Spoil-sport
Miranda Devine returns to a familiar theme — computer games are carrying Australian society to hell in a handbasket. Her latest gripe is about the new Simpsons game, Hit and Run:
Characters from the cartoon series run amok through Springfield in the family sedan, running over pedestrians, crashing into cars, evading police and causing as much property damage as possible. When Homer gets out of the car, he kicks people in the head as he walks down the street. … The game is modelled on Grand Theft Auto, whose makers are being sued by the family of a man killed by two teenagers shooting randomly at cars on a US freeway. They told police they were bored, and decided to copy scenes from their favourite video game.
I’ve already discussed the lawsuit against Rockstar et al. It is unlikely to succeed, because the courts believe something Miranda doesn’t — people know that computer games and real life are not the same thing. And if people can distinguish between life and the realistic GTA3, they can certainly distinguish between life and the cartoon-style Simpsons game.
She also makes the claim that “There are no guns in Hit & Run, but it celebrates gratuitous violence in a way the cartoon doesn’t.” This is an absolutely ridiculous claim to make. How about when Sideshow Luke Perry was fired from a cannon through a pane of glass, a wall, etc? Or when Homer shot Flanders during a Halloween special? Most graphic of all, Bart and Lisa regularly laugh along as Itchy and Scratchy inflict various ultraviolent tortures on one another.
In fact, every negative thing Devine mentions about the game has a direct parallel in the cartoon series, which leads one Christian reviewer to conclude that “If you allow your child to watch the Simpson’s TV show then you will probably not have any problem with this game.” They also wrote that “Even though this game is a Grand Theft Auto clone you are not required to kill anyone. Everything is done in a silly cartoon type of way. For example when you run over a person with your car, they just fall over, yell at you and then get back up.”
Christ Centred Game Reviews (”So many games out there are inappropriate for children and Christians”) had this to say about Hit and Run’s appropriateness:
Unlike the last Simpsons’ game, there is no sexual innuendo or double entrende. There is some bad language, and the Lord’s Name is taken in vain once in a while, but other than that, there is nothing bad. Violence is basically unheard of, because of the game’s combat system, which is very primitive, but still quite functional. It’s kind of refreshing to see a game with no blood and/or gore. Maybe games can stay like this. It works because it’s still fun. Really fun.
In fact, after quite a bit of googling, it seems that the only people who think this game is inappropriate for children are Miranda and her four-year-old acquaintance — who loved it anyway!
I’ve been thinking about violence in games a bit recently. I’m a former game developer; the one game I worked on long-term was a relatively gory shooter. Towards the end of my time working on it, the ethical question did begin to bother me a little. But ultimately I don’t think that games encourage violent behaviour disproportionately to other (wholly uncontested) elements of our culture. I’ve always compared the sensation of inflicting damage in a video game to that of smashing up a lego building when you’re a little kid; there’s just an essential enjoyment in being destructive, which has nothing to do with violence or morality. For this reason, I really think wielding the sniper rifle in Devastation is just as innocuous as, say, sending in Godzilla in Simcity. It’s the same thing. I made that game, but I have no intention of ever coming within three feet of a gun in real life — they sicken and terrify me.
What I find kinda disappointing is that the game industry hasn’t been able to broaden out substantially from this metaphor of killing. The essential fun of computer games, whether they emphasise destruction or not, is construction and accumulation. Even shooters derive their real playability from a feeling of progression and improvement — new weapons allowing you to take on badder foes, new environments requiring new tactics, etc. The game industry focuses on the opportunity to be transgressive, which has obvious attraction, but really should be no more than a niche. Eventually I think developers will recalibrate to an emphasis on construction, progression, freedom and individuality. As that occurs, I expect violence in games to decrease in prevalence a little.
When I think of the negative effects of prolonged gaming, conditioning to violence just doesn’t register. As you say, Robert, people know how to distinguish between reality and “virtuality” (for want of a far better word) instinctively. For those who can’t, games may represent a partial catalyst. But so could anything else, to just the same extent; so could a dead possum on the side of the road. The problem with a gun is not the trigger, it’s the bullet. That’s just obvious.
But I do think there are some significant questions to ask about the impact of regular gaming. When I try to assess its effects, I keep coming back to two myths it has impressed upon me. The first, and perhaps most significant (albeit kinda left-of-field), is the sense that no life decision really has permanency. You can always go back and do it again. Let me call it the “save and reload” syndrome, or the myth of replayability. Maybe I’m overemphasising it, maybe it merely exposes a tendency already latent in me; nevertheless I notice it.
The second negative effect, which can be reapplied to other computer-based activities (such as programming perhaps), is a conditioning towards rapid cycles of feedback on your performance. Your every action is very quickly rewarded or punished in a computer game, which does not match the experience in the outside world. You come to expect instant gratification based upon your own control. Whereas there are no issues with switching out of a violent computer environment into the real world, I think this conditioning can be much more pervasive. If your endeavours in reality are met with no rapid response, your motivation to pursue them is lessened. That can have a really detrimental effect on your ambition and self-esteem, I think.
Anyway, just a few (obviously still developing) thoughts on the effects of computer games.
Eventually I think developers will recalibrate to an emphasis on construction, progression, freedom and individuality. As that occurs, I expect violence in games to decrease in prevalence a little.
I think you’re dead right. The emphasis on killing is relatively new. I grew up playing the Sierra adventure games — Space Quest, Police Quest, Quest for Glory, Laura Bow, etc — and to a lesser extent the Lucasarts games — Monkey Island, Indiana Jones, Sam and Max, etc. These were very much plot and puzzle oriented games, and they were far more entertaining than (yawn) another Doom clone. I don’t think game designers have really come to terms with the development in 3D graphics — killing and driving games now dominate, and (to my mind) nobody has released a compelling 3D adventure game. (I don’t know about Everquest and those types of things, but they’re not the same thing — their legacy is Ultima.) I’m waiting for an adventure game revival…
As you say, Robert, people know how to distinguish between reality and “virtuality” (for want of a far better word) instinctively.
I don’t really enjoy first-person shooters. Possibly because I suck at them, but they don’t hold my attention. As a result, I haven’t played a whole lot of games recently, until GTA3 and now Vice City. (I think it’s because they resemble the old adventure games more than other modern titles.) They’re without a doubt extremely violent games — until you start playing them. Once you’re controlling the car and the gun, the people don’t even look like people. It’s like they become the dots in a pacman game — you just keep running them down without paying any attention to their form. The cops become the ghosts chasing you, and whenever possible you eat them too.
The first, and perhaps most significant (albeit kinda left-of-field), is the sense that no life decision really has permanency. You can always go back and do it again. … The second negative effect… is a conditioning towards rapid cycles of feedback on your performance.
I think these are closely connected with the phenomena of reality TV, etc. We want bite-sized packets of information these days, that can be quickly consumed and discarded. Is that a good thing? I think it can be — the quicker we can absorb information, analyse it and respond to it, the better. On the other hand, if we lose the ability to commit ourselves to long-term projects, then that’s obviously an issue. But how often do you hear the complaint that computer games are too short or too easy? People do want something that captures their attention for weeks at a time, to which they must dedicate hours at a time. I don’t think the problem’s as big as you might think. (Whether these kids should be getting more exercise is, of course, another issue.)
In short — bring back the adventure game!
People concentrating on the alleged evil effects of computer games would be hilarious, were it not for the fact that this distracts attention from the genuinely worrying developments in society. Even if we were to look at computers as a possible source of future problems, it would need to look not at “violence” per se, but rather the long term effects on youngsters of being glued, hour after hour, to computer screens.
Computer games ruined my life. I was a promising student once…
Yobbo, Can we take your word on that now?
I noticed the nephew was really enjoying a collection of nostalgia games he got for Xmas. Included space invaders, pacman, tennis pong, etc
Observa — that was an Atari pack, was it not? I had a look at it in the shops (and it looked good), but I went way over budget with my Christmas spending this year, so it will have to wait.
Norman — I agree 100%. (Make a note; that’s not likely to happen again.)
I think an interesting point in the GTA3 “copycat” case is that there’s been so much curfuffle about violent video games that certified psychopaths realise they can attempt to “blame the game” as some kind of post-hoc defense. The same probably goes for music. Kid shoots up his school? Well, we found a Marilyn Manson CD hiding in his CD rack! It’s just the standard case of absolving true responsibility.
I agree with Norman (and robert).
Computer games is individualistic not team based and if you are going to use the computer then get some tests and programs on maths, english, history (do they teach this anymore?) et al.
Urk. FWIW, that previous comment is woefully ignorant.
Joseph, FWIW, when Homer, Robert and Norman are in agreement on ANYTHING, is “woefully ignorant” an adequate response? Please help by telling us what our woefully ignorant folly is.