Changing Tactics in the Violence Debate

[hentropy]

While there are a few video games you could show someone and have them be impressed... but the overall body of work is sort of hard to defend. Not every game is Saints Row, obviously, but when damn near every major adult-targeted non-sports game has gameplay centered largely around killing other humans, it's a little hard to sit an outsider down and say "this isn't mentally harmful at all!" Even if it's not, it's hard to convince them of that.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

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?

Ummm... you admit that they are 100% correct? Isn't "just another game where you shoot people" a completely accurate description of BioShock?

It is possible and for some even preferable to look at objectivism and fictional alternate-reality architecture without blowing everything to bits.

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.

Maybe I need more context, but I'm not seeing what's so bizarre about someone "shutting off" at the sight of yet another game where you shoot people. Quite a lot of serious gamers have the exact same reaction.

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?

Again maybe I need more context but based on what you've said I see no connection between his reaction and anti-game-violence media.

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 do realise that the game is going to be 95% shooting and 5% "all this stuff is happening" right? I know you do, because you've played BioShock.

 

[Ishal]

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?

Ummm... you admit that they are 100% correct? Isn't "just another game where you shoot people" a completely accurate description of BioShock?

It is possible and for some even preferable to look at objectivism and fictional alternate-reality architecture without blowing everything to bits.

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.

Maybe I need more context, but I'm not seeing what's so bizarre about someone "shutting off" at the sight of yet another game where you shoot people. Quite a lot of serious gamers have the exact same reaction.

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?

Again maybe I need more context but based on what you've said I see no connection between his reaction and anti-game-violence media.

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 do realise that the game is going to be 95% shooting and 5% "all this stuff is happening" right? I know you do, because you've played BioShock.

Except that its not. The game (from what I'm lead to believe from whats been covered of it thus far) is indeed a shooter, yes. However, the action doesn't even start until 30-45 minutes in, or so many have said.

Of course it will be violent, actually... its going to be excessively violent. You have a 3 pronged rotating hook that can rip off a mans face as a melee weapon. But unlike other games thats not all it is. There is other stuff there, things to observe... NPC's to listen to to gather information... not to mention a (hopefully) compelling story.

Others may wish to experience it w/o blowing everything to bits, then they should go find a game that does that and steer well clear of this one. Journey and To the Moon are perfectly enjoyable games. This one is an action game, where.. surprise surprise... there is action. But unlike a game such as Mortal Kombat... violence is not the end that is sought after. Its only there because the creators felt it tied into the story, and because it is an action game. If they were telling a story that demanded less shooting then there would be less shooting.

The best thing about this medium is that people can play whatever they like, it is very diverse. Violence is there as a tool in this medium just like it is a tool in any other. Perhaps I did leave out some parts of the context. What I was trying to describe were the themes of the game and how they could be taken seriously and used in new ways in a game. However simply having violence suddenly pop up should not negate everything else that is being conveyed. Its fair that something like this may be unpalatable to some, but simply dismiss everything else out of hand because of it is foolish and childish.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

But unlike a game such as Mortal Kombat... violence is not the end that is sought after. Its only there because the creators felt it tied into the story, and because it is an action game. If they were telling a story that demanded less shooting then there would be less shooting.

I believe you are incorrect on all counts. Violence is indeed the end that is sought after. Modern AAA game design typically involves designing a game first, then adding a story (sometimes literally after the whole game is finished - see the dev interviews about the Uncharted games). This is not just my "opinion" talking. There are countless articles about how games are developed and the various ways that story is integrated. When making Bioshock Infinite I would bet a lot of money that the developers first decided to make a shooter and then started thinking about where to set it and what story it should have.

Its fair that something like this may be unpalatable to some, but simply dismiss everything else out of hand because of it is foolish and childish.

But did he dismiss all games, or just the ones that primarily involve shooting people?

 

[AD-Stu]

At risk of sounding like kind of a slacker... personally I think there's not much gamers and the industry needs to do about this issue. It'll blow over, and history's on our side on this issue.

I'm (just) old enough that I've seen this entire issue play out before with one of my other great loves - heavy metal music. Back in the 80s and early 90s parents groups and governments and the like were really, genuinely concerned that heavy metal music was a cancer that was turning people into murderers and rapists and otherwise evil sorts. The whole "if you play it backwards you hear..." thing, those deaths where the kids being Judas Priest fans was somehow deemed relevant, Marilyn Manson and Columbine, teen suicides, the "shocking and disturbing" lyrical imagery of bands like Cannibal Corpse and Pungent Stench, people seriously had their knickers in a twist over this stuff.

Despite the best efforts of various groups and some very sane and reasoned arguments, it wasn't the metal music industry or its fans that resolved the issue. Instead, the public and the media just got over it of their own accord and moved on to blaming the next big thing - which, ironically, was video games. Even five years ago I'd wager the media would have been more interested in what music Anders Brevik listens to (serious hand-wringing time if it turns out it was Scandinavian black metal) than what video games he plays. But now it's all about the video games.

That same cycle has played out time and time again - there's always something society blames for its various ills. Too much television, Elvis shaking his hips, whatever.

My point is that eventually the wowsers will move on to the next big scapegoat and leave gaming alone. It's unlikely you'll convince them of anything in the meantime because they're not rational people to begin with. IMO all you can do is leave them be and wait them out.

 

[Treblaine]

Or remind the host that games have protection under the First Amendment?

While that may very well work in America, it doesn't outside America even a few miles to the North in Canada and especially not in the UK.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was counter-productive, populists parliamentary democracies tend to resent being limited by hard-to-amend constitutions, they like the idea that you can literally do anything with a simple majority vote of who happens to be in the Parliament on the day of the vote.

You won't have to look far to find "oooh, look at all the trouble America has with it's constitution" of course referring to how hard it is to get liberty infringing laws passed and actually applied, but the implication is clear that the constitution caused the problem, not the politicians over-reaching.

I mean the ACLU would spin on their heads if republicans even suggested passing some of the laws even our left wing governments have actually passed.

UK may be secular, it may be liberal, but it's very reactionary. Anything that diverges from an idealised "Little England" is liable for the chop. America has it's mythological past and so does UK.

 

[Farther than stars]

Great article, as always. There are just a couple of stylistic issues and political faux-pas. First of all you can't "reverse numbers" when you've only mentioned one (and even if that number hadn't been pluralized, "reversing 58%" isn't inherently a useful thing to say). Also, saying that things are going to change in the future anyway doesn't help the earlier message of saying that gamers need to go on the offensive.
Then: politics. Comparing the gaming lobby to the NRA, the most powerful lobbying group in Washington, and thus implying that the gaming lobby need to be as big as the NRA is a bit of a hyperbole given the relatively trivial nature of games in running a country (not to mention how detrimental a lobbying group can be to democracy when it gets such a stranglehold on national politics, as the NRA clearly illustrates). Also, it wasn't the youth vote that won the 2012 presidential election, it was the Hispanic vote. And naming a malevolent dictator as an exemplar just hurts the article from a PR standpoint.
Besides all that though, this is still an inherently good article, content-wise. Personally I find that Bioshock, Fallout (3) and Portal are good examples of discussing games with people who trivialize them.

"A man chooses, a slave obeys."
"War... war never changes."
"Now you're thinking with portals."

Those are all quotes (respectively) which clearly illustrate deep philosophies and ideas which show how gaming has matured. But, more importantly, those games also use gaming's unique interactivity to express those ideas through play. That's a necessary requirement for understanding what gaming brings to the table in terms of being a creative medium.

P.S. Dear Esther.

 

[Treblaine]

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".

Well I had a similar response when I introduced such games and gave them a taste of their own medicine:

"yes, and why does that compromise anything? If you don't want violent conflict then you can forget most of Shakespeare's work and most Oscar nominated movies of the past 70 years. Macbeth is ultimately just about stabbing people. Not that this is Shakespeare or Oscar material, but conflict makes for compelling narrative, who would care about Star WARS if Luke Skywalker stayed on Tatooine and had peaceful relations with The Empire?"

See I'll tell you what my problem was and what I think my problem was as well, it was how I sold games like Bioshock as a movie, rather than a game. Talking about the superficial, what the environment looks like, what the plot details are, rather than what the game ACTUALLY is. And it's something that you can't simply show to people any more than you can describe a song to someone to the extent they will appreciate it as much as if they had listened to it.

Frankly, showing someone a game rather than letting them play it is like letting them see you dance to music only you can hear. They don't appreciate he beat, they just see you acting weird... music must be the devil. They see you enjoying gunfights and killing people, must be wrong, they don't see why as they are not in a position to understand.

And extending the music analogy, you can't get a 59 year old to appreciate Avenged Sevenfold just by making them listen to Avenged Sevenfold, you need to ease them into such things with an evolution, and evolution you likely skipped if you started listening to such music or playing such games when younger and more open minded.

But you need to go back to first principals. These heavy metal bands didn't come from nowhere, their music is in fact an evolution of what came before. And same for games like Bioshock.

I would call a progressive in most of his views.

Probably because most progressive people are extremely cautious about violence, and they really need to be challenged on their double standard. I went to see Carmen with my Grandfather and it's a production entirely based on violence and conflict. But it's his favourite Opera. Take out the violence and the story really has NOTHING to go on!

But they are conditioned that "oh, this fictional violence is acceptable" but everything else, it's different, it's perverse, it's corrupting. So rather than it being "a game about shooting people" by corruption it is "JUST a game about shooting people".

It's like trying to get them to appreciate the art styling in Bioshock is like trying to get your grandpas to appreciate the subtle chords of a thrash metal song where they are just so jarred by the screaming.

The important thing with Bioshock is putting a gun in your hands you have to walk a mile in their moccasins, this isn't an experience where they can safely observe as a god-like observer as in movies in books. It's your back to the wall, it's all happening to YOU, and you are responsible for what happens to others. You can second guess the actions of a character in passive story, but here you don't have that luxury. I wouldn't be surprised if a pretty progressive 59 year old wouldn't appreciate a game without acknowledging that.

 

[Farther than stars]

I think the worst thing one could do for games is for CNN to hire a games journalist. I mean, I guess there are worse ways, it could be FoxNews or MSNBC.

It's a bit of a side-note, but don't bother taking sides between CNN and MSNBC. That's like taking sides between the Montagues and Capulets. Really their comparative superiority is negligible when compared to Fox News (the sleeping draught).

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.

Hey, all publicity is good publicity. That goes for games too.

I believe you are incorrect on all counts. Violence is indeed the end that is sought after. Modern AAA game design typically involves designing a game first, then adding a story (sometimes literally after the whole game is finished - see the dev interviews about the Uncharted games). This is not just my "opinion" talking. There are countless articles about how games are developed and the various ways that story is integrated. When making Bioshock Infinite I would bet a lot of money that the developers first decided to make a shooter and then started thinking about where to set it and what story it should have.

Any other game and you'd probably be right, but in this case you just lost that huge pile of money you bet. Ken Levine and the rest of the lead designers have actually been quite open about the design process behind "Bioshock: Infinite" throughout development. In one of their first press conferences (GDC) they actually talked about how the primary outlines of the game consisted of its setting (asthetics, timeperiod and its associated philosophy), which was literally written down on a paper napkin during a lunch-break. Bioshock: Infinite is one of the few games out there which has the funds to apply the bottom-up approach to video-game story telling and actually go through with it.

 

[Treblaine]

Then: politics. Comparing the gaming lobby to the NRA, the most powerful lobbying group in Washington, and thus implying that the gaming lobby need to be as big as the NRA is a bit of a hyperbole

I think he was just giving an example of quite how much further the game advocate lobby could go, not how far it should go.

And as someone who has engaged with the NRA, their arguments are so effective because they go beyond the sound bite. They will argue the details and broad implications. Like point out how the previous Assault Weapon ban didn't stop they very things they were designed to stop and was so ineffective that there was no fight to prevent it lapsing in 2004.

They have very similar arguments to the lobby opposing the War on Drugs, they point out how criminalising what a huge proportion of the population does and of which the overwhelming majority of them don't directly hurt anyone else isn't a good idea. They point to examples of countries who have gone either way on these issues and the negative or benign consequences.

But this thread shouldn't turn into an off topic discussion of "Ban Assault Rifles(sic)" or "Legalise weed" the point is to learn how these are sides in the debate that make emphatic and clear arguments.

We need to be much clearer and more consice in our arguments. We need to refuse to accept careless indifference, that if they are going to legislate on my media then they damn well better know what they are talking about.

Like point out how games censorship in Germany means the few German developers who are left ignore their own home market and piracy is utterly rampant as it's the only way to get versions that haven't been altered to government demands.

 

[grigjd3]

So, I think I'd like to provide a summation of a section of the comments here. A lot of us would prefer to have some dignity by not doing these things. I'd prefer not to have my hobby represented by a d-bag that says things like "the only way you stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun". Also, I think we'd rather not be a part of the noise machine which is cable news. I mean, have you ever watched cable news? It's the lowest form of life on Earth. Basically, Robert Rath, the writer of this article who I respect a great deal, is asking us to throw away what claim this medium has to art and throw in with a hive of scum and villainy. Look, I, for one, don't need to convince the rest of the world this is art. Screw the rest of the world and what they think. They're targeting games right now because they are stupid enough to think that games are an easy target. It's not true and games have already been protected by the Supreme Court, further discussion annulled, no need to say goodbye as the door hits your ass on the way out. This debate is over and we won. What we are hearing now is pitiful gasping by an enemy that is largely extinct. I will not waste my time fighting the boogey man on CNN. Until 70% of the house and senate can come to an agreement (HAH!) to make an amendment to the constitution, and then have it ratified by the states (HAH! HAH!), there is no threat to my hobby. Besides, if it ever comes to it, all we have to do is shout the words gay marriage, without saying what side of the issue we are on, and the country will forget about video games.

Look, I like that this is a subculture. Subculture means you might possibly read this comment (though doubtful). Subculture means that we can still exist in some pseudo-community. Subculture means that when I meet a new person and smell that hint of nerdom, I can instantly break the ice with the slightest reference to Baldur's Gate that no one but someone in the club will understand. I don't need nor want this popularization that so many in the gaming media are aiming for (aside from the bigger pay check it might mean for them). The debate has no effect on whether good games will be released. The debate has no effect! The Supreme Court has made certain of that (unless you are dramaticizing about a congress that can accomplish something).

 

[8bitlove2a03]

"...though research has failed to find a link between virtual and real-world violence..."

Aaaaaaaaand stopped reading there.

 

[I.Muir]

Kotaku are horrible video game journalists
Fox news are horrible normal journalists
It's like they were made for each other

 

[tehwalrus]

I like the idea of starting a National Games Association that will get the same sort of law-influencing power as the NRA. Someone from the states, get working on that!

 

[charge52]

"...though research has failed to find a link between virtual and real-world violence..."

Aaaaaaaaand stopped reading there.

Why? Because it's true and you don't like facts in your articles? Please, show me where research has found this link, because they haven't. The closest thing they've found(in experiments usually run by someone against video games) is that playing competitive video games can make you more aggressive while playing it. Like every sport in the world.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

I believe you are incorrect on all counts. Violence is indeed the end that is sought after. Modern AAA game design typically involves designing a game first, then adding a story (sometimes literally after the whole game is finished - see the dev interviews about the Uncharted games). This is not just my "opinion" talking. There are countless articles about how games are developed and the various ways that story is integrated. When making Bioshock Infinite I would bet a lot of money that the developers first decided to make a shooter and then started thinking about where to set it and what story it should have.

Any other game and you'd probably be right, but in this case you just lost that huge pile of money you bet. Ken Levine and the rest of the lead designers have actually been quite open about the design process behind "Bioshock: Infinite" throughout development. In one of their first press conferences (GDC) they actually talked about how the primary outlines of the game consisted of its setting (asthetics, timeperiod and its associated philosophy), which was literally written down on a paper napkin during a lunch-break. Bioshock: Infinite is one of the few games out there which has the funds to apply the bottom-up approach to video-game story telling and actually go through with it.

Firstly, that napkin was handed to the Bioshock Infinite art director after the project had already started. It was not the start of the project. Furthermore it consisted soley of a child-like drawing of a house over a cloud and nothing else. No time period, no philosophy. Google it.

Secondly, Elizabeth was according to Ken Levine almost cut from the game because they couldn't work out how to get her to react convincingly to all the killing and violence perpetrated by the player character. Note the order of importance here: first we get the player killing stuff, then we figure out how to get Elizabeth to react to it, and if we can't figure it out we cut her out completely. This is not narrative-driven game design and it never was. My money is quite safe.

 

[Treblaine]

"...though research has failed to find a link between virtual and real-world violence..."

Aaaaaaaaand stopped reading there.

Sounding a horn slightly longer than otherwise is not "real world violence", not in the same sense as assault, maiming and murder.

And it lacks a relevant equivalent study, does playing tennis also cause you to sound a horn longer? Does listening to satire also create the same results towards the target of satire? We accept that limiting those established things for such a slight effect is an over-reach of the government into personal liberties for no benefit to society.

 

[Treblaine]

Secondly, Elizabeth was according to Ken Levine almost cut from the game because they couldn't work out how to get her to react convincingly to all the killing and violence perpetrated by the player character. Note the order of importance here: first we get the player killing stuff, then we figure out how to get Elizabeth to react to it, and if we can't figure it out we cut her out completely. This is not narrative-driven game design and it never was. My money is quite safe.

Yes, so what?

Film, books and songs can be about violence, why can't games?

This is just a double standard, films can be fiendishly violent and gory but you'll be called a Puritan if you suggest rejecting them out of hand just for that and likely called a Nazi if you suggest censorship. Further than that, even the most extreme are praised not in spite of the violence and gore but because of it and with the creators stating the violence as being an essential part:

And this is just one example of many.

Violent conflict serves an even greater importance in video games than in movies as storytelling as it is a mode by which the player is engaged rather than another passive non-involved observer. I'll tell you what it would be like to wander around a fictional world never being a threat to anyone and never being threatened by anyone: it's like being a camera on a movie set. The invisible indestructible god-like perspective.

Movie aficionados take that for granted, games subvert that and they don't seem to accept that.

The Biofininite developer didn't compromise on a character for violence... they compromised for player FREEDOM. They didn't want to lock you on rails and turn the game into a live-rendered Point-of-View movie... We don't need more games being made like feature films!!!

The premise of the story is not one character's particular role, the premise of the story is a conflict. You can't abandon the premise for one character who is only there to work with the premise.

And the conflict can take many forms, even the most benign looking point and click adventure the protagonist in in conflict. That is, if everyone was cooperating they'd just give him what he wanted when he asked and the game would be over in a few minutes, very boring. Take away the conflict and you take away the story.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Secondly, Elizabeth was according to Ken Levine almost cut from the game because they couldn't work out how to get her to react convincingly to all the killing and violence perpetrated by the player character. Note the order of importance here: first we get the player killing stuff, then we figure out how to get Elizabeth to react to it, and if we can't figure it out we cut her out completely. This is not narrative-driven game design and it never was. My money is quite safe.

Yes, so what?

So my point still stands. Did you jump into the conversation without reading it?

The Biofininite developer didn't compromise on a character for violence...

In the end they didn't. But they almost did, and their priorities were clear: it was Elizabeth's head on the chopping block.

they compromised for player FREEDOM.

Specifically the freedom to shoot people in the face. Levine was extremely specific about that.