An Open Letter About Violence in Video Games

Sleazus

To Whom It May Concern,

I write this letter in the hopes of redressing several of the claims made recently in the “debate” over violent video games. I place the word “debate” in inverted commas because the media makes no attempt to hide their bias. In no article I have read on the issue does the author place the blame at the feet of those who committed these violent acts, but rather the games those people played.

I understand this reaction and the feelings behind us. The violent actions committed by teenagers – the murder of Stefan Pakeerah or the murder of a motorist by two stepbrothers in Tennessee for example – horrify and shock everyone. We cannot reconcile these seemingly meaningless acts of violence with the young age of the perpetrators. We cannot see a reason or a pattern. We cannot accept that any sane mind could do such a thing.

The human need to place blame is a strong one – as is the need for an explanation. Horrible events must take place for a reason – a ‘why’ is often as important as a ‘who’ in today’s police investigations and court cases. Adolf Hitler’s early life is a constant source of scrutiny by historians looking to explain the atrocities he committed in later life. Did he have a disfigured penis? Indeed, one of the most popular urban myths states that Hitler had only one testicle. Other rumours suggest romantic rejection by a Jewish girl at a young age.

In short, these beliefs and stories (for they all rely on undocumented and unsubstantiated accounts) try to narrow down Hitler’s motives to something we can fathom, comprehend: unrequited love or sexual frustration. We fear things we do not understand. A person who can kill for no reason is the ultimate unknown.

The “Wherefore” and the “Why”

So, we try to create a motivation or at the very least a reason for their actions. In the modern era, the fashionable thing seems to be to blame violent video games for blurring the lines between right-and-wrong to our children. They are the modern bogeymen, one of the few (but by no means the only) modes of entertainment not embraced by the ‘respectable’ adult. While film and television have been absorbed into the mainstream and are now generally (although some might say grudgingly) accepted as art-forms, the video game sits out in the cold. Very few parents understand or play these games. Whereas any mother or father can attend a movie with their son or daughter, or watch TV with them, almost none can game with them.

Naturally, when we look for a cause for these horribly actions committed by children – murders, beatings, shootings – we know what it isn’t. It isn’t the storybooks we read them as children. It wasn’t that Stephen Collins TV-movie we watched the other night. It must be those video games that they were playing. If we put the blame on video games, we can answer these tough questions – the ‘wherefore’ and the ‘why’. Sometimes any answer is better than none at all.

In September 2003, two teens from Tennessee, William and Joshua Buckner, claim that the infamous video game nasty “Grand Theft Auto” drove them to a shooting spree that robbed Aaron Hamel of his life. In March 1981, John Warnick Hinkey Jnr. attempted to assassinate the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. He said that he was inspired to shoot Reagan by Jodie Foster and her role in the classic movie “Taxi Driver”.

Was Foster responsible for attempting to kill Ronald Reagan? Of course not. The plot was the product of a deranged mind. In much the same way, those accountable for the death of Mr. Hamel are none other than William and Joshua Buckner. It may not be comfortable or easy-to-stomach that two teenagers of fourteen and sixteen respectively could perpetrate such an act of violence, but it is the truth of the matter.

Accusations have been levelled at these games to the effect that they “instruct children in the art of killing” (Dave Grossman). This is like saying placing an order to the local Italian constitutes learning how to make a pizza. In most video games, killing is done at the click of a button. I’m no expert, but in reality killing is much more involved than that. Working a gun is much more complicated than dictated in video games (or even often on television).

In Defence of the “Grand Theft Auto” Series

I will admit my ignorance. I – much like many of those opposed to these corrupting materials – have not played every game in existence. I have, however, played two of the most controversial video games of our times: the latest two instalments of a long-running series that by now every parent has probably heard of. I enjoy playing “Grand Theft Auto III” and its follow-up “Vice City”.

Yes, they do feature an excess of gore in an over-the-top fashion, but no more (indeed, substantially less) than your average David Cronenberg or pre-Lord of the Rings Peter Jackson film. Even in comparison to the works of film-making legend Brian dePalma (which both titles clearly emulate or reference, depending on how open-minded you are) do the video games pale.

Yes, they do reward acts of violence and ask the player to sympathise with the perpetrator of these acts, in much the same way as classic cinema pieces manage to elicit audience sympathy for down-right vicious or nasty characters. Take the gangster epic Scarface, which follows the rise of an ambitious Cuban gangster pursuing the American Dream he was promised. Or the aforementioned Taxi Driver. Or even the Godfather trilogy that charts the moral decline of a young man who must hold his mafiosa family together. What about Jean Reno’s hit man in Leon? Isn’t John Wayne’s character in True Grit also conflicted?

Grand Theft Auto III is structured as a homage to the neo-noir – that is, the modern gangster flick. Payback, The Usual Suspects, countless others. Payback follows a ruthless Mel Gibson searching for the people who ripped him off. Mob justice in a dog-eat-dog world. The setting of Grand Theft Auto III is murky and grey, much like that inhabited by countless other characters in the films mentioned above. Areas of the fictional Liberty City scream out in respect to past screen legends – Rockford is named for James Garner’s Private Detective Jim Rockford from The Rockford Files, while the Callaghan Bridge is named for none other than Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry Callaghan. Even Chinatown refers not only to a vibrant ethnic quarter in the city, but to Roman Polenski’s genre-defining effort (frequently regarded as the last true film noir).

Despite protestations, this game actually carries an anti-drug message. A large part of the game is spent trying to limit the spread of the Columbian-manufactured drug Spank (obviously a veiled reference to heroine, colloquially known as ‘Smack’). You may argue the use of stereotypes in the game, but that is an issue not unique to the gaming world – films and television also often perpetrate that image of Columbia (even The Simpsons has had a dig at “Columbia’s biggest export”)

Similarly Vice City is a reference to (or, you could argue, plagiarised version of) the sunny-drenched Florida underworld flicks. It draws from films such as Scarface and also heavily from the TV show Miami Vice (even going so far as to hire Philip Michael Thomas, who portrayed Tubbs in the show). There are speedboat chases, drug deals gone wrong, cocaine, bank robberies, decadence, cheesy night-clubs, bad suits, overacting, spacious mansions, the bikini-clad babe and every necessary ingredient for the genre. Even the use of the chainsaw as a weapon (and a throwaway line of dialogue in Grand Theft Auto III to the effect of “You want me to get the chainsaw?”) draws directly from a gruesome torture scene in Scarface that is more graphic and intense than anything seen in the games.

In the course of the games, the only people you are required to kill are gang members. This fits with the whole theme of proceedings. As the old saying goes, “those who live by the sword must die by the sword”. It is a stable of the gangster genre that the criminal leads meet violent ends – from the final shootout in Reservoir Dogs, to the assassination of the tragic Carlito in Carlito’s Way, to Tony Montana’s final stand in Scarface, through to the end of Donnie Brasco. However, if a player chooses to harm a civilian, it is their own choice to do so. And here is where we hit the classic, highly-publicised argument that is so often used by the media:

That these video games encourage and reward acts of violence.

The news has delighted in reporting about “Killing Sprees” and hookers and robbery with a baseball bat. These are all parts of the game, optional avenues for the player to explore. Yes, they to yield rewards. However, there are other paths. I have yet to read a report commenting on what are affectionately known as the “R3 Missions” (for the button on the PlayStation Controller that activates them when inside an emergency vehicle). Upon entering such a vehicle – a firetruck, a SWAT van, a police car, an ambulance or even a taxi – you can activate a subset of missions that can provide the player with a limitless source of funds while also benefiting the community.

Sleazus

In a law enforcement vehicle, you activate the “Vigilante” mission, where you track down violent criminals intent on causing mayhem in the city. In the ambulance, you find yourself playing “Paramedic”, ferrying dangerously ill patients to hospital. If you drive too recklessly, they may die. As well as receiving money for this, if you save enough patients, you will receive the ability to sprint of infinite amounts of time. In the taxi, you relay passengers to their destination in a set amount of time. If you aren’t careful and drive like a lunatic, your passenger may flee in terror. In the fire engine, you race to extinguish dangerous blazes, before they claim innocent lives. All-in-all, these missions provide potentially infinite amounts of money and can be far more rewarding than the story mission alternative.

The Real World

Of course, I do not speak for all video games, but studies have shown that relieving stress is a healthy and safe practice. Is not better that we vent our frustrations within this virtual environment than in the real world? If an individual cannot draw the line between fantasy and reality in the first place, does that not in itself constitute a problem? The ability to distinguish between a virtual reality and the world we inhabit is expected of us today. Healthy people know the difference. Does not the failure of people to see this distinction mean that something – on some level – was wrong in the first place? Is it not society’s duty to notice these failures before they turn into catastrophes? Before a kid beats and stabs his schoolmate to death over £75?

That is the core of the matter. The ultimate tragedy – that maybe these acts could have been prevented, but weren’t because we didn’t see all the warning signs. If that is true, then we must accept responsibility for these horrid actions and deeds. If we did not notice that there was something wrong, then we weren’t paying enough attention, we were negligent. If we can put the blame on video games, it means that we can do something – anything – that we believe can stop these things from happening again.

The truth of the matter is more complicated. The truth is that, if there was something wrong leading up to these events, we couldn’t have noticed it. Ted Bundy was a murdering psychopath – by all definitions an evil man. Yet he was a young, handsome and charming man. People trusted him. Should they have seen through the façade? How could they? Psychologists have yet to completely explain how the human brain works, but they do believe that sociopaths are able to perfectly imitate emotions – though incapable of feeling themselves. They believe that perhaps certain chemical imbalances in the brain may lead to mental health issues later in life. These imbalances are virtually undetectable. In much the same way, these teenagers who committed these acts could have had all semblence of normality.

There are tens of thousands – if not millions – of children playing these video games around the world. The number committing these violent acts is statistically insignificant – which, I’ll admit, is of no comfort to relatives of the victims. Children do not need games to witness violence. It is everywhere. The current situation in the Middle East ensures that we need only turn on the news to experience horror and to behold savage, inhumane acts. Video games are no more responsible for this culture than MacGyver is responsible for the enduring popularity of Swiss Army Knifes.

I do not write this to insult you or people who believe that the video game nasty is the end of civilisation as we know it. I write it in defence of a fledgling art-form. One need only look to the history of cinema to see that gaming is not the only industry to come under heavy attack. A Clockwork Orange was condemned as a “nasty little shocker” by the Times Literary section, before being reclaimed as a modern parable about man’s choice between good-and-evil. Other films in the past have undergone similar censorship only to be eventually brought back into public consciousness as cinematic gems – Straw Dogs or the original Halloween for example.

I thank you for your time and hope only to promote intelligent discussion on the issue rather than the one-sided lecture that the media and parent’s groups have decided to hand to us. Censorship is not the answer – certainly not in this case. I will end by once more pointing out the age restrictions on the games themselves. If they are not being enforced it is a problem with distribution, not the industry.

Yours sincerely,
D. Mooney

---

Sorry about the double post, just felt the need to vent...

weemcd

i perscribe 20ml of stfu for the pretentious newbie


STAT

LegacyUser

Is Sligo that ****in' boring? Jesus Christ. Please take up a hobby for your own sake.

Sand

Well written and thought out. I hope this is a copy of something youve sent or posted elsewhere as it will be wasted here - See post above mine.

As any debate about gaming in the mass media only comes after some murder is linked however dubiously to a game I dont know how much interest they have in participating in any sort of debate. As you said, parents groups and the likes of Sun know absolutely nothing about games apart from a snippet or two they might have overheard on the bus 10 years ago- they still referenced Doom ( the original ) as being *the* source of ultimate psychotic imbalances in pieces Ive seen. Ive never heard them mention Half Life for example, they probably dont even know it exists - which only demonstrates how little ability they have to comment and how little effort they take to investigate what theyre denouncing.

i perscribe 20ml of stfu for the pretentious newbie

Buy a dictionary sometime.

l3rian

thats a long post, someone shorten it to one sentence for me

violence in games is funny



gotta love that soldier of fortune 2

monument

PLEASE NOTE: Childish or abusive posts will not be tolerated in this thread – I for one, am interested and will welcome posts from non-gamers as well as people from the ‘other side’ of this debate.

Sleazus wrote:

Stefan Pakeerah

For the record…

The tabloid press, in particular the extremist right-wing Daily Mail newspaper, have already been heavily criticised for ignoring the police reports and prosecution statements which gave the motive for the murder as robbery, with LeBlanc killing his younger friend in order to pay back a drugs-related debt. Few tabloid stories made any mention of the drugs angle.

New twist to Manhunt murder allegations

Police reject game link to murder

In this case, and many others, blaming game, music, films etc is an excellent PR trick. Blame <insert media type here>… tabloid and other assorted press pick the story up in what in well known as ‘silly season’ in the news business… and hey presto, a game murdered someone!

How many people know about the police saying there was no link to the game? Never mind how many people know about the drug connection.

Games like Grand Theft Auto, and Manhunt should be kept from children, parents are the ones who need to do this – how many parents would let their children watch films, or even read books as violent?

evad_lhorg

JUst to let yuo know. the only reason Manhunt is still on the shelves is because the follwing was said by rockstar....

"fine take our game off the shelf. but If yu choose to do that then we wont stock you with San Andreas". not exact words but thats how it goes. it was risky cause f they hadve taken it off then rockstar would have no one to sell gta.

Canis Lupus

That open letter should have been entitled open mini novel.. but like the gun debate games dont kill ppl, ppl kill ppl. While we all know the 2 following points aren't something that happens, basically:
Adult games shouldn't be sold to minors.
Parents should take an active role in seeing what their children play.

Ultimately though, if the killer is under/over 18 it doesnt matter, the act of unmotivated murder is the product (usually) of an unstable personality. Such a person it can be argued would commit such a crime sooner or later. But while I don't agree with "violent games turn kids into killers" unlike other media like books or films, a game allows a person to 'be' the main character be that a killer and so on. Can we really know what effect this has on a person susceptible to this very stimulus?? It's easy for me to say games don't make people violent but then I consider myself normal...ish

KdjaCL

Sleazus , im sure you spent time writing your article you have based it on speculation rather than fact, as monument posted above. Each tragic act has been blatantly spin doctored by the press to show only one side of the story.

Assuming video games with violence do induce violence then the oppoistie woult be that video games with cuteness induce cuteness, why do i feel like smashing my tv when playing Billy Hatcher?

Its easier to blame someone else than to say your 15 year old son is a nutcase for bashing someones head in over an Xbox.

kdjac

monument

evad_lhorg wrote:

JUst to let yuo know. the only reason Manhunt is still on the shelves is because the follwing was said by rockstar....

"fine take our game off the shelf. but If yu choose to do that then we wont stock you with San Andreas". not exact words but thats how it goes. it was risky cause f they hadve taken it off then rockstar would have no one to sell gta.

It was risky for Rockstar? You're cracking me up!

Raskolnikov

monument wrote:

The tabloid press, in particular the extremist right-wing Daily Mail newspaper, have already been heavily criticised for ignoring the police reports and prosecution statements which gave the motive for the murder as robbery, with LeBlanc killing his younger friend in order to pay back a drugs-related debt. Few tabloid stories made any mention of the drugs angle.

I was reading last Thursday's Sun (I found it on a bus, ok?!) and they were still peddling the line that the game was responsible LeBlanc murdering the kid.

Dont be at yourself

Lazy tabloid journalism.

The situation isnt going to change though, villifying a industry that has pervaded the lives of nearly every single child and linking it to such horrible incidents is a sure way to sell papers to worried, ill-informed parents.

Prior Of Taize

To be honest nobody has the power to shut down the games industry except for the gamers because it is obvious that gamers the world over are far more unified than the people who want the violent games eradicated.

If Someone wanted to end CS then i am sure that every CS player with a conscience and a broadband connection (CS isnt worth it without a connection) would kick up about it. Even if a game like CS was stopped for the most part then we could all just stay in German servers where the players are so bad no violence is seen unless your talking about all the time they spend on taunting.

The Games industry is exponential with every major media company throwing in a few quid (or a few million) to fund games. Even MGM made Tom and Jerry. I can only speak of violence in PC games because i dont bother with consoles for the most part.

To be honest a lot of games advertise extreme violence because they are in essence crap games. I consider myself fairly into my games but some of the games we see on the news and such are completely unknown.

And if these games are so violent and unnecessary then shouldnt companies like Nvidia concentrate their efforts on Pong 4D or something instead of plugging Doom3 (which is extremely violent for a modern game). Obviously this aint going to happen. A massive amount of companies concentrate on games with their products so i dont think that violent games (which are about 25% of games in my opinion) are going anywhere. I think people wont shut up about violence and people wont stop liking violence either.

Its a very survivable stalemate in my honest opinion...

nesthead

you know the whole "games are evil" debate is going to escalate over the next few years as games become more and more photorealistic.

PiE

nesthead wrote:

you know the whole "games are evil" debate is going to escalate over the next few years as games become more and more photorealistic.

Yea I can't wait. Nothing more hilarious than a misguided newsrag-led witch-hunt.

Prior Of Taize

I think photorealism is now established. I think the Dreamcast sorted that a small bit with shenmue.

Look at the "cherub" in Doom3. They purposefully dumbed down the graphics on that character. Based on what i see with the zombies and such i think the cherub looks crap graphically. Maybe thats when photorealism should be uninvented because i know for a fact i couldnt go around shooting flying babies whithout thinking about it at least a small bit afterwards.

amp

Great post, marvelous stuff. I wrote a related piece a while ago for those interested.

P.s. Weemcd, if you flame anybody in this forum again you will be permanently banned. We're tired of warning you.

Señor Juárez

Right,

Having personally done extensive research into this matter for a project of mine on this matter, I would perhaps like to add a few thoughts.

Children. They like to think that they are grown up, yet they are still very impressionable. This cannot be helped, and is not something that is realistically going to change. When people play violent video games (especially if they are not good at them, and fail), they do get angry. Not everyone, but a lot of people. Adults would mostly know that it is not something that they should get upset about, or worry about, and dismiss it. Younger people might get a bit angry, but this does pass. Then there are the extreme cases, and I cannot say I am surprised to see that they seem to mostly occur in America.

We all have morals. But games give people a chance to do what is morally wrong, and this does leave an impression in a few cases. Look at America... I am not going to bring statistics into this, but there are a hell of a lot of killings and violent crimes... You look at how the people are treated.. violence all around them and whatnot...

Anyway, not to stray off topic... All of these games are violent, and really should only be played by adults. Rockster and all the publishers do realise this, you never hear them moaning about the rating their games are given...

In my humble opinion, I do not think that the slightest bit of blame can be thrown in the faces of the game makers, rather, how are children allowed to play these games? Irresponsable parenting? Irresponsable staff at games stores? Why are these ratings not enforced in the same way as tobacco and alcohol, with heavy fines for offenders? Stop the games getting into their hands, and we will stop hearing this tripe.

Oh, and I must add that if people are geninely going to go out and kill someone on the strength of a video game... They must have sickly impressionable minds. If you will shoot someone because the pixel man did it, then what won't you do?

BLITZ_Molloy

Bad parenting to be honest. If your kid is going to go out and murder someone then there are going to be plenty of warning signs.

I could out a big paragraph about enforcing age rating but that would be hypocritical. I was watching 18's movies all the time by the age of 8 or 9. I'd be cool about my young kids playing GTA.

Syth

BLITZ_Molloy wrote:

I'd be cool about my young kids playing GTA.

That's the best way. Parental control. If you're child has a history if violence or whatnot, then don't give him a game, but if you're a responsible parent and have the time to talk to your kids about it, then that's fine.

sceptre

Well-written post Sleazus. I'm of the opinion that no 12 year old kid (for example) of mine (don't have one by the way) will be playing any game that involves burning cops or shooting hookers, nor will they be watching A Clockwork Orange while they're that age but your post was well-written. A tad on the long side if you've sent it to anywhere you hope will print it but that's an observation rather than a criticism.

koneko

Good post Sleazus, I asssume you wrote it yourself. Did you send it in to any of the "newspapers" like the Daily Mirror?

Slutmonkey57b

Absolutely right. Bad parenting and loonies is the problem.


edit:

PLEASE NOTE: Childish or abusive posts will not be tolerated in this thread – I for one, am interested and will welcome posts from non-gamers as well as people from the ‘other side’ of this debate.

Uuuh why would non-gamers be reading a thread in the games forum? Although you're right, weemcd should be ashamed of himself.
sarcasm

monument

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Uuuh why would non-gamers be reading a thread in the games forum? Although you're right, weemcd should be ashamed of himself.sarcasm

Wow, I’ve just seen a load of threads from different forums on Boards.ie’s home page. That’s amazing. :rolleyes:

Sleazus

Thanks for the opinions - encouraging and otherwise. I have sent it various right-wing parents' websites in response to (grossly misinformed) anti-video game articles, so I'm not really hoping to get it published anywhere on the net. But seen as they're such huge proponents of free speech they'll probably put it up anyway.

i perscribe 20ml of stfu for the pretentious newbie

Does being signed up a whole three months before me then make you an 'oldie'?

Remember, as an American friend once told me: when it comes to your postcount, it isn't the size, it's what you do with it.