Violence and Video Games: Looking beyond the obvious
Email thisI’ll tell you straight off what this post isn’t about: Violent video games making people violent. The topic is a favorite of the media, and academia as well. It’s an interesting topic, but there are deeper concepts to be explored when thinking about the association of violence and video games. Perhaps in the future I’ll do a post focusing on this, but it’s not this post.
Second Amendment and video games
How far does the second amendment go? According to some XBox live users, the right to bear virtual arms (even non-functioning ones), is a right. I’m of the opinion that this isn’t a Second Amendment issue. I completely disagree with Microsoft eliminating the ability to use guns with people’s Avatars, but that is a matter of policy, not a constitutional right. (Taking anything AWAY from a consumer that they had previously is always bad business.)
What about digital representations of war machines? While it may not be a 2nd amendment issue, what rights does a video game company have to copyright digital representations of a physical weapon or vehicle? Does Lamborghini own the rights to a Lamborghini that exists in a racing game? I think this becomes a licensing issue, which is far from the realm of violence.
There’s a key quote in this article:
Textron and Bell say the aircraft, developed and purchased by the Defense Department with taxpayer dollars, are the corporations’ private trademark property.
I think this puts both companies in the wrong. EA is wrong because they want to copyright the creative/intellectual work of others (my opinion), and Textron and Bell are trying to trademark work they did with taxpayers’ money (haven’t they ever heard of pubmed? If taxpayers pay for it, they should be able to benefit from it.).
Video Games as Violent Propaganda
Is the CIA using video games as part of a propaganda campaign to indoctrinate Iranian youth? Iran thinks so.
This is the reverse of the articles I linked at the beginning of this blog. Are video games being used as a deterrent to violence? A way to put fear into the hearts of would be terrorists? It is actually crazy to think about the ramifications of this (if it is true): If playing violent video games makes you violent, and the CIA is using a violent video game to stop terrorism, isn’t that just going to promote more terrorism because of the increased violence? Quite an inflammatory statement, but one that I do not believe will bear fruit in the future
Games and War
This is the core argument that I would really like to focus on. The other two topics are good and interesting, but they are the mental appetizer to this main course.
War and video games is topic that is a difficult one for me; not because of the fact that I have never been involved closely with a war, but precisely because of that. I do not have the experience necessary to truly make an educated opinion. I wish this was talked about more, because it is an important topic.
What does a Vietnam Vet think about generations of people playing a video game about that war? Is it dehumanizing? Are we trivializing the lives lost in the war? Is it a great way to learn the history of the war?
Image located at: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/17
All of these issues go beyond the concept of “violent video games make people more violent” and bring more nuance to the discussion. But, I’ve really only added questions to the discussion.
I wish I had an answer. Do you have one? I would like to hear it.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Hmm, this actually stuck me as a very formidable aspect of gaming that had not crossed my mind. This whole post raises some very interesting and horribly unexplored questions.
I think each veteran would have their own take on it honestly, some would appreciate it, some would despise it. It comes down to the game I think, like if its a game that invests elements into telling a story about the war, the soldiers, and the people living in the foreign land, than killing wont feel trivial (hopefully), and players would appreciate the real life aspect because of the connection they make in the game. If its wholesale napalm slaughter of civilians and enemies alike, than there is something very very wrong with the message and values behind the games creation.
Likewise, a war game that tells a gripping story might work as a deterrent to violence if it fleshes out all aspects of the pain of war. And if the Iranian government thinks games are powerful enough to point fingers at, its certainly not a laughing matter, coming back to the fact gaming culture and games and gamers are still often looked over though they should not be.
Yeah. I also think about it for historic wars. For example, if there’s a FPS WWII game, what is that teaching people about WWII? Sure, it might mimic some of the battles and teach some strategy, but what about he morals and longer lasting effects that has on the feelings towards war in general? Or how about the Japanese internment camps and the holocaust during WWII? The REASONS for war are lost when just playing a game without war.
Wow, there needs to be more articles like this out there. These are a lot of good questions to be asking and I don’t think there are answers out there yet, if there ever will be. It’s obviously a huge part of video games, and we seem to put so little focus on it. It, in a way ties back to just how tied to realism virtual entertainment should be. Do we want to feel the pain of taking a life in these games? It’s a good question, and you’ve got me thinking. I think there’s a long way to go in emotional investment in games, but I think we’re getting closer and closer to having the actions in (some) games feel more meaningful. Look at a game like Homefront, which practically dedicates itself to the concept. Certain games are also getting closer to portraying people in a more deep and emotional way. You bring up a lot of good points, points I wish more people were thinking of as the industry moves forward. Great read, keep it up!
Thanks Sam
Homefront is a great example of a game, and the controversy it stirred up. I also want to make the distinction that I think games like “Halo” (which are identical other than graphically to many war games) I wouldn’t have any problem like this with it, because of the separation from reality. I don’t know if that would change people’s opinions or make them thinks about it in a different way.
Fears of violence are only natural, but when we inappropriately dump such anxieties onto fantasies, gamers end up bearing an unnecessary burden. It is the users that participate and choose their levels of engagement (not as passive consumers or victims), weaving personal narratives of gentleness and aggressiveness alike, to learn more about themselves and feel stronger in the face of an uncontrollable world. Rather than literally emulating these entertainments, people take the opportunity to pretend being exactly what they will never be. Safe and controlled exploration of the dangerous, impossible, and forbidden might even help to delineate the limits of a reality in which we sacrifice our animal selves for the sake of being civilized.
It’s true, the gamers are not passive in this sense when they are consuming the games, but I’m not looking at violence in video games (in this example) as just a way of escape. Or even more along the lines of what you were saying as a way to explore the limits of our baser animal selves versus our civilized selves (which in itself is a fascinating concept that I hadn’t really thought of. It’s a great point).
I was thinking of it more in the realm of societal acceptance of war. Are we encouraging the acceptance of war? Or, (more importantly to me) are we diminishing the trials, tribulations, and hardships of the soldiers and participants of past wars? Can we achieve the idea of delineating “the limits of a reality in which we sacrifice our animal selves for the sake of being civilized” by only using fantastical representations of the violence? Do the portrayals of violence have to be historically based?
To semi-quote Moxy Früvous, with thirty “sweet summers and hot fires in the cold, that kind of life makes that violence unthinkable. We’d like to play hockey, have kids and grow old.” The only basis I even have for understanding war, and the hardships of individual soldiers, is through narrative. The problem with (or amazing part of) narrative, however, is that no matter the storyteller’s intended impact, each person will bring their own preconceptions, expectations, understandings, and imaginings to the story. The depth of one’s response is only predicted by their past education and experience. At best, we will end up with parallel but differing understandings.
Through story I personally come to understand real-world war as a horrifically wasteful activity which affords both heroism and villainy, the former linked with minimizing/ending violence by any means, and the latter linked with starting/prolonging violence. The plethora of war stories available, both historical and fantastic, have given me a catalyst for perspective taking. I might even argue that all stories, regardless of the presence or lack of violence, lead to greater opportunities for empathy by confronting us with differing perspectives, perhaps resulting in the greater possibility of the pluralistic coexistence of humanity. Well, perhaps that’s a little overly optimistic, but we can probably agree that without the stories, in books and movies and video games alike, many of us would have even less of an understanding of the true cost of war.
This leads me to ask a tough question, regardless of appropriate levels of reverence to the fallen. Could the gains and losses of, say, the Battle of Wolf 359 (on Star Trek), and the Allied invasion of Normandy (during WWII), have equal levels of emotional meaning in the minds of those without a personal connection to war? Are the trials, tribulations, and hardships of real strangers and made-real characters on par for their emotional value? Certainly, the real-world heroes made real-world changes by winning some measure of peace on the real-world stage, and are thus worthy of serious accolades and are in no way trivialized, but can’t the emotional impact of war stories on Earth and elsewhere teach us something about ourselves and where we want to be? Couldn’t violent video games be both educating and, in fact, diminishing societal acceptance of real-world war?
To start, I completely agree. You made your point in a brilliant way, and said exactly what I was trying to express.
I agree especially about the “story” component you were talking about. It’s a great way to contextualize war. I agree we can learn a lot from that. The “story” of war, whether it’s WWII or Star Trek can have an equal emotional impact I believe. I think you have made a great point for the single player aspect of video games as a narrative for stories. But…what about multiplayer experiences that do not have story at all? Example: Someone goes out and buys COD[x], puts in the game disc and immediately connects to the internet and plays with friends. Does the loss of the story and context for the war game change the experience? Does the act of “storming the beaches” over and over, map after map (with no story context in a multiplayer setting) change anything?
I tend to generalize “story” as perspective taking, and as such, could never go so far as to claim there is no story context in such a multiplayer setting. The unfolding events, though largely unscripted, are still dramatic and guided by narrative constraints; the storytelling has been shifted in part to the user.
Perhaps a stricter definition of story, from the perspective of the game designer, would require discussion of “story fragments” to be experienced while gaming, from which ambiguities can be addressed by the user’s imagination.
For someone with no experience of real-world war, I’d think even the story fragment of “storming a beach” could carry emotional and educational weight, even if it is only contextual.
I can see your point, I just have a background in history, so not having the political/social/cultural tie ins to a war is something that I cannot really separate in my head. I find that when I play a multiplayer war game without the p/s/c context I lose a lot of the meaning that I have built into that particular war, but that may be because of my background in relation to war.
And I’m just a pseudo-intellectual with a music background and a fondness for abstraction and clarity, who is ever grateful for those who enable bursts of interesting discussion such as those found on this blog! And I’ve been thinking “story fragment” doesn’t seem right… perhaps an emotionally charged “narrative archetype” would better describe what I was after…
haha, i’m glad we’re providing the bursts of interesting discussion!
We haven’t even touched on video games as stories or narratives yet. I think it’s in our queue of ideas (of which we have many right now). We’ll see what comes!