Slashdot Mirror
On Realism and Virtual Murder
Gamasutra has an interesting article about how the push toward realistic graphics and extremely lifelike characters in modern games is making the term "murder simulator" — once laughed off for referring to pixelated dying Nazis — a concept to take more seriously. The author is careful to simply explore the issue, and not come to a specific conclusion; he doesn't say that we should or shouldn't prevent it from happening, only that it's worth consideration. (One section is even titled "Forget the kids," saying that decisions for what children play fall under parental responsibility.) Quoting:
"We should start rethinking these issues now before we all slide down the slope together and can't pull ourselves back up again. Or, even worse, before governments step in and dictate what can and can't be depicted or simulated in video games via legislation. ... Obviously, what makes an acceptable game play experience for each player is a personal choice that should be judged on a person-by-person basis (or on a parent to child basis), and I believe it should stay that way. As for me, I'm already drawing the line at BioShock — I can barely stomach the game as it is. Sure, I could play it more and desensitize myself, but I don't want to. And that's just me. It's up to you and a million other adult gamers to decide what's best for yourselves and to draw the line on virtual violence where you feel most comfortable."
And violence on the playground? I draw the line at cops and robbers, man. Murder simulation right there. I couldn't stomach one kid lying down pretending to be dead. Hell, I threw up when my friend made an over-the-top death gargling noise. Shit's unreal, man, surely our Congressional Overlords must step in with sweet blessings from Barack Obama.
You know, I used to laugh at the term "murder simulator" when it was bandied about by knee-jerk opponents of video violence some years ago. Preposterous, I said: video is video -- easily distinguishable from reality, and reasonable people know the difference between fantasy and reality. That was in the Gunsmoke Night Of The Living Dead, where the violence seemed cartoonish in black&white. And I love those movies and TV shows
Then I watched The Adventures Of Robin Hood. The blood was in color, and it was red. For the first time, hell started to freeze over, and I found myself beginning to understand the critics' point of view. As videos inched ever closer to absolute photorealism (which some industry professionals believe to be no more than 10-15 years away), violent video critics' arguments are slowly beginning to look more sane. And yes, you're reading this from a life-long video fan who staunchly opposes institutional artistic censorship.
But censorship is peanuts compared to the conundrums we'll be facing in the future with our favorite hobby. Once our video of the real world (still called, somewhat quaintly, "movies and television") begin to effectively duplicate reality, the issue of video violence won't be a matter of artistic merit or censorship anymore. It will quickly become a matter of morality, ethics, and law.
The coming storm is inevitable: turn one way, and you'll see ever-more realistic portrayals of graphic, gratuitous human violence in movies and television like The Adventures Of Robin Hood, Pearl harbor, and Fox Television's 24. Then turn the other and observe the exponential explosion of recording media and High Definition video rendering potential driven by technology. Put two and two together, and you've got quite a mess brewing.
Welcome to the Slippery Slope
Within the next 10-20 years, your virtual victims in Survivor, Gaza Strip could look, sound, and behave exactly like a real human would if you stabbed him in the neck or shot him in the gut. There'd be plenty of blood, screaming, and carnage to go around. You could watch in High Definition COlor as they bleed to death in agony.
The funny thing is -- and I'm just guessing -- you wouldn't want to do that in real life to a real human, so why would you want to watch in video? The violent scenario above seems silly now, but the stunningly realistic, color-era violent video we watch today would have seemed unthinkably graphic just fifteen years ago.
At the moment, we rationalize our simulated violence with statements like: "It's just a movie, it's just television. It's not real. The people don't suffer." All this is true (at the moment); but as the experience of virtual murder becomes ever more realistic, I believe that we as watchers will begin to suffer emotionally every time we view realistic suffering to any virtual person, just as if we caused suffering to real living creatures.
With each act of violence, a piece of us grows cold, calloused, and uncaring towards the well being of others. Repeat that, and we become slowly desensitized to pain and suffering.
As movie and TC fans, we've already begun desensitizing ourselves to simulated murder, or else we wouldn't be able to watch the violent video we have now. Video featuring endless violence is nearly as old as video movies themselves, with heavyweight title prizefight between Jim Jeffries and Tom Sharkey (1899) probably being the most influential. Back in 1998, Saving Private Ryan was the most graphically realistic simulation of murder you could find in video. It shocked people (including the author) at first.
But as the body count racked up, each death became easier to watch until we no longer had a second thought about it. The same desensitizing effect stretches back to every violent video that pushed the limits of realism -- all the way back the early horror flick The Texas Chain Saw Massacre , where a psycho mowed down people "gremlins" with a chain s
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Overall, you see a societal decrease in violence. But a troubling trend is spree-killing in schools. That is largely a more recent phenomenon. 14 of the 15 deadliest incidents have occurred since 1996.
Does this conclusively prove that violent games are the root cause? No.
But I strongly suspect that the kids who have gone off the deep end have been more effective killers because they have trained extensively on killing simulators (ie., violent video games).
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
A whole lot of 15 incidents? in twenty five years? over some billions of population? wow! That surely seems a spike.
I guess you need to spend less time playing video games and more time working on your reading comprehension.
14 of the 15 deadliest school shooting incidents occurred since 1996.
That is to say, if you take all school shooting incidents that have ever been recorded and rank them by number of deaths, 14 of the top 15 happened between 1996 and 2009.
I know that correlation is not causation.
I would be interested to hear alternate theories about the cause of this statistic. Why have the school shooters become more effective at killing?
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
I'm just throwing it out there, but my point seems to be whooshing over everyone's head (the slashbots are out in full force today!).
I'm not saying that violent video games are the -cause- of school shootings.
I'm saying that it appears that the school shooters, in terms of body count, have become more effective in the last 15 years or so.
If anyone has a compelling theory about this increase in the -effectiveness- of school shooters, I'm all for hearing it.
Yes, I know that shooting in a game is not the same as shooting a real weapon. But I have seen people who have combat training who are much more effective in games than people without combat training. Conversely, the military does use simulators as part of training soldiers for combat. If it wasn't effective, they wouldn't be pumping millions into simulation software.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
I'm saying that it appears that the school shooters, in terms of body count, have become more effective in the last 15 years or so.
Please define "effective".
Higher body count per incident. More people dead.
Does anyone around here speak fucking English?
Have you considered that it's not the shooters who are getting better, but the victims who are getting worse ?
Please define "worse".
Somehow I think the military does a little more than just plonk people down in front of a computer running Team Fortress.
And your point is?
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
I'm not sure you can "set-aside" the global carnival of carnage that has become America's biggest business. The Army has found video games to be an effective recruiting tool. The Army uses video games to train soldiers to put aside their humanity and make the decision to kill actual, living people in a split second. Have you ever met anyone who has driven a tank, or a similar large piece of high-tech lethal machinery in a modern war? It is somewhat telling -- everyone I know who has served in one of these wars, who was in such a position, had this to say: "It was like playing a video game." The experience is complete with music, glitzy graphics, even sound effects. It is possible that we, as a culture, have simply learned to sublimate the desire for instant small-scale violent responses, to a desire for organized large-scale symphonies of death. I'm not sure that this is progress.