"I kill you.": a rant on the matter of violent video games

[remixor]

Check it out.  There's a feedback thread link at the end of the article.

[Darth Mandarb]

A really good read.

I have fallen away from FPS since Quake came out.Ã,  It was like ... they all just seemed the same to me, just that the graphics were getting better.

I prefer games that make you think anyway.

I'm glad he wasn't blaming the violence in the world on Video Games ... I've always thought that video games weren't the source of violence, but rather a convenient outlet for it.

I mean, the 14 year old terrorist that straps a bomb on his back and blows up a bus didn't learn that from a video game.

Human beings are, in my opinion, genetically violent creatures.Ã,  It would be nice if we'd have evolved past that but it just isn't the case.Ã,  ALL humans can be pushed into being violent ... it's just [still] in our nature.Ã,  We may be getting closer ... but we still haven't been out of the trees long enough.

The mother of this kid probably blames it on something other than she was a shitty mother who didn't pay enough attention to her kid and didn't know what was going on in her son's life.Ã,  "He was such a quiet kid ..."Ã,  - heard that before.

Thanks for the link Remixor, it was a good read!

[Redwall]

...psst, DM, Remixor wrote it...

[Sylpher]

Something not considered in the article (though I thought it was good) was that video games largely expand on what many people would like to do in rea life but most people are sensible enough to know they can't so they do it in a virtual world. Alas.. Grand Theft Auto.

Even games that are highly life-like have you take on the character of someone doing something the general person is never gonna do in there own life. Super tech spy games and such.

Or they take you where you would like to be but it isn't possible.. Half-Life.

Though I agree this idea can and should be applied to not so hardcore violent scenarios. It caters to them easiest when adding a gameplay element. I mean how do you throw Gordon Freeman in his situation in Black Mesa and then have him leave the facility in a non-violent manner? Is he gonna discuss his feelings with the aliens and they will form a mutual bond as to not hurt each other as long as the trade routes between the kitchen and west hall are allowed to run tax free?

I dunno.. But it keeps me up at night!

[remixor]

Sylpher, you're totally right.  I just think there have to be other scenarios of things people want to imagine themselves doing that don't necessarily involve blowing stuff up.  I'm all for the violent games, I'm not calling for their death (despite the original title of the article being "Death the violent games", but let's not go there), I just want other situations as well.  And to take it a step farther than that, I think there are room for games that don't necessarily put people in fantasy-fulfillment situations.  Facade, which I mentioned in the article, is an example of that.  When you're playing the game, you feel very uncomfortable because the couple you're interacting with is actually have an argument that is dynamically generated depending on what you say.  If you handle the situation in a certain way, they'll get mad at you.  Despite having fairly primitive graphics, the game is remarkably immersive.  It's not the feeling of "Whoo, this is awesome" you get when you're blowing away a million guys, but after completing the situation, you (or at least I) are if nothing else extremely impressed by how much you were sucked in.  Not to mention, the game has amazing replay value.  Since it operates on a text parser, you can say whatever you want and there are countless ways the conversation will go.  The game even changes depending on where you stand in the room.  If you hang around the bar, Trip will ask if you want a drink, and if you stand to close to Grace she'll think you're coming on to her.  These aren't "if/then" situations either; they'll pan out differently depending on how the conversation was handled earlier.  Anyway, enough about Facade.  It's totally awesome and it's an example of a character and story driven game that does something new and doesn't rely on violence.  Hooray!

[Babar]

Very interesting article. Sure, there is an irreversible trend towards games that do not solely revolve around killing and violence, but that is a long while away. Like it was said, the people who would be interested in games like Facade are not really into gaming. "Gamers" as a group seem to share the same detachment as "Computer Nerds" did in the 80s and 90s. It will be sometime for games to become as normal as, say movies. Right now there are many diverse genres of movies, something that every person could enjoy. Not so with games. One example of this is the fact that (in general), there are far fewer female gamers than male gamers.
The problem with making such unorthodox games as suggested, is that they are unlikely to make much money. Sure, alot of people will enjoy them, but the average gamer (this being some mythical 16 year old creature on the PC in the basement), would not care for it. That is also, probably the reason for the decline in adventure games. Most companies would not want to risk investing in such games. Sure, if alot more games were released that did not rely on heavy violence as a central theme, and instead had something else that was interesting, alot of people would get it. However, at the moment, these companies seem to think that that is not the way to go. There would have to be a lot more widespread advertisement of other types of games before there would be enough people willing to buy them to warrant their release. At the moment, as you can see, that is not the case. I have heard alot more about games like Doom3 and Halo2 and Half-Life2 than of "Facade". Sure it annoys me that advertisements like "A variety of guns and weapons" and "Realistic Killings" seem to sell. I for one cannot understand how having a seperate graphic for a seperate gun, in which a few variables have been changed to make it better or worse can be a selling point of a game. Sure, I enjoy such games, but their is a limit. After playing Doom and Wolfenstien (the original) and Duke Nukem 3d, I did not play many FPS until Half-Life and Halo. To me they were ALL exactly the same. You press the numbers on the top of the keyboard to get a vareity of different weapons, and shoot them primary and secondary (usually with Ctrl and Alt). There are a variety of levels that, despite different textures, end up looking exactly the same. That is the reason I dislike most FPS. There is so little innovation. Just advancements in graphics to make the violence more life-like. I mean, if you made a realistic Pacman, with a huge yellow guy eating beasts and berries, that would probably be labelled violent, and the odd canabalism incident would be blamed on it.
It is a good thing that due to the increasing variety of gamers, video games HAVE to evolve. Sure, there will always be the Action-packed, low on story-high on violence game, but the same can be said for movies. The evolution is just a matter of time, and of people giving little pushes and prods (such as this article), to move it in the right direction.
Most of the points I make are in general, I am sure there are specific instances I am wrong. I realise that I may have strayed from the original "violence" discussion, but I am sure you will forgive me.

[Ghormak]

Quite frankly, I'm sick of always having to kill things, be it with a gun, or with an army, or with a sword, or with magic, or with my feet. I don't have a problem with it but I want to do something else sometimes (and not just fit blocks into other blocks).

That sums up what I feel about games today so perfectly I almost suspect you of stealing my thoughts and writing them down for fun and profit!

Excellent article. I want more varied games too. Most of all, I'd like scary games that doesn't involve you killing hundreds of zombies using an arsenal of weapons big enough to kill... well, hundreds of zombies.

If all the movies were pornos or snuff films, you can bet films wouldn't enjoy the exposure they do.

Heh, again I accuse you of mindreading! Remember that John Carmack once said "stories in video games are like stories in pornos. They're just there, they don't have to be good"? I remembered that yesterday when I was thinking about Doom 3, and had a little thought: "iD's (and other developers') mindless shooters are to the game industry what pornos are to the movie industry. They may contain pretty sights (ahem), but are unlikely to be enjoyed by the general public as genuine entertainment."

[DGMacphee]

Some points I agree with, some I don't.

For example, I agree that games today are more violent than they were two decades ago.

However, I also think that some games use violence to demonstrate a particular purpose. For example, I once read an article somewhere that GTA's violence was more a reflection on urban society (or rather, a satire on urban society). Here's a similar article that provides such an opinion: http://echo.colum.edu/back/winspr02/issues4.html.

Other games use violence for such a purpose. Hitman is a very violence game, but it uses violence to demonstrate the brutality of man to the degree that killing is "just a job". One of the strangest feelings I got from Hitman was after I completed a hit, I'd just be walking away from it. Just a job. Do the hit, then walk away. Life for everyone else continues. And it's that nonchalant feeling that really chills me, not the actual violence.

Deus Ex was also a very violent game, but the violence was used to demonstrate the brutality of war. I think it's interesting how at one point in the game, you switch sides. What were previously your friends became your enemies. The fact that these soldiers, who were once your friends, are now trying to kill you really places the player in an upsetting position.

However, I do think your article alludes to an important point, which is that most games (including Tetris) rely on survival. In Tetris, you need to survive the advancing lines of blocks. In Space Invaders, you must survive against alien spaceships. In Doom, you need to survive against the hordes of hell and get to the exit. A lot of games use violence as a means to resolve this conflict of survival. I think it's the games that twist this turn out to be better. A game like Hitman requires stealth to resolve survival. Deus Ex provides the choice to use violence or stealth.

Essentially, I think this is what you're trying to say: more games that use non-violent means (such as stealth) to resolve tension (such a survival).

Actually, I just thought of an interesting game idea based upon this. Ever played "tiggy"? ("tag" in the US). What about a tiggy-inspired game? It's non-violent, it incorperates survival, and I had great fun playing tiggy as a kid.

Then again, you could always switch off your computer, grab a group of friends and play tiggy outside.Ã, 

But I guess nowdays, kids use digital rocket launchers to tag someone.


What's more disturbing these days is not violence but parental attitudes towards violence. Most parents don't really care if their kids are playing violent games. And it's especially disturbing when this sort of thing happens: http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10307563%255E902,00.html

I think what parents should do is the same thing when they have the "birds and the bees" chat. They should sit their child down and talk to them about violence. I remember once as a kid I had come back from a friends house where we were hunting birds with a BB gun. I told my Dad this over dinner and it annoyed him that we were just killing for the sake of fun. And rightly so. What he told me then I'll never forget. He said he couldn't understand why someone would kill for the sake of fun and told me the story of a friend of his who would go out camping in the woods with a crossbow. He wouldn't bring any food, because he'd just hunt what he needed to eat and nothing more. Think Burt Reynolds in Deliverence. And the main difference between him and me?

He was hunting for survival, and I was hunting for fun.

And I think that's what kids today don't realise about violent games. They've confused the violence as a means of fun, whereas they should look at a game in terms of survival -- violence as a last resort. The whole psychology of games has been confused in that kids play games as a means of fun, rather than a means of survival. Or perhaps it's just that sense of survival that gives them enjoyment.

It'd be an interesting topic to write a research paper on if anyone is studying psychology.

In any case, I do think games should open up more possibilities of survival rather than resorting to violence. I think violence is only necessary when it's not gratuitous (i.e. it serves a purpose to prove a point, such as GTA, Hitman or Deus Ex).

[MrColossal]

While I agree with DG about the whole birds and bees discussion and violent video games/movies or whatever, I don't understand this at all:

"And I think that's what kids today don't realise about violent games. They've confused the violence as a means of fun, whereas they should look at a game in terms of survival -- violence as a last resort."

I don't understand how kids of today have video games confused. Did kids in the 80's not confuse it? I never thought like this. I stomped on a goomba not just because it was a rule of the game or survival or something, it was fun, and I got points and it made a blee-BLOP! sound. Since the vast majority of kids play video games without killing people in real life then I think kids today have it exactly right. Just like we had it exactly right and our parents before us.

And unless I'm completely getting your meaning wrong, violence in many games is not a last resort. In Contra you can get past the first stage up until the miniboss without killing anyone, but then you're stuck, you have to kill. There's no other way around it. Just like thousands and thousands of games. Especially the first wave of video games. I mean you could play Space Invaders using stealth but eventually you'll run out of little blobby base things to hide behind and there are no shadows to hide in...

Also, I don't think Remo is saying that games don't use violence for a reason or to demonstrate a point of view or what have you. He's just saying he is tiring of violence. And to speak for myself, I get it, violence is dreadful, war is brutal, gang violence is terrible. I got it before I played video games. Is there nothing else that can be brought up in a game besides "War is hell."?

In regards to tag, here you go: http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=170

Now, the article by Christopher Remo

I enjoyed it heavily. As for the part about the woman killing her children because she said god told her, this can be applied to everything that is scapegoated and I hate it that no one seems to realize this [by "no one" I mean law makers and politicians]. A man went into an office building and shot a bunch of people cause he thought Willie Nelson [or some other musician like Willie] told him to do it in through the music. Where was the Willie Neslon witch hunt? Like what happened to Manson and KMFDM [and iD when it comes to games] after Columbine.

"I'm convinced that games as a medium have a lot more to offer than new and exciting normal-mapped ways of killing people."  I enjoyed that wonderfully.

I have a question for you [and you'd probably prefer all this was handled on the Idle Thumbs message board but I'm living in the here and now!], you write a few times that you're not condeming violence in games and you like violent games, do you feel the need to have to repeat this so people don't jump down your throat calling you a pansy or that you think violent video games are bad? Whenever I speak of violent games I find myself repeating "Not that there's anything wrong with violent games!" a lot because it seems people are touchy to criticsm on violence.

Woulda been great to have you at Mittens when we discussed games, Chris. Sucks you couldn't make it.

Eric

[DGMacphee]

I think I muddled the meaning there. I used "kids today" as a cliche. I really meant kids in general confuse violence as fun.

Having said that, I think parents also need to illustrate the difference between "cartoon violence" and "real violence". And this enters into a new debate as to what constitutes "cartoon violence" and "real violence", but like I said it's something that a parent needs to discuss with their child.

And unless I'm completely getting your meaning wrong, violence in many games is not a last resort. In Contra you can get past the first stage up until the miniboss without killing anyone, but then you're stuck, you have to kill. There's no other way around it. Just like thousands and thousands of games. Especially the first wave of video games. I mean you could play Space Invaders using stealth but eventually you'll run out of little blobby base things to hide behind and there are no shadows to hide in...

This is kind of what I mean anyway -- using violence when there is no other option. You have to kill that miniboss or else he'll kill you. You have to kill the Space Invaders before they land and take over the planet. My point was that most kids don't consciously realise that there is no other option. They only know that killing the miniboss or the Space Invaders is fun and aren't aware of the moral implications. And likewise, this is something a parent needs to discuss with their child.

Also, I don't think Remo is saying that games don't use violence for a reason or to demonstrate a point of view or what have you. He's just saying he is tiring of violence. And to speak for myself, I get it, violence is dreadful, war is brutal, gang violence is terrible. I got it before I played video games. Is there nothing else that can be brought up in a game besides "War is hell."?

I understood Remo's point of view. I was just saying that sometimes violence explains certain facets of humanity, thus we shouldn't discount violence. And likewise, I do know violence is wrong. I've known that for a long time. But there are other side issues. I think Deus Ex went beyond the normal "war is hell" message, and tried to say "war is morally ambiguous".

And yeap, Capture the Flag is a fantastic game. But there's still a violence element where the team members beat each other up. I was thinking more a real-time game in 3D where you just tag.

[MrColossal]

Do you feel there are moral implications in playing Space Invaders? I don't. Could you elaborate, pleasey please?

As for a tag game, it would be horribly boring. Part of the fun in tag is contorting your body in awkward ways to make the person who is It miss you by just that little bit. Carmageddon had Fox 'n the Hounds where you played tag but the Hounds had to tag the Fox so it was the other way around, and you didn't even get any weapons. It was fun for about 5 minutes and then we went back to normal deathmatch. I can play tag in real life, I can't smash a solid granite jet car into the side of a ghetto blaster.

[DGMacphee]

Do you feel there are moral implications in playing Space Invaders? I don't. Could you elaborate, pleasey please?

I think Space Invaders is a very minor example of what I'm talking about -- I just used it to relate it to your argument. I could be very wanky and say, "Think about that poor Space Inavder's family!!" but I won't. I think it's more important to use more modern games of today as examples (ie. that miniboss example you stated). I say this because we've perfected computer graphics to the point of very close emulation of real life violence, such as Manhunt or GTA. Space Invaders uses graphics that are very "cartoony" in this day an age. Like I said, this raises a whole lot of questions into what constitutes "cartoon violence" and "real-life violence". And it something that parents need to make aware to their kids.

Also, Space Invaders was released during a time when violence in films were being explored in moral terms. Look at a films of the 70s and 80s, like Bonnie and Clyde or Die Hard. Violence in computer games wasn't such a big deal back then because a) most of it was cartoony or graphically inferior, and b) everyone was more focused about violence in films. But today, violence in games is an important moral issue because of the reasons I've stated before: graphics have evolved.

As for a tag game, it would be horribly boring. Part of the fun in tag is contorting your body in awkward ways to make the person who is It miss you by just that little bit. Carmageddon had Fox 'n the Hounds where you played tag but the Hounds had to tag the Fox so it was the other way around, and you didn't even get any weapons. It was fun for about 5 minutes and then we went back to normal deathmatch. I can play tag in real life, I can't smash a solid granite jet car into the side of a ghetto blaster.

Which is why I said in my first post: "Then again, you could always switch off your computer, grab a group of friends and play tiggy outside".



Actually, I think parents also need to discuss, in relation to this, the difference between what is real and what is fantasy. Few kids are able to grasp the difference at such an early age. Imagination is a good thing, yes, but when it gets out of control then it can cause developmental problems.

[remixor]

Eric: thanks the comments, much appreciated.

I have a question for you [and you'd probably prefer all this was handled on the Idle Thumbs message board but I'm living in the here and now!], you write a few times that you're not condeming violence in games and you like violent games, do you feel the need to have to repeat this so people don't jump down your throat calling you a pansy or that you think violent video games are bad? Whenever I speak of violent games I find myself repeating "Not that there's anything wrong with violent games!" a lot because it seems people are touchy to criticsm on violence.

Yep, I had to keep harping on it because I knew people would give me crap otherwise.Ã,  Amazingly, it wasn't enough.Ã,  I've been getting a lot of feedback from people claiming that I'm in support of censorship and banning violent games and saying I think the guns in FPS games should be turned into Super Soakers and stuff (which wouldn't actually change my argument at all...).Ã,  Frustration!

Woulda been great to have you at Mittens when we discussed games, Chris. Sucks you couldn't make it.

I really wish I could have gone.Ã,  What's frustrating is that this was my best chance to go (being in the closest proximity that it has been or will be for a while) but financially it still wasn't in the cards.

[Archangel (aka SoupDragon)]

Guns don't kill people, rappers do. I saw it on a documentary on BBC2!

[remixor]

Oh man, Ron Gilbert linked to my article.  I am stoked.

[Redwall]

He seems to like Idle Thumbs.

[MrColossal]

at least someone does OH SNAP!

[shbaz]

Having said that, I think parents also need to illustrate the difference between "cartoon violence" and "real violence".

Man, I wouldn't advocate that at all, I still have scars.  :'(

[Alynn]

I agree with your take on Beyond Good and Evil... I just bought it 2 days ago... and played it non stop... Already beat it... and still wanna play it again... Yes the violence was there, but in about 85% of the situations, you can forgo fighting and just sneak by the guards...

Kya is another game by eden and atari... Violence is there, but you can be smart about it, and make them fight each other (by making one think the other is hitting him while he isn't looking) Games where there is a violent, and a more thinking smarter way to go about it always ticked my fancy...

Anyway, they are few and far between, but there sure are some gems out there... and most the time I seem to find them in the bargin bin...

[DGMacphee]

Man, I wouldn't advocate that at all, I still have scars.Ã,  :'(

What from? Did a fat italian plumber sit on your face when you were a kid?

[shbaz]

Man, I wouldn't advocate that at all, I still have scars.  :'(

What from? Did a fat italian plumber sit on your face when you were a kid?

Actually, I was referring to the 'Parents should teach the difference between cartoon and real violence,' or in my interpretation, child abuse. 

[Moox]

I think kids should have common sence. I played wolfenstien in kindergarten, the teachers told my parents I was the most violent boy they ever met. I dont want to steal cars, shoot hookers, and jump on shrooms. Games are games, if people dont understand that, they should be locked up.

[DGMacphee]

Actually, I was referring to the 'Parents should teach the difference between cartoon and real violence,' or in my interpretation, child abuse.Ã, 

Yeah, because I was so obviously talking about child abuse in a thread about computer game violence. Tell me, when I say parents should teach their kids about sex, do you think of incest? And if I say they should also teach kids about how puppies are born, do you think of beastiality?

And if a parent should teach their kid about things that suck, does everyone think of Blender?

[shbaz]

Actually, I was referring to the 'Parents should teach the difference between cartoon and real violence,' or in my interpretation, child abuse. 

Yeah, because I was so obviously talking about child abuse in a thread about computer game violence. Tell me, when I say parents should teach their kids about sex, do you think of incest? And if I say they should also teach kids about how puppies are born, do you think of beastiality?

Ironicaly, yes. Though in an "it would be funny if.." sort of way.

[DGMacphee]

Incest and beastiality. The choice of every good comedian's daily breakfast.

Anyway, this is way off-topic.

[Moox]

Im sad to say that my town in North Carolina has more then its fair share of inbreds...
Sorry for it being off topic

[modgeulator]

I just wish someone would kill in the name of an adventure game for once! All the publicity could really help the genre out. Here's a plan: how about I go hack up the next door neighbours, then when the cops pick me up I'll tell them the puzzles in "Syberia" drove me to do it.

[shbaz]

Incest and beastiality. The choice of every good comedian's daily breakfast.

Being Aussie, I guess you probably haven't heard many redneck jokes.

For something to be funny it usually must be out of the ordinary or shocking. Once it crosses a line, it ceases to be funny for some people. I'm just not that sensitive.

[DGMacphee]

Incest and beastiality. The choice of every good comedian's daily breakfast.

Being Aussie, I guess you probably haven't heard many redneck jokes.

For something to be funny it usually must be out of the ordinary or shocking. Once it crosses a line, it ceases to be funny for some people. I'm just not that sensitive.

You obviously don't know much about Australia.

And the whole "I-fucked-my-mother-cause-I-come-from-the-South-hyuck-hyuck" bit isn't shocking. It's stale. It's been done to the point of cliche. Nowadays, I don't really see anything funny about rednecks and inbreeding, not because I'm offended, but because I've heard the joke too many times. It's people who can twist the joke (e.g. The Simpson's episode where Cletus goes to parenting school -- "Pa, I cut my finger on the screen door again!" -- or the Futurama episode with the Hillbilly on the moon) that I find funny.

But I should also remind you that we are talking about kids here. It's a little difficult for most people to find child abuse or sex with minors (related, redneck or whatever) funny, no matter how sensitive a person you might be. Sure, you get the odd Michael Jackson joke here and there, but I doubt you'll ever see Paul Reubens doing a stand-up routine on the wonders of child pornography.

But like I said, we're getting WAAAY off-topic now. So... back to senseless violence in computer games!!

* DGMacphee hacks everyone to pieces with a chainsaw!

[m0ds]

Interesting article, Remo. A friend of mine was telling me about that murder not so long ago, and how they planned to ban certain games in the UK. I have no problem with that.

In fact, I think it'd work for the better. This country is certainly cracking down on piracy, so that and a reduction in violent games would be pretty good. As a ex media student I agree that excessive playing and so forth can lead people to do things like that.

Should a teenager really be playing a game like Manhunt? And it's something that a lot of people have only just woken up to - there seems to be a lot of money in violent video games.

I'm happy if they all get banned, because I only really play adventures.

And if they were all banned, everyone would make adventures again

[Chicky]

They better not ban doom2...

[Privateer Puddin']

Yeh, banning Doom two would totally suck..

[Haddas]

Yes, doom 2. That's what we #agsers play all day online, yessir!

[MrColossal]

hey remo, dunno if you know but i just got an email from the IGDA and in it is a link to your article, big man on campus!

[remixor]

Whoa!Ã,  What sort of email is it?Ã,  Would you mind forwarding it to me?

Edit: Whoa!

[MrColossal]

sent to your hotmail account

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Funny thing, I think games are actually getting less violent. Well, some of the only, of course. As in, some of them are forcing the player to stealth instead of combat. Like the wonderful Splinter Cell. And System Shock 2 is still widely loved, and while it does rely on violence, it's more of psychological violence (do horror games make you m,entally unstable? Sorry, next rant, not this one!), you're actually envcouraged to skip combat because you ain't got much in the way of attacking. Also, BG&E, although I ain't played it, seems to fit this bill.

I think we're slowly, but surely, evolving on this. Unfortunately, as shown by Manhunt, so's the "dark side, Luke".

A question for anyone who wants to answer - there used to be a game, for children, where the players earned more points the better they tortured Jews (guess when this was. I read this in my history book, and while it seems too early for computers at all, maybe it actually came some time later... actually, I don't even remember if it WAS a computer, or console, or whatever game. But it DID exist). This is atrocity. Yes. It's brainwash. Yes. But is it any less of an atrocity than a game where the players earn points by killing people in nasty ways - Manhunt?
Sure, the game's rated 18+, but isn't it disturbing that the acual people who play those games seem to be under that age? Makes you think. Then again, we DO live in a violent world, and it's the surest reference 14agers have...

All in all, I'm still optimistic about it.

[Al_Ninio]

Gee.
Just a couple of days after I unsubscribed from the IGDA mailing list.
Would any of you mind posting the contents of that email?
Or, knowing how long these things can get, just the part regarding Remo's article?

[TerranRich]

When "Manhunt" came out, until that point, I had actually thought that games were evolving too. Then, I was disturbed. Beyond disturbed, I was mortified. Here was a game where you killed just the sake (fun?) of killing, and the commercials made it seem all right and even enjoyable. Furthermore, I saw no point to the game. Okay, so you kill people before they kill you. And? That's it? I mean, we have games where people kill, but there's a statement or a point to all of it (GTA, et al). But "Manhunt" didn't have a point to it at all. Just kill before you are killed. Great.

On a side note, has anyone ever saw the Chappelle's Show sketch where Dave is living Grand Theft Auto in his everyday life? It's pretty hilarious. Video clip here: http://www.bordergatewayprotocol.net/jon/humor/video/gta4real.mpg

[Vel]

Great article, and in case I haven't said it - great site. I hadn't checked it for a while and now I read all those great reviews, interviews, articles and previews. Top-notch job.

[R4L]

I think that if a kid plays a violent game, he is smart enough to know that if you kill him, you get points where as in real life, you pay the price. Besides, games that are violent usually atract people because if you can kill some one in a game when ever you want, they think its cool, but in real life they know its bad. But, there are some stupid people who would kill some one just because they could do it on a game. I heard that in Grand Theft Auto III for playstation2, Rockstar had a mission where you had to drive a plane into the twin towers. The Twin Towers. Bin Laden anyone? I heard it was tooken of store shelves and Rockstar banned the mission.

[[Cameron]]

That rumour is total shite. Never mind the fact rockstar wouldn't stoop that low but also the fact that gta3 isn't in ny.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Rap4life42o - while that sounds right, it probably isn't, if the majority of players of such games are well below what is deemed right - an 18yr old might spot the difference, but lower the age and you lower that ability. As much as some 13yr, 14yr and 15yr consider themselves grown-up enough to know the difference, and as much as they may know it in their heads, it's usually not the case in their hearts. And those are dangerous years, where the person is definitely drawing the line in his life.

A personal example. I tried to kill myself once, a rather half-hearted attempt, when I was 14yrs old, on account of a girl. Now, looking back, I know what caused it - I've always been a huge fan of both romance and horror stories. I guess I wanted to, unconsciously, make them all suffer a bit - "them all" being an undefined mass of people I considered guilty for my predictament. Which is, of course, ridiculous. But that's how people tend to think at that age.
I'm not saying that if I hadn't been such a fan of romantic music, and horror stories, and "God-he-must-have-really-loved-her" situations in both music and stories, I'd never have done it - I'm not blaming those things. I'm just saying that that age is RIPE for this sort of things to happen. And we all know that.

If a game/film/book is rated 18+, it's for a REASON. It's up to the parents to control it.

[veryweirdguy]

GTA3 was brought out in October 2001 (or around that) - I don't think they would have planned a twin towers attack in the game seeing as they wouldn't have had time. People are willing to make up all kinds of rubbish just to give videogames a bad name.

I strongly believe that videogames do not affect one's personality in any way, & that may well be all I have to say on the matter.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

I strongly believe that videogames do not affect one's personality in any way, & that may well be all I have to say on the matter.

Of course, then neither will films, books, and any other sort of fiction (including "historical fiction"). Do you agree with this statement? Because it's logic. Although to me, it feels wrong.

[MrColossal]

Wasn't Rockstar's actual response to September 11th clipping the wings on the dodo?

Also Terran:

What about Street Fighter? You beat people up for no reason what-so-ever in that game. Mortal Kombat had a story but since you dismissed Manhunt's story then why allow any story?

Quake, Doom, Half Life, Space Invaders, if you just disallow the story [no matter how thin] 95% of all games out there are just killing for the sake of killing.

Are you sure Manhunt isn't making a statement about reality TV shows? Since that's what the game is. You are on a tv show and people are watching you escape. When you kill someone horribly it shows it through a video camera's lens. There if that's something you need to play a game, there's your statement.

You are spawned in a room, a person walks in through the door, you shoot them with a gun.

The game starts and the man who killed your parents who you've been hunting for years, training for this moment, you shoot him and finally avenge your parents' murder.

[DGMacphee]

Remo's article has really got me thinking. I have a new theory about all this and I want to write an article about it too. Tell me what you think about it.

My theory goes along like this: It used to be music stars and filmmakers that cause controvery and make social statements. Now, computer games are starting to replace them by doing the same sort of thing.

For example, if you trace some of the history of rock and roll, you'll see figures such as Bob Dylan and Marilyn Manson who are controversial icons, especially in the way they present themselves and through the songs they sing. Computer games are now doing this, and even more so than music or movies.

And I think the relationship of such is strong, especially with the Columbine massacre. A lot of people blamed our violent media after it happened. Marilyn Manson was blamed. 'The Basketball Diaries' was blamed. And Doom was blamed. (http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/28/dark.culture/)

However, controversial cultural figures in music are few and far betwen. I think the last big controversial figure was Eminem, and he was controversial two or three years ago. And films haven't had a great many of controversial figures over the last decade, although recently a re-emergence has begun with films like 'The Passion of The Christ', Michael Moore's documentaries, and the South Park guys.

However, it seems more and more games are making similar social statements, more so than films and music. It seems that games and gamemakers are replacing rocks god and filmmakers as our cultural icons. Even Rockstar's name is little ironic when I think about it in this light.

Also, I was on the train the other night and overheard a woman in her 30s/40s talking to some people about her son playing GTA. She said it was awful because you could beat people up or play as a pimp. I was about to turn to her and say, "But it's just a reflection/satire of society. Do you consider our society awful cause people beat each other up or cause there are pimps on the streets?". But then I realised her generation probably doesn't understand this relationship. She sees a game as a game rather than a statement. But it's just the same as her parents not understanding the Beatles or Jimi Hendrix. In her day, her parents probably saw rock music as loud, repetitive noise whereas she saw it as liberating.

I would like to research this more and fild out how many games have spark controversy compared to films and music that have sparked controversy over the last decade or so.

But what does everyone here think about this theory? Is it plausible or am I talking crap?

[Cluey]

All this debate about voilence is annoying, (great article btw).  People seem to think that games need to be extra realistic, and as such, spleens should fall, heads should roll,but why?  Medal of Honour was a godlike game, not a drop of blood in it at all (well, not in the european version anyway).  I love japanese RPG's, as they rely heavily on fantasy and fun, without seeing how many guts you can see on the floor.
I love puzzle games, some of the most unique and fun games are puzzle games.

I agree that taking the blame off the murderer/attacker and blaming it on a video game is sick, its like saying, "this kid can't be a dark killer can't he? Whats made him like this? Surely not being a fucking stoner thats for sure, suddenly media becomes more mind bending then drugs and falling in with the wrong crowd (bet the kid also was a hooded thug as well), get real.  Even if it was a games influence, drugs probably screwed his reality.

Anyway, mario made me do 'shrooms and clog up plumbing so I can talk.

I'd love to see some new games that don't require  body count to be considered worth playing though 

[Pelican]

DGMacphee,

Your theory is quite interesting, and I can see how it applies to some games. However there are still going to be lots of games that are just out to make money. It's like: "Ooh look, games where you kill people make money, lets make some of those."

I despair at the unoriginality of the games market these days.

As for the whole blaming computer games for kids violence - there's an age certificate for a reason, parents need to enforce this. One of my little cousins was visiting (only about 5 years old or something), and wanted to play GTA3. He said his mum let him play it (and she probably does), but I told him, not in this house. I shudder to think what he's gonna turn out like...

[DGMacphee]

DGMacphee,

Your theory is quite interesting, and I can see how it applies to some games. However there are still going to be lots of games that are just out to make money. It's like: "Ooh look, games where you kill people make money, lets make some of those."

Interesting. I wonder if games like that can be equated to "boy band rock" i.e. rock bands that seem edgy, but are manufactured in the same way as the Backstreet Boys or N'Sync (Linkin Park and Limp Biscuit spring to mind).

[Cluey]

Busted anyone?

[Pelican]

Interesting. I wonder if games like that can be equated to "boy band rock" i.e. rock bands that seem edgy, but are manufactured in the same way as the Backstreet Boys or N'Sync (Linkin Park and Limp Biscuit spring to mind).

It's an interesting comparison. It's kinda like you get a game come out that breaks the mold, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Now the bandwagon just seems to be that violent games get the punters. It's just a continuous line of clone games, as it were. But rather than 'cloning' the parts of the game which made it good, they're just focusing on the violence aspect. Does this make any sense?

[DGMacphee]

Busted anyone?

Busted aren't really as edgy as Linkin Park et al try to be, but you're on the right track -- that whole manufactured band idea.

It's an interesting comparison. It's kinda like you get a game come out that breaks the mold, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Now the bandwagon just seems to be that violent games get the punters. It's just a continuous line of clone games, as it were. But rather than 'cloning' the parts of the game which made it good, they're just focusing on the violence aspect. Does this make any sense?

It sure does makes sense. I think about the violent games I like, and I like them not just because they're violent but because there's something about the violence that really separates them from other games that are just violent for the sake of being violent. I like games like Hitman, Deus Ex, GTA, Duke Nukem 3D, etc. All are pretty violent, but I think the violence serves a purpose and gives all of them substance.

[Pelican]

Yes, that's my point. You get these break-the-mold games, where the violence is illustrating a point, rather than just for the sake of it. Then you get a bunch of copycat games, that just focus on the 'oooh, new and interesting ways to kill people', and so we end up with a large amount of games featuring pointless violence. It's not surprising that computer games get picked as the scapegoat for violent behaviour, because as you said, they've already blamed music and films! I think it boils down to some people just don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

[DGMacphee]

Yes, I think parents expect too much from TV and computers. They expect such things to be a cheap form of babysitting; as long as the kids are watching TV or playing a computer game in their spare time, they're staying out of trouble. But one child snaps after playing a computer game and then bludgens a schoolmate, the parents blame the game. Yet, there so many other things that could be at fault: What about the mindset of the child? Why about the time parents spend with their kids? What about outside influences, such as schoolyard bullying (such was the case with the Columbine kids)?

There's a condition I'm learning about called 'Hikikomori', which is a social anxiety condition that happens only in Japan. What happens is young adults, mainly male, retreat from scoiety and spend years staying within the confines of their rooms. Most of the time while they stay there, they play video games. It affects nealr 1.2 million people in Japan. There was a BCC doco about it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/2334893.stm) which linked the condition to things such as pressures and problems at school, lack of communication within the family (and with people as a whole), traditional values, etc. One aspect I found fascination was that kids today (and this isn't just in Japan) interface with a whole new range of technology. Instead of developing interpersonal skills with other people (especially their families), they play video games. And this is what I think has happened (and not only in Japan). I think our idea of family interaction has changed dramatically and this is causing problems for youth.

So, yes, I agree. I think that many parents don't want to take responsiblity for bringing up their kids. Let them stay placid in front of a computer game or a TV show, and when they snap we'll just blame the game or TV show.

And referring to the copycat Manhunt murder, I really question the mother's comments. She said her son was obsessed with the game. Okay, but why did he have such an obsession with the game? Why not a more healthy obsession with something like Beanie Bears? For example:



More to the point, how did she feel knowing he was obsessed with a game that's rated 18+ yet he was only 17? What was she doing to help his obsession? Did she try and stop him, or at least talk to him? I don't think I'kll ever know the answers to my questions here because nothing is mentioned about this in the CNN article.  But from the sounds of the article, I felt she didn't really do much to help because she thought everything was all okay with her son. I do have a feeling that she could have done more to help the obsession.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

So, yes, I agree. I think that many parents don't want to take responsiblity for bringing up their kids. Let them stay placid in front of a computer game or a TV show, and when they snap we'll just blame the game or TV show.

Wow. By starting off in another direction, you've reached the crucial point that's responsible for the general configuration of the present world. Most facts concerning the individual's abilities, opinions, views and whatnot really can be traced back to this.

And about games being a social commentary - maybe it can be read as such, but were they made as such? More importantly, do the players realize it? I don't think they do. Here's a lame example - I see a film that sattirizes the typical 80's film. If I take it seriously, I hate it, and I'll miss out on classics like The Abyss and Blade Runner. By not realizing the film was a sattire, I took it WAAAY too seriously. You know?

[Nellie]

Quick note about the 'Manhunt' killing:

It was the victim's mother who claimed the killer was obsessed with Manhunt, having heard as such from his friends.  Since then it's been discovered that the killer didn't even own a copy of the game.  But the victim did.  :



Violent games as satire:

I think it's inaccurate to suggest that people who complain about violence in some games are missing the point because the game is using violence to make a point.  Sure, GTA3 may be satirising violence in society, but it is also making sure that the virtual violence you participate in is a lot of fun, and that's the issue that sticks in people's throats.  For those people, the standby: it's not real/it's for adults/etc arguments are probably better. 

[DGMacphee]

Redrum: I think what I was trying to say in my last post was that parents should take a little more interest in the games their kids are playing. That way they can see if their kids are obsessed and perhaps convince them to try something else. Like go outside and play with other kids. Or even take their kids on an outing. Also, if they keep tabs on their kid's gaming playing, they can educate their children a little better on the difference between computer game violence and real life violence. Because I do think adults recognise the social commentary value, but I don't think kids do. And I feel that the role of a parent is to take part in educating their kids on society.

Nellie: That's interesting. I must have misread the article. That puts a different spin on the case. But I'm still interested in the attacker's parents -- what kind of people were they? Did they take an active interest in their son's life? The article doesn't mention it.

In regards to your thoughts on satire, I also think that's one of the pitfalls of combining entertainment and social commentary.  It's also a blessing because it's difficult to make something clever that's also accessible to mass audiences. Let me put in this way: I'd prefer to play a game like GTA where the social commentary and satire exists as opposed to any numer of similar games without such satire.



Relating this all back to my theory, it's ironic we're all discussing this. I think several decades ago, theorists would have had a similar discussion  about Elvis shaking his privates on national TV (a discussion along the lines of "is it filth or liberal expression?")

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Careful, DG - that last sentence is easy to misread and interpret like, "in another 10 or twenty years we will all be killing ourselves following the liberating example of this young man".

BTW, I agree completely on the whole "adults have to keep tabs" thingy. But I imagine it's pretty hard, considering that younger people do tend to believe they are old enough to "take it." Especially when some kids lip off to their parents.

Maybe what is boils down to is lack of respect. No respect for human life - they kill. No respect for authorities and other people - they follow their own rules and all else be damned.

Lack of respect for decency - Elvis swing? No, there's such as thing as taking it too far, of course. But there is this lack of respect. And I'm not talking only children anymore. With the growth of individualism, people tend to neglect their families, as I believe DG already stated. Because we live in a violent world, games (and, really, modern art) reflect that violence. The PROBLEM is that children are left alone, exposed to that violence, and don't have enough love to counter it all. Hell, maybe there CAN'T be that much love, but that's another matter. And that happens because people nowadays are too concerned for themselves and their careers to respect the growth process of a child.

[Adamski]

In regards to the Manhunt thing, it's obvious that violent video games were used as a scapegoat because the mother of the child in question didn't want to admit she either a) failed as a parent or b) had a mentally unstable son.

And if it wasn't video games it'd be violent films, or Marilyn Manson lyrics, or something equally bullshit.

[DGMacphee]

Careful, DG - that last sentence is easy to misread and interpret like, "in another 10 or twenty years we will all be killing ourselves following the liberating example of this young man".

Hehehe, just so there's no confusion from others I was making a comparison between games and music. Games crossing the line between "violent fun" or "social commentary", and music crossing the lines between "filth" and "liberation".

DS: Aye, that's also exactly what happened with Columbine.

[Pelican]

I'd like to include a quote from Terry Pratchett's 'Thief of Time' which I find amusingly relevant:

'Yes' said Miss Susan. 'Sometimes I really think people ought to have to pass a proper exam before they're allowed to be parents. Not just the practical, I mean.'