Moral Kombat Documentary On Game Violence Comes to Hulu

[Earthbound]

Yeah, that preview did a poor job at showing both sides of the debate. They could've at least thrown in something against the anti-violent gaming culture.

Yes, the preview was admittedly poor. I have a feeling that a lot more people will be posting negatively on the documentary just because of the presentation of the trailer. It most certainly does not portray the film nearly as well as it should.

 

[ZeroMachine]

"we are entering a world so realistic we forget that its not real"

well, only if your a complete reatard.

The irony in this post could spawn another documentary.

(ME)is that a good thing, i dont mind as long as i get to be in it, and get money's.

You spelled "retard" wrong. I was more just having a laugh at that.

i wrote that origanly but it looked wrong! i really am a retard! yay![/quote]

Ok, regardless of your hilarious misspelling, I can tell you're a good guy. Always laugh at your own fuckups! (as long as no one died) It's the best way to get through life!

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

I haven't seen it, but it looks like it is a little less then "unsided."

According to the ad, it doesn't appear to be unbiased at all; talking about a countdown to another Columbine, references to 9/11, Jack Thompson, Joe Lieberman, ominous language, tension music. Looks more like right wing propaganda than a documentary.

As for the documentary itself, not only was it rather boring, but what I watched of it before I stopped seemed incredibly one sided. The gamers had their say, but it felt like the thing with Fox News and the "SeXBox" scandal. They said a couple things about trying to be excepted, then ten negative points were made to push them back. I'm sure some other points were made later on in the film, but it just didn't hold my interest nearly long enough for me to wait until the end.

Ah, well. I know my stance either way.

You all have committed the fallacy of judging based on incorrect or incomplete knowledge. Similar to Mr. Lieberman, no? I'm in the process of watching it right now, and the film is fantastically made. Yes, it begins mainly on the "protect our children" side of the arrangement, with more conservative viewpoints. If you continue watching past the twenty minute mark, you will notice that the other side has a turn to debunk everything that had been presented before. Both sides present good points. One man even starts off with the philosophy that games are terrible, based on the correlation between his brother's unfortunate violent death to gunfire. As the film progresses, he speaks of how he came to realize the difference between reality and fantasy, which was what his anti-game sentiments relied on the lack of.

You all should take care to not judge something that you have little knowledge of. That's how weak points in documentaries are made.

Really? Why not make two trailers, because selling it on ONE side like the trailer on a two sided argument I don't think is the right way to go, this trailer sells it as REALLY biased.

 

[lyly26]

"Back in January, Moral Kombat was made available for free on Babelgum, but that offer was only good for a month. I really recommend watching this film if you're at all interested in violent videogame debate, no matter which side of the fence you sit on."

This is half-true as Moral Kombat is STILL available for free on Babelgum with no interstitial ads, just a pre-roll. I was EXCLUSIVE to Babelgum for a month but wasn't removed after that.

So you can watch it here too: http://www.babelgum.com/4022951/moral-kombat.html

 

[lyly26]

You can watch it for FREE on Babelgum all around the world: http://www.babelgum.com/4022951/moral-kombat.html

 

[Proteus214]

I haven't seen it, but it looks like it is a little less then "unsided."

According to the ad, it doesn't appear to be unbiased at all; talking about a countdown to another Columbine, references to 9/11, Jack Thompson, Joe Lieberman, ominous language, tension music. Looks more like right wing propaganda than a documentary.

As for the documentary itself, not only was it rather boring, but what I watched of it before I stopped seemed incredibly one sided. The gamers had their say, but it felt like the thing with Fox News and the "SeXBox" scandal. They said a couple things about trying to be excepted, then ten negative points were made to push them back. I'm sure some other points were made later on in the film, but it just didn't hold my interest nearly long enough for me to wait until the end.

Ah, well. I know my stance either way.

You all have committed the fallacy of judging based on incorrect or incomplete knowledge. Similar to Mr. Lieberman, no? I'm in the process of watching it right now, and the film is fantastically made. Yes, it begins mainly on the "protect our children" side of the arrangement, with more conservative viewpoints. If you continue watching past the twenty minute mark, you will notice that the other side has a turn to debunk everything that had been presented before. Both sides present good points. One man even starts off with the philosophy that games are terrible, based on the correlation between his brother's unfortunate violent death to gunfire. As the film progresses, he speaks of how he came to realize the difference between reality and fantasy, which was what his anti-game sentiments relied on the lack of.

You all should take care to not judge something that you have little knowledge of. That's how weak points in documentaries are made.

I would have rather you quoted my entire post than just the first couple sentences. I was remarking on how poorly the ad was put together, not the documentary itself as I did explain I would be watching it later in my closing remark which was unjustly left out.

You should never be quick to judge based on incorrect or incomplete knowledge. Similar to Mr. Lieberman, no?

 

[AngryMongoose]

Bah! US only! This makes me angry and violent!

 

[Susan Arendt]

I haven't seen it, but it looks like it is a little less then "unsided."

I have. And if it's not unsided, then it's actually in videogames side.

Overall it's an interesting and fairly unbiased watch, though the trailer is a bit misleading.

Agreed on all points. It's a fascinating look at the issue, and definitely well worth seeing. It offers some points of view that you haven't heard before.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Watched the film and it was pretty good. They did a good job showing both sides of the debate, and may have actually leaned towards the pro-gaming side, if anything. It's interesting that the one thing that everyone agreed on is that parents need to take more control over what their kids play, which is true. Is it possible that both sides agree on things but they just interpret those things differently? Like anti-games folks think video games are too violent for kids, while pro-games people think video kids shouldn't be getting violent video games.

Think about it, both sides think parents should take control of their kids and both sides agree that video games can be very violent, which are two huge points in this argument. I think the reason these things are interpreted differently is because of preconceived notions that non-gamers have about gaming. They view gaming as a child's hobby only, so they feel that if violent games are being made, then children must be getting them! They do believe that children are the only ones playing video games after all. That goes into why the judge thought that video games aren't covered under freedom of speech, because he viewed gaming as a very immature hobby. Gamers obviously know that the average gamer is well above the 17 year old age limit on M rated games, and they are the ones that should be enjoying these games. However, we only know this because we're a part of gaming culture. Kind of like how people who aren't a part of metal culture view metalheads as a bunch of scruffy guys with long hair and tons of tattoos, when that isn't true for every metalhead.

Someone in the movie put it well actually. He said that if all you've ever seen on TV is Sesame Street, you will think all TV is Sesame Street. So, when you turn on the TV and see The Sopranos, Sex and the City, South Park, and anything else of that nature, you will be scared. You expected the television medium to be perfectly good for children because all you knew about television was Sesame Street, which was good for children. Non-gamers tend to see gaming as only having "Sesame Street" games, so when they find the Manhunts and GTAs, they get scared in a similar way, not expecting those games to even exist. I mean, listen to Lieberman talk about what happened when he was told about Mortal Kombat, and his reaction to it.

 

[spartan231490]

I don't care about the debate, I already know that violent children have nothing to do with video games.

 

[Dusk17]

The first bit seems biased but if you keep watching it is pretty balanced.

 

[Juan Regular]

Jep, it´s a great documentary. It shows both sides pretty much from an unbiased point of view. And it´s written by Steven Kent, which is always good (He wroe the Ultimate History Of Video Games for example).

 

[Juan Regular]

Hmm, don´t know how this double post happened.

 

[Kapol]

After having watching it, I have to say it was fairly interesting. I felt that, while they did present both sides to a degree, it leaned slightly on the anti-game side in my mind. Yes, they pointed out things like "not all games should be judged by manhunt" and "parents should play a bigger part in their children's lives," but the biggest parts that stood out for me were the parts where they were trying to say that games cause violence, because they came from a more 'popular source. By that I mean that it came from people more of the public has heard of, which, in my mind, would make most listen more to them then the publishers and developers that they got to come in and speak. Plus, they say stronger things like "Doom caused kids to kill" or things along those lines, which stuck in my mind more. I think it was a lot less one-sided then the trailer made it out to be though.

"Since the Supreme Court is going to be reviewing a controversial California law that was designed to ban violent games from being sold to kids." Violent games shouldn't be sold to kids anyway, same as violent movies. I do not think its controversial. If anything its parents that are still in the "video games are all Mario" mindset that is at fault. No law is fool proof. And as a kid i still watched violent horror movies. You can only do so much to stop kids getting hold of this type of material. My brother has seen parts of horror films (not the really gory stuff) but i made him aware that they are actors and he has watched behind the scenes stuff where you see the makeup and FX being applied.

You can not protect everyone, and there will always be a few people that take things to the extreme. Until 50% of people who played GTA are arrested for shooting and robbing people due to the effects of the game then the issue of "games cause violence" is invalid.

There is a lot of controversy to it, because the law will make it illegal to sell mature video games to children rather than simple store policy (like how movie theaters have a policy of not selling R-rated movie tickets to children, but its not illegal). Now, while this seems fine and dandy, this means stores can be sued or heavily fined if a kid gets a hold of a mature game from the store (it doesn't even have to be directly bought-the law is wonky like that from what I hear), so many big "family stores" (Walmart, Target, etc.) may end up saying "screw it" and not carry mature games at all. But really, the big problem with this law is that it's just plain unconstitutional, what with free speech and all that. If parents don't want there kids viewing this media, then they should just not buy the games. It shouldn't be illegal.

You have to remember that this movie was actually made before this court case became a big issue like it is. But I agree completely with what you said. Personally, I bought a lot of M rated games as a kid, but that's because my parents ended up just coming in and telling them "I don't care what he buys as long as it's not Grand Theft Auto." Under the new law, the store I bought them from would likely have been fined heavily for that even though my parents gave them permission.

 

[Therumancer]

I think it's very simple and it's frightening to even glorify the anti-video game position by allowing debate. As Heinlan put it "You can either have freedom or safety, never both". America is defined by being a "free country" above and beyond anything, that ends the debate right there, or it should.

For good or ill, our society has argued for freedom as opposed to public safety in issues like "search and seizure" and "chain of evidence" cases for a very long time. Putting all kind of limitations on the police, because morally we'd rather let a spree murderer or child molester run free, than give the goverment too much power in the course of building a case to convict them. Things like the limited scope of searches can pretty much make it so you can't convict someone for having kiddie porn, if you find it while searching a house for a fugitive. That being a referance to "Mapp Vs. Ohio" incidently where while the type of "porn" was not specified (though to actually be considered "porn" in a legal sense and criminal it has to have been declared obscene and illegal before this) but that's pretty much what happened and opened the door for a lot of the search and seizure based legal arguements that sleazeball lawyers use today, and entire cases being thrown out for purely bureaucratic reasons when one piece of evidence has some petty problem with it and it leads to an entire chain of related evidence going the way of the dodo.

The bottom line being that the central arguement behind the anti-video game crusade doesn't hold weight in light of the way our society has chosen to set it's priorities.

What's more, by taking the dialogue seriously, and allowing it to actually go before courts and such again and again, we're opening some doors that shouldn't be opened. One problem with our system is that it doesn't have a provision for ending issues once a desician is made. Just because you lose on a social issue it does not prevent people from immediatly building another case (or the same one0 and trying again until they eventually succeed.

I'm not saying people don't have the right to rant about video games being bad, that is free speech after all, but aloowing this to turn into an actual issue that goes before the goverment again and again, and thus generates movies like this is increasingly being a mistake.

 

[Ldude893]

I don't live in the states, so I can't watch Hulu.
Dammit.

 

[Waif]

Just watching the trailer of video makes me think this isn't as unbiased as it is claimed. Considering how all the experts in the trailer were stating negative things about the gaming industry. Things that, to this day, have yet to be proven. I would watch it, just to give it a fair chance, but it's on HULU. I can't watch anything on HULU as I am a Canadian, and they only allow USA IP's.

 

[Enigmers]

I can't get hulu here in Canada, but it's good to hear that it's more unbiased in full than it seems in that little trailer.