Fuck the Media: A Short Documentary on Gaming in the Media

[Incandescence]

I made this 12-minute documentary as the final project for a college course this past academic quarter, and I figured The Escapist's readership would appreciate--or at least be entertained by--an attempt at a somewhat intellectual attempt to explore the culture of tension between gaming and the mainstream media.

As I have enough good footage to extend the documentary to at least twice its current length and tackle some other topics--and may very well do so--or attempt to revisit the topic at a later point for more advanced courses, I would appreciate any comments or critcism on the content, pacing, editing, or whatever else bugs you. There's always bound to be something that somebody else sees or suggests that I've never thought of before, and I trust this community enough to exhibit my work to it.

As disclaimers, I should mention that it is significantly biased and contains some choice language (as if the title wasn't a clue).

http://www.vimeo.com/2448391

 

[geldonyetich]

Good vid. Could probably be shortened in terms of the message it contains, which was a bit confusing to me because it's sort of the typical, "Violence in video games? Wah?!" reaction we get out of most gamers.

Coming down with a well reasoned argument (as I'm sure you realized when you were making this) is tough: where's the proof games cause violence? Where's the proof games don't cause violence? Examples of both are out there but, even in scholarly reviewed articles and non-biased studies, they're just not solid enough. Our fundamental understanding of human psychology is not adequately advanced to say whether or not gaming really is a threat in terms of violent impact on any of us.

So, should the media be hyping violent video games as bad as though it were already proven? No, definitely not. However, fuck the media? Going a bit far - at least they're paying some attention to the question, even if they can't answer it, as did this documentary. It's hypocritical - you might as well be saying fuck yourself while you're at it. By making this, you're the media, and without proof you're just as bad as they are in demanding video games don't cause violence as they are by demanding they do. Even if your video doesn't demand anything, your title does.

Bear in mind, I'm a 26-year gamer, and I'm not inherently violent -- I'm far too introspective to be a good psychopath. However, my personal perspective is useless here because just because I'm a gamer who isn't violent doesn't mean there isn't such a thing as a person who allows video games to teach them violent behavior. In other words, I can't speak for everyone, life is too complicated.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

Just finished watching the video. Very well done! Considering the title, I was surprised by how well balanced (relatively) the argument was. I say "relatively" because it's clear that you were attempting to express a view about video gaming's status in our culture.

In fact, I feel that your title was somewhat inappropriate not because of the language but because it doesn't encompass what the whole documentary was about. It's not just gaming in the media, but how people perceive video gaming and gamers in our general society.

I really liked the wide variety of interviewees you pulled. At first, I was concerned that we would just hear from the two gamers who spoke at the beginning. But I like that you incorporated non-gamers, professors, and others to show video gaming's effect in general.

Keep up the good work, and I hope you got a good grade on the assignment.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I agree. Fuck the media. One thing I notice is how some people try and take an intellectual step forward by recognizing that the problem isn't that people are playing violent videogames, the problem is that children are playing violent videogames. However, they then decide this: Problem: Children are playing violent videogames. Solution: no one should play violent videogames. Unless I'm crazy, there is a major gap in their logic there. Why can't videogames be just like movies where they can be happy with bad movies being rated X and thus advised to not be for children? Games can be rated M, if children are still playing them it's not the game's fault.

And as far as the media's faults go, they need to stop making up blatant lies about games, they need to stop completely exaggerating and the bad aspects of games and making them sound like they're the worst things in the world, stop listening to the people who tell them these things, and respond to videogames fairly and equally to movies and other forms of media.

Of course, none of these things will ever be realized or made into reality, atleast not any time soon. I do feel like someone needs to work towards making this real. Gamers should form some sort of group and respond to unfair attacks on videogamed by the media. We can't just sit here and expect them to get better by themselves. Without anyone telling them otherwise, they will eventually believe their own shit (if they don't already) and the problem will get worse.

I feel like I sort of hijacked the thread to rant about this. So nice video, very well done. Please try and circulate this as far as possible, and maybe we can get something done.

 

[Incandescence]

So, should the media be hyping violent video games as bad as though it were already proven? No, definitely not. However, fuck the media? Going a bit far - at least they're paying some attention to the question, even if they can't answer it, as did this documentary. It's hypocritical - you might as well be saying fuck yourself while you're at it. By making this, you're the media, and without proof you're just as bad as they are in demanding video games don't cause violence as they are by demanding they do. Even if your video doesn't demand anything, your title does.

Bear in mind, I'm a 26-year gamer, and I'm not inherently violent -- I'm far too introspective to be a good psychopath. However, my personal perspective is useless here because just because I'm a gamer who isn't violent doesn't mean there isn't such a thing as a person who allows video games to teach them violent behavior. In other words, I can't speak for everyone, life is too complicated.

That first paragraph I quoted is an excellent point. I hadn't really thought of the impact of the title on the message in great depth, and considering what Dr Spaceman said about it failing to capture the whole point of the documentary, maybe I would revise it if I had given it more thought. Indeed, it is hypocritical, and I might as well go ahead and say "fuck myself" while I'm at it--but its that kind of metathought that I find I enjoy inspiring.

As far as the second paragraph goes, that it's really personality types and psychological makeup--rather than what people do--that drives our behavior when exposed to violence and whatnot is exactly what I found myself wanting to cram into the documentary. But that can be for another doc, or a revisitation.

At first, I was concerned that we would just hear from the two gamers who spoke at the beginning.

I'm glad you felt that way, since it's an error I noticed myself, but it's nice to have another perspective reinforce it. Even if I did branch out later in the documentary, I would have liked to find a way to include some of the other interviewees earlier on. Any ideas?

 

[geldonyetich]

I'd say a concerned parent, professional game developer, and a child psychologist would be some potentially good interviewees to include. The gamer, while an important perspective to include, is a tad biased by their enjoyment of the very thing being maligned. It's a bit like asking a pothead if MJ is OK. "Well, I sometimes do some really stupid things and I'm coughing up tar like never before, but damn, legalize MJ - it's harmless." (Granted, we both know gamers are a lot more cognitively active by nature of their playing challenging mind games.)

 

[CmdrKinslayer]

Like you said yourself, a little too biased; finding more people to interview like your Poli Sci professor would be good. Maybe even a few media people themselves, from a local newspaper or radio. I would also try to find some casual gamers, instead of the stereotypical-nerd-gamers you decided to interview.

It'd be a bit difficult to find many people to interview and still retain your point, because like one of the gamers said in the video: You can't form opinions about a game until you play it.

I think the only way to do it would be to find a way for some people (like the post above said, parent, psychologist, etc) to try out a few (different) games, such as a few from each gaming "category" (FPS, RTS, Puzzle, RPG; Violent, nonviolent, cartoon violence), and then form an opinion based on their experience with that. Not whether they liked it or not, but whether they think it could have an effect on the group in the age restrictions, and maybe even ask whether they think it could have an effect on younger groups.

 

[Retrofraction]

Video games are not as bad as TV, if you ever watch Network telovision or know what that is you know of one really dumb TV show called desperate house wives.

The way they portay these women is horrible, in fact it is worse than nay game I have played including GTA time splitter and other games.

I personally belive that video games may make people more proffecint at killing, they do not cause people to want to kill people.

like in Combine you never hear storys that tell their side of the story because the media is biased and completle blamed it on video games and not the TRUE issue witch is that people in high school were treating them like shit all the time ( the fact is is if all you do is treat people like shit they are going to get pissed off, and verbal bulling is not looked down apon in most high schools.)

while sosiety is looking at somthing to blame they need to be working on solving the problem, and not punishing people that are just trying to have fun.

its like the freaking ileagal imagrants of the USA we keep on complaning that they keep on comming in, but we don't just break down and diside to start developing Mexico so that they really don't want to come to the USA.

 

[[Gavo]]

Hm....interesting. I really have never seen anything like this.
More interviews with non-gamers would be nice, but still good. However, if you didn't interview the professors and only gamers...it would have been pretty bad.

FUCK THE MEDIA!
that was fun.

 

[crazy-j]

well......fuck the media!

 

[Frizzle]

In place of the chick you had in there, i would suggest using a parent who doesn't like the type of video games that you're more or less defending. Not that she shouldn't have been in there, but it didn't really seem like she added much of a counterpoint to the gamer opinions. Having the professors was good, though the second one was a little more.... topic related (in my opinion) than the first.

I think if you're going to extend it, i wouldn't try to tackle other topics. There is tons of room to expand on the ones you put in the video to begin with. The part i liked best about it was how the second guy related CoD4's story to a movie. It's a good point to bring up that a lot of people don't think about.

Overall a good short video. Nice job man. And yeah, change the title

 

[Phyroxis]

I really enjoyed the video, great hook at the beginning and some legitimate points by the speakers. I'd love to see it under another title, however, it'd certainly make it easier to show to skeptics.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

At first, I was concerned that we would just hear from the two gamers who spoke at the beginning.

I'm glad you felt that way, since it's an error I noticed myself, but it's nice to have another perspective reinforce it. Even if I did branch out later in the documentary, I would have liked to find a way to include some of the other interviewees earlier on. Any ideas?

Well, it looks like what you're trying to create is a news-magazine style report. (You know, like 60 Minutes or something.) It might be interesting, along with your intro which is already in place, to give a "preview" of all of the different types of interviewees upfront. You know, like a quick blurb from one of each of the gamers, non-gamers, and professors. Something that perhaps summarizes their position in a few words, or gives an indication of what they'll be talking about in more detail later.

If you read any newspaper or magazine, you'll notice that the first paragraph or two provides all the necessary information if one was to simply skim the article. People who are more interested will continue to read the article to its conclusion and learn more in depth about the topics presented at the beginning. I think the same thing can be applied here. As I mentioned before, the first three or four minutes makes the video look like it may just be a rant about the mainstream media's unfair treatment of the gaming culture. Throw in a quick shot of your "balancing" opinions should demonstrate that you have a more serious end in mind.

Of course, that would probably require a hell of a lot more editing and work, and if you've already submitted the video, it may not be worth your time. However, those of us who don't actually have to do the work can always dream, right?

 

[Incandescence]

At first, I was concerned that we would just hear from the two gamers who spoke at the beginning.

I'm glad you felt that way, since it's an error I noticed myself, but it's nice to have another perspective reinforce it. Even if I did branch out later in the documentary, I would have liked to find a way to include some of the other interviewees earlier on. Any ideas?

Well, it looks like what you're trying to create is a news-magazine style report. (You know, like 60 Minutes or something.) It might be interesting, along with your intro which is already in place, to give a "preview" of all of the different types of interviewees upfront. You know, like a quick blurb from one of each of the gamers, non-gamers, and professors. Something that perhaps summarizes their position in a few words, or gives an indication of what they'll be talking about in more detail later.

I have already submitted the video, so it's more of a thought exercize on what to do for next time, if I attempt something else with a similar structure. I think that mimicking an expose-style news report more closely would be a good idea, especially with including a quick summation of each person's point of view. That would probably have assuaged any fears that we were only going to hear from the first two gamers and incorporated the more serious angle of the last half earlier on.

Of course it's always easier said than done, but the more opinions and suggestions, the better the next product should be. So thank you, all.

 

[Incandescence]

I gotta admit, I watched it all the way through and it was very boring. However, the points that are being raised are absolutley valid. But there are so many more points that could have been raised.

I appreciate that you watched it, thought it was boring, and still cared enough to come tell me so. It's always good to hear if someone didn't think it was all that great.

Getting game footage was troublesome, indeed. If I had more time I would have taken much more care in doing so, and it's something I'll definitely keep in mind for next time.

 

[Ranooth]

The media hates games and all games. 'nuff said.

 

[searanox]

Not bad for a university-level documentary project, but you could have had some more people speaking on the matter. There are very few educated youth today who are actually going to object to videogames, though, so your reference pool is understandably lacking.

The biggest issue, for me, is probably that the discussion sort of gets cut off. You bring all these ideas into the film but don't do much to explain their context (assuming everyone is familiar with the "Sexbox" controversy, etc.) and the issues themselves don't get very much in-depth discussion, much less resolution. Some academic sources (statistics, studies, etc. from peer-reviewed journals) would help flesh things out, but I think that the video easily could have (and should have been) five times as long as it is. Again, great introduction, but you need to look at things a lot more closely if you really want to give them the attention they deserve. Your editing is quite slick and a high point of the film.

I assume you were under some sort of time limit here, so you did a good job with what you had available (presentations of any sort are hard because you can spend an hour on a topic and only scratch its surface). If you want to keep going with it, though, you could really produce something thought-provoking and relevant to contemporary culture.

 

[Incandescence]

I gotta admit, I watched it all the way through and it was very boring. However, the points that are being raised are absolutley valid. But there are so many more points that could have been raised.

I appreciate that you watched it, thought it was boring, and still cared enough to come tell me so. It's always good to hear if someone didn't think it was all that great.

Getting game footage was troublesome, indeed. If I had more time I would have taken much more care in doing so, and it's something I'll definitely keep in mind for next time.

Wonderful, It's nice to know that you didn't take my comment with angst. I like that some people can still take critisism, even if I didn't give you any ideas to improve it. I basically blurted what I felt when I watched the video. D:

What grade did you get for it by the way?

The quarter just ended so I won't get my grades until the 15th, but the way my professor talked to me about it after I showed it to the class, I'm sure I'll get an A. She focuses a lot on technical proficiency along with actual content, so even if she thought it was boring she would probably find it polished enough to give it a good grade