Changing Tactics in the Violence Debate
Getting defensive won't make the argument go away.
Read Full Article
Getting defensive won't make the argument go away.
Read Full Article
Changing Tactics in the Violence Debate
- Thread starter Robert Rath
- Start date
Here's something I've been thinking about on this issue. I don't think the government is going to really do anything to stop video games. I've been looking into things and I've found that video games have proven to be one of the military's most successful recruitment tools. The government isn't going to let that go just because some people complain. So, worry that games are going to go away is unfounded.
What we should be worrying about is the way that the government will get more involved in the production of games. They're already hugely involved, but I begin to worry that they're going to start taking control and using it for more direct propaganda, while stamping out messages they deem to be unfit for the public.
What we should be worrying about is the way that the government will get more involved in the production of games. They're already hugely involved, but I begin to worry that they're going to start taking control and using it for more direct propaganda, while stamping out messages they deem to be unfit for the public.
I have tried talking to my parents about games in a broader sense than they would hear about just from watching the news. However, I'm lucky if I get more than 5 seconds into the conversation before their eyes glaze over and you can hear a faint whooshing sound as every point I make passes right over their heads. Sometimes you just can't win.
I'll repost my FB comment here:
Have you actually watched House of Cards on Netflix? The portrayal of Frank Underwood as a gamer is not something to be emulated. Underwood is a sociopath. His playing violent shooters is an extension of his lack of empathy and is an argument AGAINST gaming, not a break with stereotype.
Have you actually watched House of Cards on Netflix? The portrayal of Frank Underwood as a gamer is not something to be emulated. Underwood is a sociopath. His playing violent shooters is an extension of his lack of empathy and is an argument AGAINST gaming, not a break with stereotype.
As far as I remember, Morgan was one of the few people who remained reasonable instead of bashing video games in recent months. Other than a certain "Burnett" person.DVS BSTrD said:Even if it was Fareed Zakaria or Anderson Cooper?grigjd3 said:
Meh they'd probably end-up giving it to Pierce Morgan anyway
In that case - get tactical. Bring up an interesting point from a game - something that made you think - and ask them about it without mentioning the game. Say, for example, the question of free will vs survival from Legion's loyalty mission in ME2. Then, once you've heard their opinions and stated your own, then explain where the question came from. And say it in an off-hand way - like "Oh, it was just a sub-plot in a game I was playing. Made me think for a moment about which to choose."NinjaDeathSlap said:
The point is to treat the game like any other medium, so don't draw attention to the game in the same way that, if it was a book that made you think, you wouldn't draw attention to the book. If people start thinking of games on the same level as books, then we're making progress.
Exactly. Also realize that it takes time to change someone's mind. It doesn't happen immediately - shifting someone's perspective on an issue is a gradual process and won't happen over a single conversation. The trick is not getting frustrated when you don't achieve results immediately. (I understand that frustration though, believe me, I've been there.)The_Darkness said:
Regardless of Frank not being a "positive" role model (which you're right, he isn't), the portrayal of games in House of Cards is at least more nuanced than what non-players often picture when they talk about "people who play video games". Yes, Frank is a real piece of work, but he's also older, established, ambitious, smart and not at all lazy. Do I want him to be the face of gaming? God no, but at least it's something other than the man-children and passive teenagers we're often cast as. I'm saying that going forward we can keep pushing the message that many different kinds of people play and enjoy games.hoopleton said:
I'm also okay with game-playing being seen as sometimes problematic, i.e. "game addition" - as long as it's an honest depiction.
Assuming you're right and there is actually a chance that violence in videogames might get censored, why would I want to get off my arse and do anything about it? So I can have even more CoD, GoW and Halo? No thanks. Because it's a matter of principle? Frankly, if I'm going to fight for something on principle alone, there are far more worthy causes that I could spend my precious time on.
I seriously doubt that there is any kind of link between violent videogames and violent behaviour, but I also don't particularly mind if violence in games gets cut down a bit one way or another.
I seriously doubt that there is any kind of link between violent videogames and violent behaviour, but I also don't particularly mind if violence in games gets cut down a bit one way or another.
I'm sorry, but it's like saying, "doing shots of vodka is a wasteful, potential damaging recreational activity, you say? But Joseph Stalin liked to drink, and he was a successful man?"Robert Rath said:
You're missing the big picture. In everyway possible Frank Underwood is what the media imagines gamers to be: disturbed, obsessive, detached. He reinforces the notion of gamer danger. Underwood is the narrator of his own delusion, moving people around like chess pieces, pushing buttons, destroying lives. The show is the game, Underwood is the player.
When he plays games he sits on his couch unmoving, unblinking, murdering. He ignores his wife. He blacks out from the world. Presumably he?s problem solving all while watching pixelated gore flash across the screen. He?s playing first person shooters. More button mashing, more lives destroyed. I can?t imagine that anyone watching House of Cards has ever thought to themselves, ?why look at that Frank Underwood, he?s playing video games, and he has a job, I guess gaming isn?t that bad after all!?
Tried that too. It works right up until the 'mention it was from a game' part, whereupon they just switch off again.The_Darkness said:
I think you shot your arguement in the foot when you named Kim Jong-un, Muqtada al-Sadr, and Frank Underwood as gamers. If word of that got out, we'll just trade one negative stereotype (lazy man-children) for a worse one (powermad psychopaths), which is NOT what our demographic need right now.
It's a boogie-man scare and to be honest nothing being said here is new when under fire this way. Movies, Comics, Music, and other forms of media have all gotten their turns. Chances are video games won't "win" in the short term, though things will get back to normal over a period of time. Even the "Comics Code Authority" fell, and in the overall scheme of things the UK "Video Nasties" list didn't enjoy that long a reign.
The thing to understand here is that the media, and the scared masses, do not WANT a balanced presentation, they want something to blame. Putting game journalists and such on things like CNN won't matter because they are likely to get shouted down, have what they say cut, or someone sitting right there immediatly analyze whatever they say out of it's intended context and in the worse possible light. Representation in the mainstream media doesn't generally end well for something under fire this way.
What's more, trying to change and "re-focus" how you present your product just gives the impression your trying to hide something, and at best simply means that what your producing now is going to be ignored, as your older stuff is pulled out to represent you, with the new stuff being mentioned as attempting to "hide" or taken as a sign of weakness (your changing under pressure, which you arguably are).
My basic opinion as time goes on is that games need to "hold the line" and actually embrace the things they are under fire for (the extreme violence, etc...) more vigorously than ever. Your not going to win, and if you go down, make sure you do it the right way. Eventually gaming is going to come back like nothing happened even if the worst transpires, and it's best to have as few scars as possible.
I'll also be honest in saying that at the end of the day the guys who suffer most from these mainstream pressures are going to be the big publishers like EA and Activision who are sell outs anyway, and arguably gaming might very well be better without. If the worst happens, it mostly means that it will be like the dark ages of the comic code authority where to find good comics you'll have to dig through the boxes in the back of your local comics place looking at indie titles that self-publish in defiance of the code. In the case of video gamers it will be indies and crowd funded games. When things return it will be those guys are the forefront of gaming's return, and even the remaining big companies will wind up riding their wave for a while. When you look back at comics, it's interesting to note that things like "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" which wound up being hugely influential, largely became what it was because it was to start one of those "pull no punches, F@CK the CCA" titles produced in glorious black and white, that was out to tell a good story regardless of what anyone thought. See, people familiar with the cartoon turtles have no idea what actually made them, and what the original turtles were like. Among other things a "big deal" with TMNT was that the turtles killed, and killed a lot, though it was hardly a comic that set out to revel in gore or ultra violence, it was simply that Ninjas kill, weapons are lethal, when a big fight happens with guys all carrying martial arts weapons, people tend to die, TMNT told it's stories well, and didn't shy away from showing the results.
I guess my point is that I think people need to stick to their guns more than trying to play a game of adaption that is likely to fail. Even if somehow it succeeds games will "win" by becoming something other than they are to become palatable to the crusading media, and lose their entire soul in the process, they might as well not have survived at that point since everyone will become too paranoid about slotting off the mainstream to worry about what makes for a good game.
I for one welcome an era where real gaming comes from crowdsourced titles from the shadows by guys like Inxile, or Cleve (the guy who just finished "Grimoire"). While EA and Activision flail around releasing non-offensive Chia-Pet growing simulators or whatever.
The thing to understand here is that the media, and the scared masses, do not WANT a balanced presentation, they want something to blame. Putting game journalists and such on things like CNN won't matter because they are likely to get shouted down, have what they say cut, or someone sitting right there immediatly analyze whatever they say out of it's intended context and in the worse possible light. Representation in the mainstream media doesn't generally end well for something under fire this way.
What's more, trying to change and "re-focus" how you present your product just gives the impression your trying to hide something, and at best simply means that what your producing now is going to be ignored, as your older stuff is pulled out to represent you, with the new stuff being mentioned as attempting to "hide" or taken as a sign of weakness (your changing under pressure, which you arguably are).
My basic opinion as time goes on is that games need to "hold the line" and actually embrace the things they are under fire for (the extreme violence, etc...) more vigorously than ever. Your not going to win, and if you go down, make sure you do it the right way. Eventually gaming is going to come back like nothing happened even if the worst transpires, and it's best to have as few scars as possible.
I'll also be honest in saying that at the end of the day the guys who suffer most from these mainstream pressures are going to be the big publishers like EA and Activision who are sell outs anyway, and arguably gaming might very well be better without. If the worst happens, it mostly means that it will be like the dark ages of the comic code authority where to find good comics you'll have to dig through the boxes in the back of your local comics place looking at indie titles that self-publish in defiance of the code. In the case of video gamers it will be indies and crowd funded games. When things return it will be those guys are the forefront of gaming's return, and even the remaining big companies will wind up riding their wave for a while. When you look back at comics, it's interesting to note that things like "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" which wound up being hugely influential, largely became what it was because it was to start one of those "pull no punches, F@CK the CCA" titles produced in glorious black and white, that was out to tell a good story regardless of what anyone thought. See, people familiar with the cartoon turtles have no idea what actually made them, and what the original turtles were like. Among other things a "big deal" with TMNT was that the turtles killed, and killed a lot, though it was hardly a comic that set out to revel in gore or ultra violence, it was simply that Ninjas kill, weapons are lethal, when a big fight happens with guys all carrying martial arts weapons, people tend to die, TMNT told it's stories well, and didn't shy away from showing the results.
I guess my point is that I think people need to stick to their guns more than trying to play a game of adaption that is likely to fail. Even if somehow it succeeds games will "win" by becoming something other than they are to become palatable to the crusading media, and lose their entire soul in the process, they might as well not have survived at that point since everyone will become too paranoid about slotting off the mainstream to worry about what makes for a good game.
I for one welcome an era where real gaming comes from crowdsourced titles from the shadows by guys like Inxile, or Cleve (the guy who just finished "Grimoire"). While EA and Activision flail around releasing non-offensive Chia-Pet growing simulators or whatever.
Ah ha, haha, no. I learned my lesson the last time I referenced political ideas from Deus Ex.Robert Rath said:
This is why you have to make your own political position very clear, independently of the games. Then mention how some games disagree with your ideals, how some agree with them, and in general just show that your position isn't affected by the games.deathbydeath said:
Mr. Rath, I'd like to say I really enjoy reading your articles here on the Escapist. They have become something I look forward to, so thank you.Robert Rath said:
I'd also like to ask your opinion on a situation I was recently in. At a family get together recently one of my relatives asked what I was interested in lately and what my recent hobby was. I said it was videogames, and endeavored to do what you described in this very article, try and talk about why I like the medium. I told him about the Art Deco architecture style of Bioshock and the 1912 style of Bioshock:Infinite and both of their fascinating period/ideology themes. He wanted to see it first hand, and since I had a tablet nearby I was able to show him an E3 demo of Infinite that had lots of structures and buildings to look at. At first he was intrigued but as soon as the hand with the gun came up on screen he showed immediate distaste and asked me what this was. Bear in mind, I had spent at least 5-7 minutes explaining the cliff-notes of the backstory, while I never said it was and FPS, the backstory implied that the story would eventually get violent. He didn't want to watch the rest of the video and said something along the lines of "everything you said until this point was great, but its just another game where you shoot people".
After everything I said about putting the player in a challenging environment where you would confront racism, nationalism, and corrupted Christianity "its just another game where you shoot people". Never mind the art and graphics devoted to sell that you are in a CITY IN THE SKY where all this stuff is happening, "its just another game where you shoot people".
You sort of already answered this in the article, but I have to ask, what are we to do when faced with people like this? This was a 59 year old man who I would call a progressive in most of his views. He is generally accepting of many things but immediately shut off as soon as he saw the gun on the screen.
Should we even waste time trying to engage people like this when their mind has been made up for them by the bad press games get in the mainstream media?
I'm really glad you said what you did in that last paragraph. Eventually these people will be phased out of our society and their jobs will be taken over by younger people who play games... because... young people games now, right? I'm not saying we shouldn't fight the good fight and improve our image, we should. But I think there are certain situations where we should just invest time in shields and defense tech, turtle up, and wait for our time to come.