September 7, 2007
David Edery, the Worldwide Games Planner for Xbox Live Arcade and a former student of every gamer's favorite prof, Dr. Henry Jenkins of M.I.T., pens a thoughtful piece on his Game Tycoon blog today.In When Entertainment Isn't Violent Enough, Edery writes:
I watched This Film Is Not Yet Rated a few days ago... All the issues raised in the film can be applied to the video game industry...
...We overly shield our children (and ourselves) from the truth about violence. I’m not arguing that every violent game should accurately depict reality… but perhaps a few more should.
...How many games make you suffer heart-wrenching wails of fear from your victims before you hurt them... Or for that matter, the agony of their surviving friends and relatives? In other words, how many games make you feel sorry for hurting someone? (I imagine a thousand voices screaming Bioshock at this juncture. It’s a start.)
...We as an industry and we as a society need to rethink our attitude towards violence... This simply isn’t a cut and dry issue, as so many people (on both sides of the isle) like to pretend it is. Violence in media is not obviously bad, and not obviously innocuous. We have a constitutional right to express violence in our art... but that does not give us the right to do so without reflection.
Comments
"I don’t want to ‘kick a bee hive’ so to speak, but I’m just curious why does media art have to be violent in order to be good?"
It doesn't. There are many "artistic" games that have gotten high praise that weren't violent at all.
The violence aspect comes from the idea that our most celebrated legends are violent. Look at any fairy tale (original text), legend, folklore, heroes, etc. All contain a measure of violence. In fact the older the legend, the gorier the deaths.
Nowadays, you just shoot bad guys. You don't run them down with horses, draw and quarter them, remove their speens, and tack them up on the outside wall of the town as a warning to others...
Violence also provokes a stimulus response in our brains, which is why we love to get scared. It triggers the fight or flight, we get the adrenaline rushing, and the relief afterwards becomes a "fun" feeling.
So while it doesn't "have" to be violent to be good, being violent adds that extra "thrill" to the mix of emotions the art invokes in you.
And yes, everyone's tolerance threshold is different, so while some might get a kick out of boxing, but balk at the sight of blood, others need something like Saw or the Exorcist to get their heart pumping.
As yes, Colonel Raidenovich Raikov
choir, consider yourself preached to.
By the way, I agree that I'd like to see more games depicting violence "simply" for what it is, and therefore depicting the consequences of this violence. Video games are a rich medium, whose possibilities are yet to be discovered.
I can't think of too many games were a person I killed (a villain or one of his lackeys) screamed in horror. But they are usually fighting me up until the deathblow, too. Who would want a terrifying villain who has been giving you trouble and mercilessly destroying people and places without a shred of guilt to suddenly cry out for mercy, though?
I see his point. For that matter, how many movies show a character's victims screaming in agony or force the character to deal with the victim's surviving friends and relatives? I can't even think of too many books that do that. Isn't it more of a story telling element? The story teller doesn't want the audience to dislike the central character. That's why the few instances that I can think of usually involve the antagonist harming people.
Protagonist=good guy
Antagonist=bad guy
That's a little too simplistic mind you, but its also the easiest way to say it. In God of War Kratos is the protagonist, but I wouldn't call him a hero. Sure, he kicks ass, but he's not a good guy, he's just better than the people he's fighting... maybe.
If memory serves the protagonist is defined as the person the story follows while the antagonist is the person who drives the story along by creating trouble for and interacting with the protagonist. I suppose that in some modern stories there can be multiple antagonists, but I'm not too up on that kind of thing.
anyway, i agree to a point that this kind of storytelling makes for more compelling shades of grey, where you question morality of your actions.
SC:Chaos Theory had enemies who would beg for their lives, claim they were only following orders, etc. it made the game and story a lot more grim (which really enhanced it, i thought) but you were fighting for large, nebulous causes.
should every game be this way? not at all, but any game that places extra emphasis on story or realism really ought to. one way or another, reflecting on our own morality can never be a bad thing.
That would make Kratos the ANTI Hero.
He's the hero of the tale, but he's not necessarily a good person.
As for violence in media, what the fuck is the big problem? The discussion doesn't matter, because it'll have violence either way! The only discussion as to violence in the media that is REALLY going on is the discussion about how video game violence is worse than all other kinds (which is stupid to say the least). All the other forms of violence in the media are readily accepted in our society!
Silent hill 2 comes to mind...
Though Eddie didn't exactly scream convincingly... XP
I'm thinking more the pyramid heads.... and the whole story, for that matter.
It was all a punishment for murdering his wife.
Same for the crew of the Von Braun in System Shock 2.
I definitely felt more terror and revulsion over the crew member of the Von Braun then the Slicers in Bioshock. You knew that somewhere in there, the person was still in the crew member, whereas the slicers where just coco-loco insane.
apparently thats true, the headcrabs tap into just the motor functions of the victim, so they fell themselves killing people, feel their own bodies rotting etc. really nasty.
Just shows a lot of games do have that level of story, but its in the background and not many people realise it.
Thief was a good one, stalkign a guard as he was on his patrol, talking to himself about how when he got home he'd have a nice sleep, a good meal and see his family, you could knock him out, but killing is so much easier....
also this came to mind:
http://www.drmcninja.com/page.php?pageNum=14&issue=1
Another point in this argument is that most heroic tales, old and new, it seems that heroes and villains are technically murderers because they kill. Should we ban them just because they kill? I don't see how else we can ban violence or distort it in a good way.
Granted games like Dark Cloud (Georama), Psychonauts, Tales of Phantasia (LMBS), Shadow of the Colossus, Spore (if it's ever released), etc. which bring unique art and play to the table while leaving depictions of ultra-violence at the door, don't make a splash in politics, they did find a way to 'push the envelope' by coming up with something original.
I will agree, sometimes a point needs to be made and violence should be used in order to make the point more effective (Schindler's List is a prime example) and the more realistic the violence the more effective you'll make the point, but to push the technological edge of gaming doesn't require grotesque images and violence worthy of an AO rating and really that's what I wished I saw more of; original ideas.
As someone mentioned, Splinter Cell gives you the option to either kill or just knock out enemies, and many do beg for their life or tempt you to end their life.
I've not had the time to play Bioshock yet (even after waiting for 2 years), I will get to see if it affects me.
However, life begging applies in many games back to '99 as far back as I can remember.
There's only some things that make people cringe with regret, while some are just extremely oblivious to things that should make you cringe. However, no person is the same, and it is asinine to presume someone is sadistic if they don't cringe at something.
Everyone has their tolerances, and as people get older, they cringe more as they tend to feel more worrisome than care-free as they did during the teenage years and younger.
Either way, the public at large does shield many away, out of fear that a child "may" watch it. It'd probably never change...
He dies, with some suitably heroic and moving last words, and another member of the party actually turns and screams his name, tears running down her cheeks. It definitely struck me, and left me with a bit of an empty feeling inside.
Trust me. Spore is going to hit politics. Mostly because of all the politician that believe that Darwin was totally off and that God created the world in less than a week.
I suppose it could tick off a few religious groups. I never really thought of that.
I heard the original versions of all the children's tales, mainly because my grandfather told them to me. My little brother (half brother) however, did not.
I love the real versions of the fairytales honestly.
And Spore doing it in less than an hour? Oh my, the horror!
That said, I would like to see more realism in lots of things in games, but not /all/ games. I want to still play games where I mow down demons without moral concern.
However, I would like to see this kind of thing, espeically in historic war games like Medal of Honor and the like... movies like Saving Private Ryan have bought the real horror of war to the big screen, how about doing the same treatment in games?
You are correct, sir. Kratos is an anti-hero. Still, I like X-Play's take on him. He's a bad-ass. How bad-ass is he? "He's so bad ass that he kills a completely innocent soldier JUST to open a door. A door that he probably could of opened with his sheer bad-assness."
Anyway, my example holds true. He is the protagonist, but not really a hero. There's a difference, which needs to be explained. Superman is a hero (he's also lame).
@ WinterNight
Games don't need to be extremely violent in order to be good. Quite a few of the games I play are not extremely violent. There are a few E rated games in my library, but the majority is T and M rated.
Ever play Shadow Hearts? It's not very violent. It is M rated, however. This is probably due to the dark Gothic tale. The main character transforms into demons and also fights quite a number of terrible creatures. In the first town you come to, you'll notice a crunching sound as you walk in the shadows. As you talk to people, you get the feeling that they are cannibals. Turns out they are cat demons that feast on human flesh (and favor women as they are less stringy and more tasty). Remember that crunching sound? It's soon revealed to be bones when you try to leave.
Games may not need to be violent, but they aren't all violent, either. They also aren't all for kids.
It's actually a good question, and, I think, covered in part by what this guy is saying, basically..
'We have a constitutional right to express violence in our art… but that does not give us the right to do so without reflection.'
On other words, 'Yes, we can portay violence in games, but should it be Violence for the sake of Violence?'. It's a step in the right direction, but then Violence covers such a massive description, Supreme Commander, for example, represents violence, though, on analysis, less graphic violence than, say, the average Warner Bros cartoon, or an episode of the Simpsons. Games, just like movies, often require a level of violence in order to make a story, even deep and introspective movies often use violence as part of the plot, not just the Action genre. Two robots dismembering each other in a game would get a far lower rating than two people doing so, is that because there is less violence involved or is it because the context and the fact that the recepient of that violence looks less human? They are interesting questions that aren't easily answered.
But yes, when it comes to Graphic levels of violence sometimes it may require the person to step back and view the option of 'Just because I can, does that mean I should?'. Those sort of decisions can teach you much about yourself, especially if those actions have consequences later on.
You'd be surprised at how few games that come out actually depict graphic violence, but they seem to get most of the limelight when it comes to wanting to place governmental restrictions on the entire genre. I suppose that is where my problem lay. Do I find some depictions of violence in games distasteful? Sometimes, yes. Do I think the entire game Industry should be controlled because of it? No more than I believe that the entire movie Industry should be controlled because of films like 'From Dusk Till Dawn', 'Blade' or 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'.
Does the people make the market, or does the market make the people?
I think if any question needs to be answered...it should be this one.
If the people make the market, then the sale of violent video games is filling a void, rather then creating one. I mean, there is a market for violent games, thats why they are being created. If no one bought them, no one would make them.
Or does the market make the people? And if so, how? Advertising? How many of us have actually been effected by advertising? Especially with how CRAPPY commercials are now-a-days. I know I haven't.
Advertising to me is sorta like preaching to the stubborn, or preaching to the choir. I know what I want to buy and whom I want to buy it from. So when I see a commercial, I'm either thinking "already getting it" or "hell no man, hell no"
I can't imagine I'm a minority on this. So I'd say the people make the market. And if thats the case, then we need to study ourselves to find the answer to this, and not blame the people who are just supplying us with what we want.
Look at it this way, everyone has heard of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Is it because it is a good movie, or is it because of all the advertising it got for being a 'Video Nasty'?
It's true that history and lore is full of violence. But some of the worlds most celebrated artists did not use violence to make a point or to get a 'thrill' from the audience. Leonardo, Bach, Shakespeare. It's only recently that movies, TV and video games have featured violence and I'm not sure why.
I'll admit I like a good 'scary game' as much as the next guy. Bioshock really creeped me out and it really got my heart pumping, but really they're cheap thrills and eventually the voices and the dark atmosphere just became boring, bland and predictable. What excites me is the challenge.
Having my enemies head blow up realistically isn't going to give me a thrill for much more then the first few times I see it. What really sticks is the challenge. Online First-Person Shooters like BF2 and BF2142 are great examples of thrills without blood and gore.
My heart's always pumping when I'm running covert ops or notice a sniper in the distance somewhere. It's the challenge of remaining hidden and not getting shot that makes my heart thump and because of the unpredictability of humans it continues to make my heart thump to this day.
A very good point. I believe that people make the market as well and we are... I guess responsible for the popularity of violent media. Well responsible isn't really a good word, but you know what I mean.
@ GoodRobotUs
Hostel and Descent are two other good examples.
I make sure my son is quite clear on this. "If you shoot someone," I say, "they will die horribly. It will be bloody and messy. You will have to live with the guilt of that person maybe having a family, friends, who will have to live with the grief for the rest of their lives. "
None of this "if you shoot someone, they'll fly off in a hilarious bloodless display of Havok physics gone wrong" crap. This is where I believe many parents are going wrong. It's OK for little Jimmy to watch two people kick the life out of each other on TV, because there's no blood... what?
It astounds me when I speak to other parents and they don't understand my point.
But some of the worlds most celebrated artists did not use violence to make a point or to get a ‘thrill’ from the audience. Leonardo, Bach, Shakespeare. It’s only recently that movies, TV and video games have featured violence and I’m not sure why.
Read some good old Greek classics. Music can't describe violence, although it can celebrate it (see any piece written to celebrate military victories). Shakespeare seemed to prefer sexual innuendo. And Leonardo devised many interesting and artful ways to wage war...
Ever read Victorian literature? Holy crap were those people fascinated with extravagant ways to die...
Violence was an everyday thing back then, so it wasn't "thrilling" but more a morbidly depressing reminder of reality... But still a useful storytelling element.
I agree that it is a cheap thrill. But used masterfully to set the tone, or to provide a drive to the story (avoiding being a victim of the violence), can move the plot along while dragging the reader/viewer/player along with.
It was the scene where you have to shoot the helicopter pilot as hes chained to the wall. His mouth is gaged, so he doesn't "beg" for his life verbally. But the way they did his eyes, god I still remember them. The developers really captured the fear he had, without him saying one word. Simply by the way he looked at you as you pointed the gun at his head. The way he tried to crawl away but couldn't because he was tied up.
As much as I wanted to shoot the sucker in the face, in order to maintain a trustful relationship with the enemy, I couldn't. I shot the wall.
Anyone else experience this?
Also @GoodRobutRUs
Your right, in the case of Manhunt 2 and GTA. The Controversy sold the item. And I'm sure people would agree that if these games ARE a danger, that the same people who are trying to stop this danger, are the ones fueling it.
If you make a big deal outa something. Its going to become a big deal. If you disregard it, the true colors of the subject will come out. Not the overly fluffed or overly deflated image that it will falsely portray.
"Shakespeare totally used violence when it was necessary in his histories"
Dur, I should have remembered that.
Did you not see my reference to Titus Andronicus, thats shakespeare at his goriest, much worst than the saws or manhunts of today
I hate the advertising industry, with the fire of a thousand suns. There is NO quality control going on there, else we wouldn't have the completely useless, disingenuous commercials we see day and day out.
Advertising affects me in that I take note of the commercials I see that I feel people should have lost their jobs over, and then I make a conscious effort to avoid those brand names. I've actually stopped using products that I didn't really have a quality-related problem with simply because their advertising proves that they don't deserve my patronage.
It's sad, really, what the average exec seems to think will sell a product. Or an idea.
I personally think Violence can be compared to Getting Old.
And by that I mean it can't be avoided, slowed down, or stopped. No matter what you get Old, and no matter what there will be violence.
Make violent Media illegal, and there will still be murders and deaths. Take away our Guns and our Knives, and people will use clubs and sticks to take out their aggressions.
We need to stop worrying about how to avoid it/stop it. And we need to start learning to live with it, and not let it control us. The same way we did with our old age.
Some people can't stand the fact that they are getting wrinkles, that their body is slowly falling apart. They use cremes and powders and surgery to try to slow the process down. But in the end they usually cause either more problems, or have little to no effect.
Then you got the people who are content living in a decayed and decrepit body. They are content at looking at the good things in life. Their long standing friends, their family, grand children, and their accomplishments. These people may not look the best, but I am sure in their heart they feel the best.
We need to adapt to our violent nature, understand that the world is an uncontrollably horrid place. And we need to stop trying to control it, and learn to live along side it. Accept its place in our lives, make sure it doesn't run/control our lives, and ignore it for the rare instances of beauty, warmth, comfort, and control that life gives us.
Fighting won't get us there, tolerance and acceptance will.
But the question is, will it bare fruit and happen or will it wither away and disappear?
Yeah I know what you mean. I stopped eating at McDonalds due to their crappy advertising...and crappy food of course.
But at the same time, the Execs really don't "know" what will sell. They leave that to their advertising firm.
The business that I work at does business with Wrigley Chewing Gum. We questioned the Execs decision about using the commercials that have the British Chick in it. You know, the ones that have a girl fall into a mud pit and even though she is filthy she still looks at the camera and smiles these clean white teeth because she is chewing gum?
We thought it was a moronic set of commercials. And questioned their decision on using it.
He said that polls and studies showed that the General American Public loved the commercials. And even though he himself thought they were stupid, he couldn't help and notice that it did have a positive impact.
So, thats why they went with it.
So, does that mean the slow decline into crappy advertising is also mirroring the American Intelligence? Perhaps not, maybe there is no "causal" link between the two. But it doesn't hurt to ponder the thought.
"If theres a new way, I'll be the first in line, but it better work this time" -Dave Mustaine, Peace Sells.
If everyone thought this way soul, then it would have a fighting chance.
But people don't like new ways. They aren't willing to be the first in line on an untested, abstract, and unorthodox idea. They would rather beat a horse to death, then continue beating it until the twitching stops. Then they stand back confused at what went wrong.
The idea of adapting to our violence will never have the chance to bare fruit, because people will chop the tree down before it even starts budding.
I just came over from the Gamefaqs Forums...God its a pleasant relief to find intelligent gamers to talk to.
sidenote: i like those Orbit commercials -because- they are stupid. the best one is the one with Snoop Dogg just for the faces the kids make. they make me laugh, and that's why i remember them. it doesn't have to be a good commercial, just entertaining without being demeaning to the customer.
"Aieeeeeeeeeee!"
"Ach! Mein Leiben!"
But hey, Nazis gotta die, it's a given.
Well you have really crappy taste.
Lol no, I'm just kidding ya. I'm not a dick. At least not that big of one.
But that does strengthen the fact that the commercials had a positive affect. Even though I don't like it, doesn't mean no one else will. Different strokes for different folks ya know?
I think the same can be said about Violent Media....
Masterful being the operative word. I realize that there are songs sung about great wars; paintings done of ancient bloddy battles; books which describe in detail dismemberment and art like this can and has had a huge impact on culture.
However there are also those books, paintings, and songs that aren't violent and have had a tremendous impact on culture and society. All I'm saying is that because a game has an AO rating doesn't mean it's going to push the envelope of gaming.
@ Conejo & chris
I'm well aware he did, but sometimes the violence was simply poisoning. Sometimes he didn't have any (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
I'm unclear on where you got the idea that Violence can only push the envelope?
Of course there are non-violent ways to make an Impact. Ghandi was able to make an impact through peace. Just as Hitler made an impact through War.
Both have impact, but both take different routes to have that impact.
So, must we restrict the impacts art makes because it decides to take a road less acceptable? Or do we embrace it as an equal to peaceful art, and judge it only on its impact?