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

Started by remixor, Fri 06/08/2004 02:19:06

Previous topic - Next topic

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.
Reach for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.

Kneel. Now.

Never throw chicken at a Leprechaun.

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

QuoteI 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.
Reach for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.

Kneel. Now.

Never throw chicken at a Leprechaun.

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.

"This must be a good time to live in, since Eric bothers to stay here at all"-CJ also: ACHTUNG FRANZ!

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?
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

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  :-\
Aramore
My webcomic.

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

Quote from: Pelican on Mon 30/08/2004 00:52:30
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).
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

Cluey

Aramore
My webcomic.

Pelican

Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 30/08/2004 01:21:44


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

QuoteBusted 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.

QuoteIt'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.
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

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.
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires

QuoteSo, 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?
Reach for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.

Kneel. Now.

Never throw chicken at a Leprechaun.

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?")
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

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.
Reach for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.

Kneel. Now.

Never throw chicken at a Leprechaun.

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.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk