Extremely well put, Jane.

You asked "isn't there a place for Vice City?", but I'd like to pose the same question about Rockstar's latest title, Manhunt.

Is it a comment on voyeurism, or merely cynical sensationalism?
Does it provoke useful questions about rating and censorship, or just draw unwanted negative publicity?

YES! Manhunt! I'm currently on a manhunt myself to get that game from Take Two for review purposes. I cannot wait to play it.

I'd ask any person who is offended by the line in GTA to watch a movie like "I Spit on Your Grave" or even "Se7en" and then tell me that, as a whole, the specific quote in GTA is so much worse that it could bring legal action. And I'd like them to then tell me why videogames are the ones being singled out, and if they even begin to say that videogames are for children, I don't think I'd even dignify it with a response other than pointing them to the ESRB website.

What's happening here is that game is engaging in very dark satire of American racism and race politics.

I must disagree.

First, I think racial politics are impossible to satirize.

Second, nothing is being "exposed" here. The makers of GTA3 understand that, bluntly, Evil Is Fun, and they used the game as a forum to showcase criminal, antisocial behavior and every nasty thing they could think of. They're no different than schoolkids giggling over saying the "F Word."

Third, as for the *ahem* Haitian Community, haven't we heard this song before? A group of other-than-white people with hair-trigger Offense-O-Meters uncovers something that rubs them the wrong way. They promptly have a collective hissyfit over this latest example of oppression, racism, etc.

Anxious to avoid being branded with the Scarlet R (acism), those responsible for the offending material run for cover. The skies thicken with rehearsed expressions of outrage, apologies and renewed dedication to multi-diverso-inclusiveness.

Let's face it, if a group composed of the wives and children of murdered police officers had petitioned against GTA3, Rockstar & TakeTwo would have laughed in their faces. But they sat up and took notice of the Haitians' complaint. Why - moral conscience? Remember that this game rewards players for soliciting and killing prostitutes, robbing and murdering innocent people, slaying police officers, etc.

No. This is pure corporate PR ass-covering. And the game itself is just a celebration of moral depravity, violence and ugliness (although exquisitely well-crafted, I must admit).

"I'd like them to then tell me why videogames are the ones being singled out, and if they even begin to say that videogames are for children, I don't think I'd even dignify it with a response other than pointing them to the ESRB website."

Doug Lowenstein at the Entertainment Software Association said basically just that when asked for comment on the term killographic (link via PA).

"Clever phrase," Doug Lowenstein, head of the Entertainment Software Association, which represents computer and video game software publishers, replied when asked about "killographic."

Lowenstein noted that the average age of those who play video games is 28, and said as adults they should be allowed to pick their entertainment.

He also pointed out that the industry rates its games on age appropriateness, and that Walsh's institute found most parents are not aware of a game's content. "The message is that parents in many cases aren't doing their job," Lowenstein said.

The irony, of course, is in Rockstar's wording on removing the content. It will be pulled from "all future versions of the game".

So unless it comes out on Game Cube, the PS2 and Xbox and PC versions remain the same. I'd doubt that they're going to re-master the game again, re-burn hundreds of thousands of copies, and then pull stock from store shelves. It's a tip of the hat, with no real change.

I've seen a few bumperstickers around sporting the phrase "Kill Whitey". I just thought it was funny.

Though it is indeed meant to be satirical, and the phrase is probably being interpreted by those who haven't seen it within the context of the game, I can see how Haitians can be justifiably disturbed by the phrase "Kill all Haitians" appearing as a mission objective. Rockstar probbaly would have been better simply saying, "Kill the Haitian gang members!" or something similar. Consider if it had said, "Kill all lesbians!"

That said, even if the developers were acting on their own dislike of the Haitian community, litigation is not justifiable. There is a disturbing trend of politicians trying to exempt video games from first amendment rights. However, Comic books and Movies have survived similar attacks and misunderstandings in the past.

Brain: "I think racial politics are impossible to satirize."

Everything can be satirized. Everything.

That was very well put indeed, Jane. I'm a little suprised they backed down the way they did. I never thought Vice City was out to make a ton of friends anyway. Pick your battles, I guess. Could be like Bowler said, though. A sly PR stunt seeing as they get alot of flack.

There is definitely a place for the vile and ugly. The enemy of creativity is good taste, afterall.

draigon, i'd go one step further even and say everything must be satirized.

"The enemy of creativity is good taste." i couldn't agree with you more!! that is going to get cross-stitched and hung on my wall!

Yep, good article.

While playing GTA:VC, I occasionally succumbed to thinking 'this is a bit extreme' -- but then considered what the game uses for source material; Goodfellas, Donnie Brasco, The Godfather movies, and Scarface.

Every time, the movies take the biscuit. They're far more violent, bloody, realistic and disturbing.

What games are suffering is a lack of context; put them in the context of film, and they're still quite tame stuff by comparison.

I personally wouldn't consider any of the GTA games satire but that's another post. What your seeing here is good ol' NYC politics. And honestly, it seems like a win, win and win situation for everyone involved. Bloomberg showed his support for a large voter block, the Hatian community got it's anti-descrimination message tossed around and Take-Two got some publicity for it's flagship license and enhanced the 'rebel" image of the Rockstar product line.

I'm sorry, I absolutely cannot defend Rockstar. I also fail to see the satire. It's not commenting on how the media glorifies violence, a la Natural Born Killers, nor is it commenting on our obsession with race relations, a la Don't Be a Menace..... It really is just showing drug dealers and gangs being bad, and just how cool that is. Maybe some of us like to play GTA, and I know of policemen who play the game to blow off steam, but that shouldn't cause the knee-jerk reaction to defend Rockstar's first amendment rights. Defending their right to be evil businessmen and sell ultra-violence to kids is not much different than defending a pedophile's "right" to love little boys.

i think as far as evil goes, there's a lot more evil than Rockstar out there.

and i *do* think the games comment on aspects of our society; all media does, and extreme media even more so. just as it's blind to say that the violence in the games has NO impact, it's as blind to pretend they have no message. in fact i'd say the game satirizes American obsession with violence *better* than the heavy-handed travesty that was Oliver Stone's misguided, mishandled opus. the game is far wittier, far more clever, far more stylish, and more wicked.

but then that is a matter of opinion. the point is, we should be *able* as a society to have these mature discussions, and not shut them down from the very beginning with spurious comparisons linking game-makers to pedophiles. i mean really. if that isn't a knee-jerk reaction i don't know what is.

Defending their right to be evil businessmen and sell ultra-violence to kids is not much different than defending a pedophile's "right" to love little boys.

I think this is another discussion altogether, but I wonder why you think that Rockstar markets to kids and why you think that playing these games is as damaging as being sexually abused by a child.

It is clear that children who are abused by pedophiles are damaged physically, mentally, and emotionally for life. There is no such proof in regards to video games and interactive media. In fact, the research that does exist conflicts to such a degree that the results are inconclusive.

http://aafp.org/afp/20020401/tips/1.html

Grand Theft Auto is an M-Rated game, just like Natural Born Killers is an R-Rated move. It is intended for adults. While an 8-year old may be able to purchase the game at some retailers, I don't see how preventing that is Rockstar's responsibility. Where did this 8-year old get the $50 to begin with?

waka

Oops, that should be "as a child" instead of "by a child." I don't think there are a great many people who've been sexually abused by children.

Sorry.

waka

Defending their right to be evil businessmen and sell ultra-violence to kids is not much different than defending a pedophile's "right" to love little boys.

Spare me. First off, via the ESRB ratings, their game is specifically not targeted toward children. If your kid is playing it, someone failed in their parenting skills, whether in monitoring them or monitoring their purchases. From the numbers, there are many more adult gamers than any other category. The highest number is 18-26, actually. We can choose to play what we like, thank you very much.

Secondly, comparing it to pedophilia? It's obvious you've never been near anyone who was abused as a child. It's the difference between fantasy (games and pixels) and real life (injuring someone psychologically for the rest of their days). Perhaps you should stop watching "Natural Born Killers" and "Don't be a Menace" for a bit, and try to find the distinction for yourself.

D

I believe the problem isn't that certain (not all) politicians want to prevent video games from having first ammendment rights. That is a tale as old as the hills, with comic books, movies, and everything else coming before video games in that battle.

I think the problem is the fact that people believe that game companies are selling "ultra-violence to kids." Kids aren't the target of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. As much as it would be easy to paint Rockstar and Take Two as evil corporations trying to get kids hooked on those dangerous killing simulators, I doubt that's the exact purpose.

GTA simply does not target children. The story is too complex and full of R-rated movie references. The gameplay is too complex. The difficulty is way too high. Yes, some children will play it, but some children will also see "Scarface" or "Requiem for a Dream" before they should. This doesn't mean that the two movies are evil and thus should not exist.

Furthermore, most stores I go to now actually card for video games. Being the youthful runt that I am, I'm occaisonally asked for my ID when purchasing an M rated game. And this is at 19. I believe that a kid, say, 9, trying to buy this alone wouldn't leave the store with it.

And if the kid's parent is allowing it to buy the game or buying it for them, maybe we have a problem there, too.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could play Vice City and not think it was satire or, at the very least, hyperbole. Just listen to the radio DJs. They are such over the top caricatures that they're practically dripping with sarcasm. The characters (and NPCs for that matter) in the game play up every stereotype perfectly. The televangelist who's collecting money to build a statue of himself, the liberal-hating conservative politician with a shady past (his name is Alex Shrub...that's not satire?), the beady-eyed, scaredy cat Jewish lawyer who's hooked on coke, the list goes on and on. There's a reason for just about every group in existence to be offended by something in this game, and that's the whole point. These are exaggerated stereotypes.

The entire game is a tribute to the pop culture of the 80's and at the same time, a biting social commentary on the excesses that are so often associated with the decade. Countless winks and nods are given to 80's pop culture. Not-so-subtle references to Scarface and Miami Vice, the licensed 80's music on the radio stations, radio ads for cheesy horror movies and ridiculous Rambo-esque action movies. Cars, money, drugs, ugly suits and shitty pop music. That's what the 80's were about and that's what Vice City is about. Even the gameplay is a parody. Over-the-top, unbelievable, cartoony ultra violence taking place in an era often considered to be the most over-the-top, unbelievable, and cartoony in history.

The quote that's being taken so far out of context would likely be completely innocuous in the context of a film, and any filmmaker worth her salt wouldn't dream of kowtowing to a group of people offended by her art by modifying it. However, the distributor might, and that's Take Two's role. They're the publisher. Rockstar, as the artists, would probably like nothing more than to give Mayor Bloomberg the finger, but Take Two has to use a little more finesse than that.

While I have doubts about Rockstar's original intentions when they created the GTA games, the satire is still there in some sense. As an idea, satire has become ingrained in our culture and just about everyone sees (and uses) it to one degree or another. Even advertising tries to use satire by deriding previous "sincere" styles of advertisements.

I'd suggest that people have seen satire so much in their daily lives that they use it unconsciously, mimicking the form if not the substance. Since I'm not psychic, I can't tell whether Rockstar is being intentionally satirical or just mimicking it. Either way, it's possible for a player to view the games as satirical works.

On a completely unrelated note, I don't really understand people's obsession with analogies (game designers <-> pedophiles in this case). An analogy may be helpful for people to understand related topics, but people use analogies in almost surreal situations. Usually, the analogy just boils down to, "I, the author, have the same opinion about A and B." If you actually examine the situations in these analogies, there are almost always fundamental differences that invalidate the entire argument. And yet, people use these analogies like they're the verbal equivalent of an atomic bomb.

"...not much different than defending a pedophile's "right" to love little boys."

That makes me cry inside. =/

A lot of people might argue that it's a bad mark against free speech, but I tend to disagree for this situation. If I had made a game that contained a comment which stirred up controversy, in retrospect I might end up feeling guilty about it; if only that it's being interpreted incorrectly. I sense more rationality being used than censorship here, but maybe there's a whole level of politics I'm unaware of.

It's boundry pushing. Right or wrong, it's nice to know they're probably pushing with a conscience because nothing will bring down the hammer of censorship more than a vehicle that appears to be driven by uncaring, irresponsible assholes.

On a related note, I personally welcome this news:

"IMEA Plans Ratings Enforcement
With a number of different groups currently campaigning against violence and racism in games the US retail trade body, the Interactive Entertainment Merchant’s Association, has announced plans to prevent sales of ‘M’ for mature rated gamers to children."

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=2738

Brain: First, I think racial politics are impossible to satirize.

I think Brain meant that they are inherently self-satirising and any more is redundant...? Brain?

I'm not sure that what GTA does qualifies as satire though. To me, it's parody.

The distinction is that parody is simple mockery through (sometimes excessive or exaggerated) mimicry, and rarely implies a counter-position. Satire is mockery and ridicule intended to expose and discourage flaws in a target's values or character. It implies a starting position from which the object is judged and mocked - i.e. a concept of "the right" which is implicitly being advocated by ridiculing "the wrong" - and a desire to change things, an end to which the satire is means.

(Neither is inherently superior, of course, but I generally find satire much more interesting because satirists are usually more thought-provoking about the moral, as well as the technical or aesthetic, questions: you are being exposed to the interaction of two moral codes rather than the unravelling of one as it reaches the limits of its logic. Also it is much less interesting to watch someone aping someone else and going hee hee hee than to watch them try to engage with another person's point of view - and with yours at the same time - and be humorous and concise while doing so.)

GTA and GTA:VC are having a laugh by pushing the limits out beyond plausibility and logic, not exploring causes, effects and alternatives. Therefore I would class them not as satire but as parody.

And parodying racism or violence by pushing the boundaries of how much people can enjoy experiences of racism and extreme violence is of dubious value at best.

The human capacity to be entertained by the horrific (and entertained by that capacity) is not even that funny a joke, when you know that that's an important part of why so many people have to go through the real thing.

GTA:VC is a fantastic game which demonstrates a real mastery of game design and a witty ability to grasp and manipulate the culture of its setting and period. But it is more than amoral - it has a strong tendency towards a rather evil, selfish morality, since it mainly enacts rewards for sociopathic behaviour. And to say that this is merely art mirroring life is completely false: life is full of rewards for decent behaviour, Rockstar simply haven't chosen to model or code them. (They are in fact harder to model and code, which is perhaps part of the wider problem... but I digress.) If they had, and if the player was mocked for making particular choices, THAT would be satire. As it is, it's beautifully-made exploitation gaming.

The fact that it upsets people so much is not trivial, and for the Haitians to speak out against about being used as targets in a kill-sim (not just one character's line, but the player's stated objective) when they have so much experience of being targets in real life is not only legitimate but right. To suggest that they are wowsers or politically correct is to miss the point that Haitians playing or hearing about these games might genuinely feel threatened, and that in the context of their own lives - a context which Rockstar is taking pains to simulate and therefore should know - they have reason to do so.

jane is right to say that part of the reaction against that mission objective in GTA:VC is because the existence of that racism is an uncomfortable truth which people don't want to acknowledge. But it kinda looks to me like even more of the backlash against the Haitian community's concern is rooted in the same denial. If you DO acknowledge the racism, it's a bit unfair to turn around and say that the Haitians should not complain about it being played for laughs.

"If you DO acknowledge the racism, it's a bit unfair to turn around and say that the Haitians should not complain about it being played for laughs."

Phil: i agree with you absolutely. It distresses me to hear people talk about the "over-sensitivity" of the "politically correct" Haitian community. Of course it makes sense that they are upset. It's a very upsetting thing. And they have a right and a duty to try to educate others. Because they are already under fire (sometimes literally) of course this game which depicts that and allows the player to participate in that is going to be extremely problematic, psychologically as well as socially.

The problem is that in a free society such as ours, both Rockstar and the Haitian community are *right*, in their own contexts. On second thought, that's not a problem at all. It's through these negotiations that we build a better culture. One that Haitian immigrants can feel safe in, and one that parodic games can be made in. It's going to take a long while, I'm afraid.

Maybe it wasn't the best analogy, I apologize. I was simply trying to say that Rockstar was not some innocent victim having their first amendment rights violated. I certainly wasn't comparing GTA to sexual abuse. And I wansn't trying to stifle discourse, I think I did a pretty good job of expanding it, even if it was by accident.

I just found it apalling that people were characterizing the Hatian community as being overly sensitive, or crybabies for not wanting to get killed by wackos like the kids who went on a rampage in CA. That has since resolved itself in this discussion, thankfully.

Younger children, without the clearly defined sense of self that adults have, can easily blur the line between who they are in real life, and who they are when they play a realistic game like GTA. A few studies have looked at this, but you're right, studies have been far from conclusive. There's good reason for the Hatian community to become upset at Rockstar and Take Two because they're selling the terrible idea to thirteen year-olds that Hatians are bad people. They sell it to kids indirectly, looking the other way as most retailers sell it to anyone who wants it. The responsible thing for Take Two, and any other game publisher for that matter, would be to actively ensure that their games do not end up in children's hands. Parents should certainly be doing their job and paying attention to what their kids are playing, but they don't, and so the reality is that GTA is sending some really damaging ideas to kids. Perhaps the game industry could just drill the message into parent's heads that video games aren't toys, they're media, and some media are not for kids, like porn and crime movies. If there were a way to make sure that the majority of kids couldn't play these games, then I would be all for pushing the envelope, as it would then be a discussion amongst adults about adult topics.

Brandy, there's no way to be sure that kids aren't watching Pulp Fiction, or reading Henry Miller stories, or reading porno magazines. Yet we would consider interventions in these media censorship.

At the end of the day, there's a case of a new media being treated differently because it is incorrectly identified as intrinsically a child's media, despite data the demonstrates it isn't, and that its audience is becoming variegated and segmented. But there are enough opinion-makers, legislators, and such who still aren't part of that audience-community, that they can frame videogames as a problem of children's culture. And that frame has to be challenged directly.

Brandy, I don't think I ever painted Take Two or Rockstar as innocent. Certainly not. However great their games are, they are clearly very savvy business people who know how to manipulate bad publicity. In fact, probably they court it as part of their bad boy image.

But so does Quentin Tarantino. He uses the word "nigger" for laughs. He uses ultra-violence for style. And he's a problematic figure, but he are certainly over the debate around whether or not he *should* use those words.

Whatever Rockstar's motivation, they aren't evil. They're capitalizing on our capitalist system. The Haitian community are also using their power as consumer advocates to block some of Rockstar's excesses. No one has yet mentioned censorship of the official sort.

But the government is very anxious about this issue, and seeks to calm parental fears with legislation. It won't last - videogames will be culture, there's no question in my mind - but there's a difficult battle ahead, and I'm throwing in for the side I believe in.

Games are art. Game-makers should be protected under free speech. It's that simple.

I think Brain meant that they are inherently self-satirising and any more is redundant...? Brain?

Exactly. It's like making droll, catty remarks about Rip Taylor.

***Throws glitter***

Games are art. Game-makers should be protected under free speech. It's that simple.

And that complicated. There are a number of forms of expression that are not protected by the 1st Amendment: Libel, copyright infringement, fraud and anything found obscene by a court.

While most people hear "obscene" and think "porn," the definition of obscenity can include violence. Which means it could include violent games.

Just a thought. :)

Brandy, I am glad you are here to offer the opposing argument. It wouldn't be much of a discussion if we all just sat around agreeing with each other.

The fallacy of your argument, however, is your claim that Rockstar and Take Two must be responsible for making sure their game is only sold to adults. Rockstar and Take Two do not sell directly to customers. They are not the ones "looking the other way"--that's the clerks in the game stores. These clerks are not really responsible either (though it is in their best interests to enforce the ESRB ratings). Given that Rockstar and Take Two have gone through all the regular channels (including getting the M rating their games deserve), how might they influence customers to do the "right" thing?

The thing about obscenity is that it is subjective. While you might not want your 13 year old playing GTA, I might not have a problem with it. How might Rockstar divine our individual opinions and take steps to make sure that your child does not have access to GTA while my child does? The answer of course, is that they cannot and should not--that is a parents job.

The remainder of your argument is based on your assumption that playing GTA will influence young children. Please refrain from speculation--it does not help us make decisions here. The research that exists does nothing to back up your claim that GTA will in some way damage kids. Until there is scientific evidence to support your case, please approach the issue with a more open mind.

I don't want to beat this particular dead horse much more, but I'd like you to consider one more point. An 8 year old would have little trouble buying a book of war casualty photographs from your local Barns and Nobel. Despite the MPAA ratings, high school kids have little trouble getting access to R-rated movies. As Jane pointed out, GTA3 is pretty tame compared to some of the R-rated stuff that Hollywood produces. As William said, video games are often treated differently because they are a medium that is not well understood by most parents. However, this is not an excuse to apply the law unfairly.

Education is the answer. Most parents simply don't know to look for ESRB ratings, or don't understand the rating when they see it (as described by the recent MediaWise Video Game Report Card), and I can understand the feelings of shock and surprise that one must feel after finding that they've just purchased Manhunt for their 6th-grader. However, consumer ignorance is no reason to apply the law inconsistently to the medium. Jane is right--someday, games will be understood and accepted and this particular issue will go away. Until then, everyone will be better off if we can teach parents how to judge the games they purchase for their children.

waka

In Reply To Brandy

I just found it apalling that people were characterizing the Hatian community as being overly sensitive, or crybabies for not wanting to get killed by wackos like the kids who went on a rampage in CA.

There is always a bit of crybaby-tude to these things.

My point was that, the merits of the complaint aside, Rockstar/TakeTwo's response to them has NOTHING to do with morality and everything to do with PR damage control.

However, Brandy raises a damned good point: if we praise Rockstar for cleaning up the game, then we are admitting that there is something wrong with it in the first place. Which leads us directly to GTA3's celebration of violence against the innocent and criminality in general.

To ignore that places us in the position of saying, "Well, have all the murder you want, just avoid racial insults." Which is lunacy.

That said, even if it were proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that video games "influence" children in this way, there is still the apples-and-oranges difference between expressing an idea - however vile - and actually doing someone physical harm.

I agree with Jane on the "art" thing. The catch-22 for the would-be censors is that by claiming video games contain and transmit bad ideas, you are admitting that they are forms of artistic and ideological expression and not merely "games." They have "messages," so to speak.

How would the censors square this circle? Would they create a morally incoherent world
wherein a teenager could, for example, log onto Amazon.com and order a dozen copies of MEIN KAMPF for himself and his friends, but couldn't host a LAN party featuring a "mature" violent FPS?

I figured that the burden of "censorship" should lie with the manufacturers only because they are the ones who deal with all the guff. If you left it solely with some conservitive "family" group, these kinds of games would disappear altogether. There's no reason that that burden couldn't be shared with the groups who find these games problematic. But someone does need to drive the point home that video games are not solely kid's toys so that parents won't hand GTA to their kids along with their tacit stamp of approval of the contents. I was once the happless soul behind the counter trying to convice people not to buy GTA3 for their 8-year old. The most common refrain was "He'll just play it a friend's house." We were trying, but the idea that games are for kids is persistent. It would, of course, be impossible and illogical to make sure that no minors get their hands on GTA. All that really needs to be done is to make sure that they know that their parents disapprove of the message GTA can send out.

There's no inherent harm in reading Mein Kampf, other than trying to keep from falling asleep, so long as you realize that Hitler was an asshole and his ideas were bad ideas. Similarly, GTA is fine for most people, just so long as they realize that Rockstar is being an asshole, so to speak, and the contents are funny in a really poor taste sort of way. That's why I said I couldn't defend Rockstar and Take Two unconditionally, they were being naughty and got called out on it. I just used some poor judgement on word choice.

But someone does need to drive the point home that video games are not solely kid's toys so that parents won't hand GTA to their kids along with their tacit stamp of approval of the contents. ... We were trying, but the idea that games are for kids is persistent.

I absolutely agree: parents need to be able to make informed decisions.

However, advocating self-censorship is not the answer. If companies do not piss people off by producing games like Manhunt and GTA3, then the entire discussion will be swept under the rug. A world where game companies stifle creativity because they fear backlash from anti-game groups is a world where we lose all prospect of innovation and progress. While Manhunt and GTA3 might offend a lot of people, they also serve to raise awareness about these very issues and move the medium closer to the main stream.

waka

Waka wrote:

A world where game companies stifle creativity because they fear backlash from anti-game groups is a world where we lose all prospect of innovation and progress. While Manhunt and GTA3 might offend a lot of people, they also serve to raise awareness about these very issues and move the medium closer to the main stream.

First, why is moving the medium closer to the mainstream desirable? Have you looked at the mainstream lately?

Second, while censorship and hostility from the general public is always a danger for any new (or controversial) form of art or entertainment, equally dangerous is self-exile in an artistic ghetto of endless sequels and pandering to the juvenile fascination with violence and sexual excess.

Wouldn't it be nice to go to bat against the censors and game-bashers over a truly worthy game for a change, instead of always being on "negative defense" over the latest kill-a-thon?

"Well," we smugly proclaim, "You can't SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE that this material hurts anybody..."

I mean, Christ, is this what gamers have sunk to?

Also, be careful about dogmatism on both sides. Yes, it's absurd to speak of "killer games" char-broiling the souls of American youth.

However, we cannot just dismiss the whole thing out of hand. There is nothing necessarily Religious-Rightist or Liberal-Politically Correct about the notion that ideas matter, that people's thoughts about themselves, other people, social behavior and ethics can be formed and shaped by their environment and the messages coming from it.

If you doubt THAT, you will have to explain why the advertising industry has billions of dollars in annual recurring revenue, why clever political and corporate propagandists are so well paid and sought after and why we all think it's so important for a diverse society such as ours to send children a clear, united message about the unacceptability of race-hatred.

The nonsense of David Grossman and his doomcrier allies aside, there is nothing wacky about suspecting that years of immersion in games and movies where violence is continually portrayed as cool, funny or the ideal way to solve problem WILL have an affect on a lot of kids' minds.

I'm not saying "Normal Kid + Quake = Serial Killer."

I am saying that entertainment can teach as well as distract. It can and does transmit messages. And just as it can inspire - as with a stirring biopic of Martin Luther King, etc. - it can also degrade.

First, why is moving the medium closer to the mainstream desirable? Have you looked at the mainstream lately?

You are missing the point. I think you are thinking of "mainstream" as Brittany Spears-like-lowest-common-denominator content. That is not what I mean. The point was that discussion as to the nature and affects of video games (like the one we are having now) serve to raise the public's awareness that games are a medium and that there are issues. I think we agree that a big part of the problem is that a large portion of the public is ignorant or has serious misconceptions about games; moving games closer to public awareness is a good thing, as it will help us educate these people.

Second, while censorship and hostility from the general public is always a danger for any new (or controversial) form of art or entertainment, equally dangerous is self-exile in an artistic ghetto of endless sequels and pandering to the juvenile fascination with violence and sexual excess.

Your point is that there are still going to be games that are as terrible as the critics describe, right? I agree, but that is a separate argument.

Regardless of the quality of the games that raise outcry, I think that we should be doing everything in our power to stop censorship. Even if games are developed that are horrible and offensive in every way, they deserve the same rights as Animal Crossing. I find DOA: Extreme Beach Volleyball to be amazingly offensive, but I'll defend it against censorship any day of the week. If any games become banned or regulated, a precedent is set where no developer is safe. The subjective "quality" of a game is not the issue here--regulation of a single title is in some sense regulation of the entire medium.

waka

jane:
...in a free society such as ours, both Rockstar and the Haitian community are *right*... It's through these negotiations that we build a better culture. One that Haitian immigrants can feel safe in, and one that parodic games can be made in.

Rockstar was "right" to make "Kill all Haitians" a mission objective? Surely the question doesn't arise insofar as it was a design choice, i.e. aesthetic rather than moral.

I would disagree that Rockstar was right. I would agree that it had a right. But rights can be used wrongly, to infringe on the rights of others, and I think in this instance Rockstar did so - as they have since implicitly conceded.

That nitpick aside, I agree with your general point about the rights of two groups being in tension, and the constructiveness of the negotiation that arises from that tension (where it does so in good faith). Freedom is choice subject to negotiation rather than imposition. (And one of the key aspects of many negotiations, including the one under discussion, is whether or not something is an imposition.)

To develop this line of thought further, since this is one of the key questions of our time (and particularly of this community), I'd argue that one of the measures of any artwork, including games of all kinds, is its effect on the freedom of others: in other words, the extent to which our own exercise of creativity and freedom enables and inspires others to live creatively and free (both directly and indirectly).

Not the only measure, by any means - it would hardly do to neglect aesthetics, logic, command of technique, truthfulness, imagination, fun, and command of/effect on the audience regardless of wider effect - but I would argue that it is the single most important, partly because it necessarily incorporates all the others and partly because it is the only question in which everyone has an interest. (This is why the question we keep getting asked is "what is this doing to our society?", and why ignoring the question or fudging our answer creates such a backlash.)

This is why the more I think about it, the clearer it is that GTA:VC is stunted. In all those sub-categories it does extremely well - but in terms of the effects on players and on players' interactions with the wider world, its merits are somewhat more dubious. Accomplished, yes; inspiring, in a very limited sense; a gift to the wider world, pretty much no. Maybe it's unfair to judge a game against so ambitious a standard. But it's not like the wider world couldn't use a gift or two, and all other artforms have shown they can do it - why not ours?

I agree with Brain. It would be nice to go into bat over a worthy game for once. There are better things to do than defend games that celebrate the indefensible.

Your point is that there are still going to be games that are as terrible as the critics describe, right? I agree, but that is a separate argument.

My point is that I would defend someone's right to play "Schoolyard Massacre 2004 for the Xbox" for the same reason I would defend their right to scream "FUCK!" at the top of their lungs in the middle of their living room.

In both cases, the principle being defended is one of freedom, not artistic integrity. I believe in maximized personal freedom.

I also oppose censorship, generally, because the censors have got the "morality" thing exactly wrong. There is no morality without choice, options, alternatives... if you over-protect people from making bad choices, the good choices they do make won't mean anything. They will not develop good judgement or gain wisdom because there is no trial-and-error learning process; they're simply being handed the answers. There is no morality without freedom.

But freedom is the beginning. Once we are free to choose, the question turns to: What DO we chose?

The games industry seems to have chosen, by and large, to wallow in violence, sophomoric, leering sexuality and the pseudo-rebellion of juvenile "attitude." They weren't pushed into this by some belligerent, legalized Puritanism, they ran to it with open arms.

Many of the problems discussed at GGA by Jane and others are consequences of this. Consider the problem of entrenched hostility towards women as game-players and -makers. This is the classic, teenaged male reaction to female encroachment. Mature, secure men don't have this problem.

Remember how John Romero was going to "Make you his bitch" with the atrocious DAIKATANA game? What kind of man (that's MAN, not MALE) would want that as the slogan for his game company's most important project? No man that I can think of, really, but it certainly evokes the phony bravado and vulgarity of teenaged "smack talk," doesn't it?

With so many in the game developer ranks doing their damnedest to act, think and speak like dimwitted 13 yr olds, I think the threat of external censorship takes a distant second place.

I think that's a little simplistic. The industry is bigger now and although there are definitely macho cultures, like Rockstar, which has virtually no women in significant positions, there are also much less hyper-masculine cultures, like Ion Storm, where the lead designer on Deus Ex 2 openly describes himself as a feminist. i agree there is a long way to go, but to talk of the game industry as a monolithic entity with one immutable choice that it has made ignores the many, many people i know working in it who don't go along with that program.

also i think that game dev culture in other countries is very different.

i am less concerned about censorship here - external or internal - than with the fact that the vocabulary and the terms of the negotiation are being defined by the family advocates and their governmental allies. the game industry players have not been helpful in either outreach or PR. they usually seem to react in an entirely defensive way, sometimes coming off themselves like a bunch of cry babies, repeating the same thing over and over: "Games don't make you do anything! You do!" That is clearly naive; the interactivity of games is very powerful, and i can't believe that it has no effect on people. the question is, what, and how much, and on who? and what do we do about that?

the ESA and the IGDA do their best to staunch the flow of negative PR but they're doing it alone without much industry support.

Rockstar/Take Two *do* complicate things with the nature of their games, and their attitude. they make things difficult for everybody, including other game studios. that doesn't mean though that they *shouldn't* make their games. there's good art and bad art out there. and there will always be. and we all learn to deal with that - and by "deal" i don't mean apathetic acceptance, i mean understand it and treat it in the context of our capitalist, free society - the better.

oh, and i think that tag line is hilarious. it's such a beautiful example of Romero's buying his own hype. he's a lot different now, but the idea that John Romero could make anyone his bitch is just - funny. sorry, John, but you know it's true!

I always wanted to arrange a big bloke in Village People leathers and a handlebar mo to walk up to Romero and say "I'm here about the ad". And then take a photo.

jane - you ask "what do we do about that?" ('that' being the effects of games on people), and your later remarks make it clear that this is not merely a rhetorical question.

A more coherent, caring society in which people are more aware of each other as such, and where megaviolence has less appeal and is less likely to spread itself via vulnerable minds from fantasy to the real world is probably the main thing. But that's a whole which is created through changing a range of smaller parts, and as a whole is well beyond the scope of this discussion.

One thing that isn't, though, and that is an important part of trying to discourage possible real-world violence and thereby preserve and promote freedom, is to take seriously the artworks we love and their potential consequences. And that may mean concluding that games like GTA:VC and Manhunt shouldn't be made, and saying so to the people who make them, promote them and buy them.

A large part of the impact and "talkability" of a game such as GTA:VC or Manhunt is shock value, and/or/i.e. the naughty-toddler sense of getting away with something you haven't done before. The problem is that we are rapidly painting ourselves into a corner. In Manhunt we see the player/protagonist being encouraged to (to put it relatively delicately) disembowel "bad guys" from behind. In GTA:VC (among others) we see the random slaughter of the innocent as something of negligible concern and indeed something which can be consciously undertaken for certain kinds of reward. Those who have developed a taste for this kind of taboo-violation (or "envelope-pushing") are running out of vileness to represent. How long before the kind of gratuitous cruelty simulated in Manhunt is able to be practised on the virtual innocent? On virtual children? And then where? We already have a real-life case in Germany of a man who believes it is not only OK but good to kill another person and eat his flesh simply because that other person consented to it. Snuff by consenting adults is better than that, at least... or so I can see the arguments going.

The slippery slope argument is hackneyed, I know, but true (it has recently been rephrased as the "tipping point"); and the same argument in respect to censorship is (quite rightly) trotted out by those who defend these games. The fact is that a free society is surrounded by slippery slopes on all sides. Institutional restraint and individual license regardless of effects on others are both threats to freedom. The only solution which retains power in people's own hands is responsibility and responsiveness to the needs and freedoms of both oneself and others (aka eternal vigilance).

Sometimes this means finding other ways to have fun. It's not like there's any lack! And sometimes it means holding contentious works like these up to scrutiny (and potential glory or shame) in influential places like this, and questioning whether they are really worthy of the freedom of which they are taking advantage.

To conclude, as I am beginning to, that GTA:VC and Manhunt are unworthy is not to say that that freedom should be denied them - but to acknowledge that freedom is not unconditional, not infinite and not guaranteed (though I wish it were all those things), and that its preservation requires both effort and self-restraint, particularly from those of us whose art reaches a wide audience and who therefore benefit from it the most.

Where can I follow up for more information

jpb ppyt psycholog zdrowa żywność nieruchomości projektowanie stron agencja reklamowa soczewki kontaktowe nauka angielskiego agroturystyka opony klimatyzacja domy opieki akupunktura hydraulik projektowanie wnętrz soha jpk paa ki wypadki tfrd jh sw jft pp fdr

Posted by: outsider on April 11, 2006 08:09 AM

strony www wrocław, tworzenie stron, ślub, hale namiotowe, rozdzielnice, flash lite games development, adidas nike puma, buty nike

Posted by: pppp on June 3, 2008 01:18 AM