves to a constant stream of something that they obviously can't stand.
Books, games, metal, hip-hop, homosexuality, religion, porn, weed... hell, even Macs. The list goes on and on. Almost all of of the hot buttons I can think of are often central to a person's identity.
Stop telling me how to live my life and get on with your own. I may not agree with how you choose to live your life, but I'll be damned if you make my moral choices for me.
Have your own kids, shield them if you must, and get back to me in 16 years with how well that turns out.
Think of your own damned children.
I have to say, there is /some/ progress that is widely ignored. For the most part, unless a game has insanely good gameplay, I get bored easily if it isn't intellectually interesting. Killzone 2 seems to fall into this category.
However, I purchased GTA4 and I was astounded by the level the game was playing at. Every piece of it was art: The mechanics, the voice acting, the sheer amount of content, the artistry employed in recreating a faux new york city. The plot allowed me to see the ethics of the criminal element, walk in their shoes and see why they do what they do. You're even presented with ambiguous moral choices. If this does not qualify as "examining the human condition" just because its an unpopular segment of society, then you're all hypocrites.
I am not so sure about the "controversies" - all I know is that I don't care about the so-called "adult entertaintment", because as far as I can see, that is just crap targeted at those in their late teens. What really does interest me is informational literature, like scientific articles, or in-depth analysis, like you often find in science fiction and, amazingly, some fantasy, like Terry Pratchett.
Anyway, what is needed her is not more legislation - the rules are already too complicated and unreasonable. I think what would be helpful would a thoughtful sort of moral leadership; not the fire-and-brimstone religious nonsense, but a respectful, well-reasoned morality that everybody can subscribe to. What we have now is a sort of moral vacuum, with the sometimes absurd prudishness of the churches on on side and the complete lack of moral of business on the other.
I don't think young people choose to entertain themselves with crappy adult games simply because they are attracted to them by nature; it is because 1) it is being pushed at them by amoral businesses, and 2) they haven't learned any better.
Had James Joyce published Hello Kitty's Trip to Ireland instead of the The Dubliners or Ulysses because he was afraid of criticism and wanted to stay within the norm? Well, two of my favorite works would not be around today.
Thanks to you, I now have a new favorite work and it hasn't even been published yet!
Hello Kitty's Trip to Ireland!
Rated M, I trust.
[UID-HeinzIntel]
So first you're comparing games to David, and now you're comparing them to Campbell's soup cans and episodes of Lost? Jebus, talk about lowering the bar.
The Velvet Underground just called, and they're pissed...
[UID-HeinzIntel]
> a cute doe-eyed cow
Sorry dude,
I've got visions of a cow having it's eyeballs gouged out and replaced with those belonging to Bambi.
Cute isn't the word I'd use :-)
If I remember correctly, the Hot Coffee mod allowed your character in GTA3 to have sex with prostitutes, which is a completely different thing than raping a woman.
It was sex with your in game "girlfriend", which is completely different from even sex with prostitutes, much less sexual assault.
Rape is a particularly heinous crime because, unlike murder, once the act has been perpetrated the victim's suffering has only just begun.
And because of societal attitudes towards the protection of women - rape victim == female. You don't see the automatic or continued sympathy for male victims of rape.
And unlike killing someone, it's never morally justified.
Never? I remember a woman in the 80's or early 90's who would call an urban radio station anonymously. She had gotten AIDS through sexual contact, and decided the proper thing to do was to have sex with as many men as possible and give them all AIDS. This woman and the stereotypical rapist were made for eachother.
Are you serious? It's a game. Games are for entertainment. I have a hard time understanding how simulated murder, rape, etc. is entertainment.
If they allowed social experimentation like what happens to populations when all of the surplus corn and rice is converted into ethanol, it might be a learning medium. But then it wouldn't generate nearly the interest and profits.
While ultra violent and racist games continue to be developed, and the violence and stereotyping mostly left unchecked and/or swept under the rug, sex in videogame is still as controversial as ever. I don't know if this is off topic considering the title of the thread "On the Advent of Controversial Video Games" but as chairperson of the IGDA Sex-SIG I feel somewhat compelled to comment. http://www.igda.org/sex/
Even though the average age of gamers is 28+ years and older... its kind of hypocritical that youth can get relatively easy access to this kind of ultra violent and/or seemingly racist content (typically ERSB approved ) that is training and desensitizing another generation of gamers.
Throw some good old missionary or doggy style sex between a man and a woman and your in hot water. Enough hot water to make a lot of people boil over with antiquated ideas and opinions that games are for kids and they need to be sex needs to be kept out of the game experience period.
'Hot Coffee' as GTA pulisher Take2 found out... creates more controversy than its worth for mainstream publishers to venture forward. Maybe its teh way they did that matters inthat case but it was quite the controversy for a while.
Sony's God of War threesome and Bioware's Mass Effect alien lesbian scenes that cut away from the real action but leave pretty much nothing to the imagination about what's going to happen next are posted all over YouTube for anyone to see. These two semi-famous examples haven't landed those publishers in too much hot water so maybe attitudes are changing. After all any under age person who known's how to Google two keywords 'Free Porn' will see more than any virtual sex scene in any RPG game will ever be able to portray.
That said as Chairperson of the Sex-SIG (with a personal and professional goal of evangelizing Sex in Games), and also as a developer and publisher promoting sex RPGs I have coined the phrase 'Sex is Not the Enemy". We basically sell only online to consenting adults with credit cards who want to see sex in a videogame like environment, and you would be surprised how many do! We feel that letting users play out whatever fantasy the want from straight sex to gay to you name it, is one of the last frontiers in the storytelling required to make games as complete and compelling as Hollywood movies for instance or even a good smut book.
For a publisher in the sex in videogames niche its a fine line between commerce and artistic merit for the fantasy simulations that gamers want too see and control but we have to do what we have to do to strike a balance between giving what our users want and providing an experience that users will subscribe to from month to month and development costs.
That said I want to leave a link to a video clip by Daniel Floyd I think summarizes the challenges and controversy about sex in games and the challenges between getting it right from an interactive storytelling experience and creating a game that is commercially viable with all the obstacles a sex game faces.
http://www.gamerotica.com/video/view/57-video-games-and-sex
BTW we realize about 50% of gamers think sex in games is a waste of time and lame but with 100's of millions of gamers now in the world the other 50% are demanding it so us and others like Red Light Center, Bonetown etc. will continue to deliver.
thXXX
Brad Abram
http://www.igda.org/sex/
"EVERYTHING is allowed, as long as it does not hurt anybody".
There. Solved all the fuss, the made-up concept of the "controversy" and the whole crap about it.
That's why games are great. If you want to play being a really sick fuck, go ahead. At least you're not doing it in reality.
The only problem that can arise, is people who are so retarded, that they think reality is like games.
But they will then soon find out, that you can not survive a bunch of rockets hitting you, winning a well-earned Darwin award.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
What I find mindboggling is that if there's controversial content in games it causes more furor than the same content in other media, especially movies and TV.
Goombah is an Italian term for a very trusted friend. If you interpret it otherwise, that's a result of the bastardization of its true meaning.
Likewise, there is no reason a young fellow should object to being called boy... :D
If you were hanging around with some Kuribo and started calling them "Goombah" they'd take that shoe of theirs and put it so far up your ass...
Bow-ties are cool.
Violence is part of our world and human psyche whether we like it or not. I do see a reason to stop violence in real life, however in a video it is not meant to be taken seriously and it is just there for the 'fun factor'.
I don't know why so many people continue trying to push in hopes of removing more and more of our freedoms as Americans. By banning video games and books we are telling the government that we want them to control everything we see and hear.
Turn on the news, there is far more violence(real violence) than you can find in a video game. Read your history books or go take a trip over to a third world country.
People are capable of anything and everything no matter what a video game shows them. Hundreds of years ago humans did not need video games to tell them to kill, rape or commit pedophilia but they did.
This country was founded on freedom and I should be able to do anything I want as long as it isn't harming another individual.
The simple fact is that video games don't teach us violence, the world does. Stop trying to cut off the fingers when the whole arm is infected. Our world is filled with violence and I don't believe that will ever change because you can never change what a human being is capable of and to do so would make them inhuman.
Until the word 'rape' brings up images for men as being helpless tied down victims while they are brutally sodomized and mouth-raped with a stick holding open the teeth (assuming the rapist hasn't punched out or removed all the teeth before the mouth-rape), Rape will always be an easier game for men to discuss.
Once the image of men being reduced to quivering broken-boned receptacles for the machismo-raper's fluids, is firmly ensconced in the minds of all human men, then the topic of what "feels" worse or "is" worse can be rationally and logically discussed on a level playing field. Presuming enough of the males don't immediately seek the solace of suicide to hide their shame.
Maybe then you'll know why. But without a level-victim playing field it's difficult for men, who make most of the laws, enforce most of the laws, and violate the most laws to really judge which is worse (and I'm not claiming one is worse than the other). It's just that for some people, living with the shame of victim-hood can be worse than being killed-in-action. Even though, logically, it wasn't the victim's fault -- that doesn't prevent what can be life-long suffering from, often, untreated PTSD. How much worse is it for those who are told that it was (or is) their fault due to the way they dressed, the fact that they 'flirted', or the fact that they were in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time.
Victims of trauma often suffer for years beyond the actual event as triggers cause them to relive aspects of the event. Ask war veterans when they hear a car backfire or or when they awaken from some nightmare with night-sweats. Ask those who lived but were damaged for life, who may now be trying to care for a family, about how "lucky" they felt next to their fellow soldiers who were cut down, but died honorably, and who got posthumous decorations and benefits for their families.
I don't think you will find universal agreement about who got the better deal -- it very much comes down to the individual, as well as the supportiveness (or lack thereof) after the incident.
Ideally, everyone would 'get over it'...but tell that to the new crop of soldiers, with exceptionally high numbers coming back with what the army has been deliberately trying to downplay, but is being increasingly recognized as PSTD. Victims of any crime -- but especially ones involving interpersonal violence and violation are very likely to set the stage for PSTD-caused mental damage long after the actual event.
About 30 years back, it used to be the other way around. Personally, I think physical castration should be used more often for violent 1st cases, or repeat offenders. But used to be that rape you got off with a few years or probation -- far less punishment than murder, usually. Regardless of the current trends in criminal "justice"[sic] and "rehabilitation"[sic] the sentences and punishments for most crimes under our criminal justice system are out of whack and do little to increase overall safety in the community or the country.
I might agree with you if the victims (and perps) were equally represented between the sexes -- but it's one crime where overwhelmingly, the the majority of perps are mal