Gerard Jones on Video Game Violence at Gamasutra

Remove all ads!

After speaking in the 2006 Montreal International Games Summit, Gerard Jones (author of the controversial book "Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Superheroes and Make-Believe Violence") has given an interview to Gamasutra defending violence in computer games. Making a number of valid points that will hit chords with many game fans, here's a clip:

GS: You say we’re at the tail end of the attack. But in the past few months, anti-game fervor on the part of the government has really grown. It was even a big topic in the recent elections.

GJ: That’s rather typical actually. First there’s this rising chorus of voices, say from the clergy or some part of the pedagogical community. Then there’ll be growing community anxiety, where you’ll find large parent or church groups getting involved. Then the politicians start to catch on that there’s material here and votes to be gained. What’s happened most recently is first it was the cultural conservatives who realized they could motivate their voters with the argument that once again the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Then the democrats in the U.S., the people sort of left of center, realized they were losing the moral high ground, and they needed some way to say, well, we’re morally righteous too, and since they’ve already come out for free speech and contraception, video games was an easy way to do it. You get into this sort of duel, who’ll come down harder on video games.

Well worth reading, the rest can be caught over at Gamasutra.

[ December 28, 2006, 21:33: Message edited by: Urithrand ]

 

What is typical is blaming it on the clergy or teachers or whomever else but not themselves, which is basically what Mr Jones seems to be doing here. Hillary Clinton doesn't really strike me as a horribly clericised personage, does she.

Ah, the clergy. The universal enemy of business. Or the teachers - same. Standing in the way of profit with their bogus worn slogans, while the only commandment is: thou shalt not stand in the way of profit.

That games are a little bit singled out, compared to TV, is a different thing. I'm not saying all critics are altruistic. But for decency's sake, people's biggest problem with the whole thing is the idea of fining people for selling to minors what's clearly marked for adults!

 

2006 was an election year.

 

Excellent interview. I'm looking forward to the day when the moral panic and hysteria has died down in the same way that it did for comic books...

Chev: Why would he blame the games industry for the government/those caught up in the moral panic trying to censor them? Is point is that there isn't any problem with violent video games, and so censorship makes no sense.

And nowhere does anyone in that interview worry the slightest about money and profit. What he's talking about is art and entertainment, ffs. There are many reasons for being against censorship besides that it might damage the profits of some faceless corporation.

Nonsense! People's biggest problem with the whole thing is the idea that video games should be censored or restricted in the first place! This guy makes that point perfectly clear, and so I'm wondering whether you actually read the interview, because most of the things you're worried about they never concern themselves with.

 

Aik, the problem is that there is a problem with violent games. People who say otherwise always offer some kind of "it doesn't have to work like that" gazillion hypothetical alternatives, or "films are worse" kind of arguments, or beg for freedom-of-speech-based fiction ("We know there is a problem with it, but let's pretend there isn't because that's the right thing to do.").

Would you say that openly if you were a pro-violent-games-campaigner or a RIAA champion?

About art, give me a rest. Games are first of all a commercial thing. There is in-game art, but games are not art any more than just about anything. Coders are science guys, not artists. Hopefully.

And there's no reason whatsoever why art should suffer from being censored away from minors for violence and sex by an independent body giving fair, standarised ratings.

What are other such reasons from the point of view of that corporation? Reducing its customer base? Sure! But customer base is, essentially, profit. The further you can reach, the more you sell.

Nonsense, you probably just haven't been following the whole thing. People with cash who make games are feeding lofty-lefty slogans to people with ideals, and in the end, they both shout it's wrong to rate or restrict games.

Thing is, no matter what you say about the freedom of "art" or about freedom of speech or about freedom of whatever else, you're forgetting one thing:

Minors are not independent in their decisions yet. They have parents for that. But this doesn't mean just assigning two figureheads solves the whole problem, no. Thing is, minors are in the special care of the society in a broader, looser sense, and in a more encompassing sense, of the parents. The decision to restrict their access to violent or sexual media is a lawful and a well-entitled one.

What else you are forgetting is that freedom of speech protects you so you can explain your views and ideals to the world and be understood better, as well as the freedom to speak against the government if you're unhappy with its action. Thus, freedom of speech gives you the right to type what you do, but it gives you no right to target children for violent or sexual messages. It doesn't give you the right to launch a missionary action inside someone's homestead or to go preach your political ideas to children in front of school. Freedom of speech does not translate as "assurance of audience". If you don't trust me, ask any other lawyer on the boards. Especially not assurance of specific audience. No matter how badly you want to talk, people have the freedom of not being talked to. With children, parents are those who exercise this freedom. And yes, also, there is nothing wrong about choosing not to listen to a broad range of communicates just because they contain certain specific material we don't like. We do this every day, although it's not normally sex or violence, but, let's say, whacky political talk, sect preaching, idiotic hype-advertising. Same as they have the right to put a filter on their child's computer, parents have the right to block some categories of games out of circulation. Members of the parliament (just the Congress in the US' case) are representatives of the people, thus they are entitled to speak for parents and act for parents' benefit.

What he says is a number of ping-pong generalisations and it doesn't matter that just before and just after making them, he pretends they are out of his scope of interest just so they can't hit back. They can. They show he doesn't have much idea what he's talking about.

If you want to go bit by bit:

Oh dear. Let's acquit every well-mannered accused in every court. Just because some of them are very nice people, all of them are massively incapable of ever possibly inspiring anything wrong.

What about children being more easily influenced by it? Nothing good we can say about game devs can possibly affect the scope and depth of influence of their product on children because, simply, there is no relevance between the two. For example, if you're a nice person and run over five animals on the street, it doesn't bring two of them back to life just because you're nice. It's two completely different things. It's just two different levels: what game makers think and feel, and what message the games send to children.

Wonder if it ever occured to him that there is an underlying problem in such antisocial things as death metal, goth rock or gangsta rap? It's music for people with issues, which escalates their issues instead of healing them. And creates a common market of issues, a free exchange with a lot of space for mutual growth. In issues. At least gangsta rap could simply be addressed as glorification of crime, or a life of crime, which is a crime in many developed countries, no? Not like mine is oh so horribly developed (developing, let's say, somewhere in the rear guard of the EU), but here if you publicly applaud crime you go to prison. Just somehow doesn't lead to pulling down certain games or music or films.

Two words: victim mentality. "I am the victim, I am the victim! Whatever bad you do to me is op-pression! And you know I'm right and you're wrong! Because I am the victim, I am the victim."

And that the democrats have a peculiar way of converting ideals into votes is public knowledge anyway. There's a lot of chance they're just trying to get votes, sure. I still wouldn't vote for them because they "have already come out of contraception", though.

Speaking of:

Why am I inclined to think that this guy is making it deeper in the interview than it really is in his mind? "Freedom of speech and contraception?" Two most basic freedoms quickly to come to his mind? Two biggest achievements of democracy? Or maybe two biggest things the clergy and some evil conservative politicians hate? Give me a rest.

Gamasutra is not without fault, though:

What?! Against violent games being sold to minors = anti-game? That kind of substitution takes a lot of ill will to engineer. Of ill will of willing hype.

Back to the guy himself:

Come on, come on. Cheesy thing with flying bovine heads, the ability to pee on human corpses, or perhaps have virtual sex with unrealistically sized lumps of pixels? Is that the cheesy thing?

If he wants to talk about nuances, then yes, some violence is well-placed and justified. If a lot could be avoided. Some romantic content is well-fitting, as well. It's not like nudity is Satan's work, either. But it's not like there has ever been a sexual scene that the script couldn't have done without.

Errr... Let's not compare Superman to Blood, Tekken, even Quake or Doom levels with Satanic motives, or that Duke 3D level with an upside down cross and a hanging priest in the chapel. Or stuff like Manhunt. Or games where you can rape people. Are you sure you want kids to play that?

What would Superman be? A Lawful Good Aasimar paladin with Great Fortitude and Luck of Heroes perchance? And what is that unwatched teens all too often end up playing in games? Chaotic Evil Drow Necromancer, Greater Focus: Necromancy, Greater Spell Penetration.

Comic books didn't offer any chance to track the fates of the evil bosses with anything more than some curiosity and a light fascination, a bit as if with Irenicus or Amy-His-ToB-Successor. Or Aribeth when being evil. No one sane would make comics about evil guys for those who like evil guys. These times, official game-in-development forums always have threads about how evil you can be in the game. So far, devs are reluctant to delve too much into that and they just create evil items and prestige classes and provide dialogue for the evil choices. Most modders I've heard about are into darker themes than official developers, but they aren't really into the evil stuff. But for how long?

Aggression needs to be indentified, addressed, dealt with. Controlled when it's accumulating to dangerous levels and you sense it, which you should be able to do. Kicking inanimate objects, from good old footie to the walls of your room, will not solve anything.

Aggression most of all is not the source of anything good or of any rights. That's not what comic books taught. Comic books had baddies and were brutal (heroic fantasy sort of, no?) but the lesson they taught was that good would prevail over evil. Games nowadays teach the lesson that evil is getting some pampering and that players preferring evil characters will find the game equally fun. And that it's up to the player if good or evil will prevail. Other games teach that so long as the baddies are baddies, everything is allowed. Or that being stronger, faster, smarter than other people should put you ahead of others in life the same it does on your multiplayer server where your l33t frag count is unbeatable. And there's much less sex in games than there was in comic books. I just remember the ones in more exotic locations had some nudity, but it was stuff I was able to look at in a children's library in a commie country! In games, you have cheap gratuitous marketing-driven sex or pleasure slave motives.

Don't certain games obstruct that? I'm not saying all games of every kinds because, believe me or not, I do roll my eyes at "violence rating" explanations at some sites with game ratings, as for some people, even if the game contained half the violence you encountered every day, it would still be too much. Cloistering children under protective umbrellas of fiction that everything is okay is not what we want. But there is a rising trend towards promotion of illegal, immoral or, indeed, evil behaviours.

There's a difference between slashing some orcs and logging onto a multiplayer server under a nickname like IpWnUaLL!!!oneone, clad in black and camping for less experienced players to turn into cheap XP from ambush. Right?

And that's good for children?

Sneaking sex into games is not exactly how mature developers should behave and proves once again the need for ratings.

And just a page or two ago there was a lot of talking about all the concern that kids will be... well... violent. So, how is it, after all? And I think more people speak out against violence in games than they do against sex in games.

Availability doesn't make it right. Drugs are easily available if you know where to seek. You always at least know someone who knows.

Huge violence levels and porn levels unseen before are supposed to be a part of the upbringing of decent people? And where did the guy get the idea that Clinton and co. are trying to pull games down as a whole? They want clear ratings and they want retails to card people and refrain from selling restricted games to minors. There's a lot of difference and to blur that difference is a willing fallacy. It's a lie, basically. Which is probably not what this guy is doing, because he sounds rather sincere and all, but someone is hyping up the hype with all the "they want to kill games!" fears.

 

Well, I'm going to try and debate anyway. But really, did your response need to be that long?

No, the problem is that there is no problem except for the one that those caught up in the moral panic invent for themselves.

*You are inventing the problem*. I don't need to argue with your hypothetical 'films are worse' arguments or freedom of speech arguments - there is no problem to begin with, so films are neither better nor worse and it only follows that something for which there is no problem with should enjoy freedom of speech.

Nice ad hominem - RIAA champion? Yeah, sure, of course - as soon as someone supports the right of people to make and distribute the games they wish they become the spawn of Satan...

And as I am a pro-violent-games-campaigner, I can honestly say 'No, I would not talk about that' - but that's because I don't give a **** about corporate profits, not because I'm a crypto-capitalist-spawn-of-satan-RIAA-champion.

So things that are commercial aren't art? Damn, guess Piccasso shouldn't have sold any of his paintings then, because apparently they're not art! Oh, and how about - say - Shakespeare. First and foremost a commercial thing - guess none of his plays could possible be art!

No really - what's your definition of 'art' and how do games not fit into that?

So what? Who's talking about from the view of the corporation? I'm talking about from the view of the consumer. I am quite happy to have violence and sex in my games. Thus, I don't want in censored - and don't give two ****s what the corporation who developed it cares for.

I've been following it quite closely, thank you very much.

The people with cash are feeding us lefties nothing - we just happen to be on the same side in this one. Yes, there is common interest here - the guys with cash want more and the people shouting lefty slogans want to play decent games. No manipulation necessary by either side.

Yeah, well: **** that.

I am not forgetting that, I am opposed to that. I think it's a bull**** way to set up society. The decision can be as lawful and well-entitled as it likes, but that doesn't make it any better.

Restriction should stop at the parents (or before, preferably, but I'll make that concession for the sake of argument), and should never have anything to do with the government. *This is not the business of the government*.

Members of parliament are not representatives of the people.

The people get a choice out of two 'representatives', basically. Of course that can't possibly represent the views of all or even most of the population. It's also worth noting that the party affected by the current laws has no representation in the system.

Representative democracy is a load of crap.

Yeah, because *that's* what he was saying.

... Except that this influence that you're talking about is imaginary, and only exists in the minds of those propagating the 'video games are evil' meme...

Oh dear! I guess by issues are being escalated because my continued exposure to gothic rock! Oh dear! I suppose I should throw out my CDs by The Cure, destroy my sister's Bauhaus and Joy Division albums, and generally avoid such a horrible evil genre!

And that death metal album I have! Oh gosh! I'm probably being mentally destroyed just by having it in close proximity to me! Teh noes!

Chev: You're being absurd.

***

Anyway: Can't be bothered going through point by point anymore.

About the contraception etc: You're willfully misinterpreting him. He's saying that because the Democrats didn't pander to the Christian Right on that issue, they now have to make up for it by attacking video games.

About comic books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

As you can see, there have been a lot of things that were once thought to be terrible to society and turned out to not be so. It's a fair assumption that this won't be any different. When those who are currently young enough to be affected by these laws get old enough to take public office there will be no problem, and this whole issue will be seen as another episode is absurdity.

And before the comic book code, not everything was nice and friendly. That's the reason it was introduced - not because they thought that the nice happy version of Superman would destroy the children...

About aggression:

Pretending that their is no aggression (or, in your words: 'Aggression needs to be indentified, addressed, dealt with. Controlled when it's accumulating to dangerous levels and you sense it, which you should be able to do.') isn't going to solve a thing.

Personally I find listening to Children of Bodom to be an excellent method of releasing aggression. Violent video games work as well.

Um, no?

Prove that it isn't.

I doubt it - sex is a much bigger taboo than violence...

***

Anyway, that'll absolutely do. I don't think I have the stamina to post in this thread again if the replies are going to be so incredibly long.

 

Eh, you believe that more people speak about sex in games than about violence. But to my eye, all the gaming bills in the US have been about violence in the first place, sex in (distant) second. You believe there's community of interest between game makers and game players: may be true for some devs, but not for publishers. Publishers don't want you to play good games per se any more than you want publishers to have more cash per se. It's only just the two can help each other - and Atari is the best example of how screwing the weaker party will always be tempting. You advocate something as a way of releasing aggression supposedly contrary to what I had said, whereas I said aggression first of all needed to be tamed and controlled, not released. We are not animals to take it out on inanimate objects (and animals rarely actually need that). The funniest thing, however, is the tenacity with which you hold to the idea that no matter how fashionable it is to be bad and grumpy and people get in touch with their evil side and whatnot, it has no effect on how their personalities develop. That's bull**** and if it were true, there would be no required reading for kids in schools, for instance. Most psychologists will agree that certain imagery is not fit for young minds, which are not yet ready to deal with it. You sound as if you were ready to go and circulate Agu Ghraib photos in a kindergarten same as green meadows and strawberry fields.

 

I think that the reason there hasn't been as much worry about sex in games as opposed to violence is because it's quite rare for games to have any outcry-worthy sex (but when they do they get stabbed hard - eg Hot Coffee mod for that GTA game). If the punishment for putting sex in a game wasn't going to be an AO rating - I'm sure there'd be enough of it to spur those against violence to legislate against sex as well.

I agree that publishers generally don't give a **** about the gamer so long as they make money. I'm not a fan of the current distribution system where the publisher holds all the power, but in this case I think the publisher and gamers have a common interest. If they stop censorship and/or restrictions on distribution - they make more money. If gamers stop it we get the games we like - so win-win in this particular case.

I don't really see what's wrong with releasing aggression - it seems to be an excellent way of dealing with it rather than just stewing over it and 'bottling it up'. Releasing aggression provides a way of immediatly getting rid of it, while trying to tame it doesn't give any closure with the problem.

I think I might make an Alley thread on the aggression issue.

There's a non-sequitur if ever I heard one. It really doesn't follow that some people enjoying alternative (and to your thinking horribly wrong) entertainment should mean that there should be no required reading for schools. I'm really not sure what you were trying to say here.

If this stuff does affect personality, the effects are really too subtle to notice. If it was the dramatic change that you seem to be talking about then there would be *a lot* more unstable people and it would be noticable.

Let's just say that if gothic rock, comics, and violent video games have changed my personality - it hasn't been a negative change. That goes for millions of other people too.

And no, I see no reason to circulate those photos to kindergarteners. If they wanted to see them though (which really - kindergarteners are not going to be aware of these issues), then I don't think it should be out of the question to show them.

Basically, if you have the will to see something, then I believe you should be able to see it.

 

Eh, guess i may as well jump in with an opinion.

I agree games should not be censored by the goverment, they assume too much power as it is.
Parents shouldnt be blaming others for the fact they cant control what their children are exposed to nor how they act. You might say, well they want to keep games like that off the shelf because somehow, somewhere their children will be exposed anyway and may still be influenced. What about illegal drugs and alcohol and such? There are goverment restrictions on those, yet does that mean there is no need for parents to take responsibility by teaching and instructing their children on that matter?

I have played all types of violent games, even some with sex thrown in (old doom wads. and the like) since i was barley old enough to learn how to work a computer and it hasnt made me engage in any negative behavior. Sure, perhaps thought about it I wont argue that, but as it was mentioned in earlier posts, thoughts and actions are different. Just because you have an impulse or desire doesnt mean you have to act upon it.

Also, the ratings are kind of off I would think. Most "Adult" rated games could be marketed to ages 16 and up. Either by the time your able to deal with those themes in a responsible way or your already "ruined" so to speak, lol. But to pull and prevent games to adults who should be able to see and play whatever they wish is just wrong in my opinion. I do not think anyones freedoms should be limited due to "social responsibility". I should not have to worry if my fun games will cause some parents to get angry they have to actually parent their children. If a game developer, publisher, whatever wants to sell me a game, and i want the game, there shouldnt be a ****** thing anyone else can do to prevent that.