Violence, Games & Art - Part 1

`One of the most difficult tasks people can perform, however much others may despite it, is the invention of good games ...' * Carl G. Jung

What this column is not about is whether computer games have an effect on human behavior. All media have an effect on human behavior; otherwise, why would we have advertising budgets in the billions? Why would the WB channel feature an iMac in every other scene? Why would most of America be wearing NIKE's Air Jordans? Media are always about making an effect with a point of view. Some points of view are deadly serious, some are humorous, some are frivolous, and some are just plan dumb. Some points of view are well-constructed, logical arguments; some points of view have no logical consistency. Media in all forms can move people to consider things they had not considered before. But media cannot take over a mind and make anyone do something he's not predisposed to do. Media are, at best, a nudge.

FOR INSTANCE ...

In 1969, Simplemente Maria, a Peruvian television soap opera, aired. This was a Cinderella story about a household domestic who buys a Singer Sewing machine, learns to sew, and changes her life. This was television; it was not real life. But this show became very popular ... a lot of Singer Sewing machines were sold as an unexpected result of the show. Mafia, who was trying to take charge of her life and raise her standard of living, was a woman many other women could identify with. She showed them a reasonable way to change their lives, so they followed Mafia's example -- and bought sewing machines.

Recently, the movie A Clockwork Orange was re-released for the first time in 25 years in British theaters. In 1975, just after the movie premiered, a street person was kicked to death by a 16 year old in the same manner as depicted in Stanley Kubrick's movie. Kubrick received death threats and felt responsible, so he pulled the movie from distribution. But it turned out that the person responsible for the brutal killing had not seen the movie; he had read Anthony Burgess's book, on which the movie was based. In this case, you might say, the book "inspired" the killing.

Supposedly, the computer game Doom was the game favored by the Littleton, Colorado, shooters. Violent video and computer games had already been implicated in school shootings in Bethel, AL; Paducah, KY; and Jonesboro, AR. After it was learned that one of the perpetrators of the Columbine High School killings was an avid player of Doom, there was an immediate call for action on many fronts. The Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into the marketing practices of game producers and distributors. Hearings were held in Congress, in state legislatures, and in town halls. There were discussions about the effects of games on talk radio, talk TV, and over kitchen tables across America. Practically every major newspaper and magazine in the country started paying closer attention to the impact of violent video games with feature articles. A rash of legislative proposals to control violent games was introduced in a number of states.

The media seem to have implicated Doom and other "first-person shooters" (fps) in a number of shootings around the country. It seems that if any shooting involving anyone who is white, between the ages of 12 and 18, with even a hint of computer game playing in the story w a variation of Flip Wilson's old "the-devil-made-me-do-it" routine gets trotted out as "the-game-made-me-do-it." One "expert" who does not play or even own computer games was quoted to the effect that "we have a problem in society, and the problem is the computer game."

This has always amazed me since it seems like we have a pretty good gedankenexperiment going on between the United States and Canada. Essentially, we have the same culture and we "consume" the same media in the same amounts. The obvious variable is that there are about 270,000,000 guns running freely through U.S. society, which are not available in Canada due to different gun laws. In the United States, it is much easier to go after computer game ownership than it is after gun ownership.

Right about now, someone should be thinking: Hey, doesn't this guy teach computer game design at Indiana University? Doesn't he have a vested interest in computer games? Isn't he, in a sense, as biased in this issue as someone from the NRA is biased in terms of gun ownership?

The answer is: "Yup, sorta." I am biased, but part of this bias is a point of view on computer games which is informed by working with game designers at my university and the Canadian Film Center's newMedia Habit@t in Toronto for almost five years. Most of these designers are young folk who expect game design to be a significant part of their lives well into the 21st Century. For them, this isn't just game design; this is the art of game design. Games are their media in the same way that television was the medium of my generation (Baby Boomers) and books and radio were the media of my parents' generation.

My point of view is informed by these young designers. My point of view is also informed by a closer-than-usual association with the yearly Computer Game Developers' Conference (http:// www.gdconfcom/), which takes place regularly in and around Silicon Valley in late spring.

Because of these two associations, I decided to interview folks at the conference who are involved in game design. I am not presenting "science" here -- I'm merely presenting points of view that have not been presented in the media to date. Take a look at what these people say about violence, games, and art. I have more to say about the state of the game industry and what I see as the incredible potential for responsibility and learning, which can only happen if educators are willing to dive into this new medium the same way they dove into books, film, and TV.

Then, please join the discussion at the Cafe TECHNOS Web site, www.technos.net/cafe, where the longer version of this piece is available. We'll be talking about this important topic there and on the pages of TECHNOS Quarterly throughout Volume 9.

INTERVIEWS

Shane Preboy, 15, high school student in Toronto

Do you think computer games are too violent?

I think that video games can be too violent. But the question is, is it too violent for some, or not violent enough for others? In my case, I like violent games, but it also has to make sense. Thrill Kill [first person shooter, which was never sold but placed on the Internet for free download; this is a cult game] is an exception. It had a unique feel. Something that ... well, maybe it was just that nothing was ever done like it before. If all games were like it, then the whole feel goes down the drain. What makes a video game too violent is the realism of the gore and guts, but if the game isn't realistic enough, then it won't appeal to anyone over the age of ten, with few exceptions, like Smash Brothers, etc.

Do you think this alleged violence could cause someone to go find a gun and shoot someone?

I do think that video games could provoke someone into getting a gun and shooting someone. I think that it depends on the person. I know I would never do something like that because it would wreck my life. I don't know what goes through the minds of people who would shoot someone, like in the video games, but I think there should be some sort of testing, some sort of ID or something, that prevents anyone who is prone to doing anything like that from playing that type of video game.

What types of games do you enjoy playing the most?

I like a lot of futuristic games, shoot-' em-ups and strategy. I think that a sports game is a waste of time unless it has an extreme aspect to it or a futuristic feel, because I could go and play the sport and have the best control and the best sound and performance and get the same adrenaline rush.

Mary K. Jones, producer for Edmark [http://www.edmark.com] in Redmond, WA, former teacher, parent & grandparent

Is it correct that Edmark has almost no violence in its products?

Yes, we have no violence in any of our products. I'll give you an example. We have a product line called Thinkin' Things, which takes place in a jungle and has a monkey who plays musical instruments. The monkey uses found objects or other animals. One of the potential things the monkey could do was to drum, and we considered a turtle as a drum but chose not to use even a turtle as a drum, because it would mean hitting the turtle. That was too violent. We want to design a nurturing, guiding, warm, friendly environment for children recognizing their capabilities. Violence doesn't fit in at all.

What is your perspective on the issue of games and violence reported in the media these days?

I think it is too simple to point the finger at any media being responsible for the ills of the world. I think it comes down to parents making sure they explain to their children that what happens on the computer screen, the movie screen, or on television isn't real and :isn't okay in real life.

Do you think there is a difference between computer-game violence and violence in other media, such as books, film, or TV?

I think the trouble with computer-game violence is that you actually cause it to happen, as opposed to watching a passive screen, so you make choices in computer games. Still, the onus is on parents to make sure that the kids understand the choices in violence on and off the screens in their lives.

Do you think it is possible for media violence to move someone to do violence in the real world?

I think there are people, children in all walks of life, who don't get the moral issues -- either they don't get it taught to them or it didn't sink in, it didn't click. I think for those kinds of kids, games can instill in them certain images, but I think they would go there anyway.

Bill Dugan, Wizards of the Coast, Inc. [www.wizards.com]

Do you think computer games are too violent?

As a group, no. That said, a well-understood rating system to assist parents is a necessity. Computer games are probably receiving more than their share of attention on this topic not because the violence is novel, but because (a) people notice that very violent games seem to be more popular than very violent entertainment in other media, and (b) some people are concerned by the implications of the player acting out violence instead of watching it, as they do when watching a movie or TV show.

Part (a) is plain to see. Looking at the top 50 computer games in January 2000, about 20 of them depend on the player killing someone (Quake III Arena, Unreal Tournament), ordering someone to kill someone (Command & Conquer 2), or in two cases shooting a deer, which is a special case. That's about 40 percent. Nine of the games are first-person shooters in which you play by killing person after person after person. That's the game mechanic: you get points, or advance in the game, by killing. There are various reasons for violent games' popularity. Game mechanics based on shooting things have a deep history in video and computer games (Space Invaders, Asteroids), and as technology has improved, game designers have simply extended the culture to include 3D-rendered soldiers running around with rocket launchers.

The temptation is always to compare games to movies and TV as a metric, and looking at the top 50 movies of last weekend, about 18 of them have PG-13 ratings or stronger due to violence; about 36 percent. Clearly, violence is popular in the movies. But none of the top 50 movies this weekend featured killing after killing as the main activity of the movie, except perhaps Scream 3.

Item (b) is speculative. Perhaps people become more aggressive as a result of playing these games. Who knows? There are no studies. Of course, we all know that most everyone can distinguish fantasy from reality, and when speaking to any hardcore gamer, you'll hear that they've been blowing people up in video games since they were 11 yet have never killed anyone. What's more certain is that very young kids shouldn't be exposed to certain subject matter. I wouldn't want to see a two-year-old spend time playing "Family Violence Simulator" and learning that wife-beating is an acceptable part of how families behave. Hence, a widely understood rating system is necessary for computer games. And hopefully by the time the kids start to get outside of their parents' control, they've already been taught a few moral values.

Don Strawser, graduate student-MIME at IU & coordinator of the Bureau of Shenaningans

Do you think computer-game violence is a problem?

I do not think that games are too violent. What are we measuring them against? Are TV or film too violent? There is a lot of violence in video games -- no question. But it is mediated violence, violence that takes place through some sort of media platform. We don't consider fairy tales or books too violent. And, although there are numerous arguments against violence on film and television, it isn't going away. Violence is part of human nature, and people will always find ways to express or experience it whether it be pro wrestling, football, TV, film, or video games.

What is the attraction of a game such as Thrill Kill?

I went under the assumption that the designers were trying to go so far over the top that it couldn't possibly be taken seriously. Yes, the game is very violent and sadistic. However, I find it hard to believe that someone would go out and try to do these things to a real human being, just from playing the game. How many people play Quake or Unreal? Thousands? Millions? When someone shoots someone else, why is the first thing asked what game they played? Columbine and the incident in Kentucky occurred not because of video games, Internet pornography, or Hitler. They happened because very unhappy young people had access to guns and no supervision. No one asked where these kids' parents were. There is no medium, no game, no movie, no book, no song, or TV show that is going to cause you to go out and kill people. Anyone who believes that is looking for a pat answer, not an explanation.

Henry Jenkins, MIT professor

Do you think computer-game violence is a problem?

Depends on what you mean by "problem." I see computer-game violence as a problem of limited creativity, but not as a social problem. Right now, we are pathologizing issues of taste. Anti-game activists are frightened because children and teens have tastes that aren't the same as theirs, and they have projected all kinds of frightening meanings onto those tastes. They have produced little compelling evidence to suggest that video-game violence leads directly to real-world violence, and much of the evidence they do present has been exaggerated and simplified to make political points. The reality is that there are still relatively few reliable studies to date on video games at all. Those studies that do exist show contradictory things. Some suggest, for example, that children are less susceptible to confusion between reality and fantasy playing video games rather than watching television, because they are controlling what happens and they know they aren't really shooting each other; whereas on television, the line between documentary and docudrama can be rather slippery. It is a problem, though, that an over-reliance on formulas based on violence stifled the growth of the video game industry and blocked the full exploration of a broader range of stories and experiences that games might facilitate.

Do you think this alleged violence could cause someone to go find a gun and shoot someone?

No. Well, at least not anyone who was already mentally stable and socially adjusted. The demons which were unleashed in Littleton originated in Harris and Kleibold and in their immediate social environment. What happened to them when they were at school, in what was by all reports an abusive environment hostile to any and all forms of cultural diversity, was far more powerful in determining their actions than what media they consumed. Real-world actions exert real pressures on us, limit our actions, destroy our dignity, and cannot be escaped by turning off the computer.

What is the attraction of a game such as Thrill Kill?

I am afraid I don't know this specific game, but this is really the core question we should be asking. The media-effects people assume a pretty simple stimulus-response model for how all of this works. I think we have to investigate the meaningfulness of violent stories -- not violent images. I have proposed a range of explanations:

Empowerment. Kids who often lack power and control within their real-world environment seek some kind of compensation in their fantasy life. Given the currently limited vocabulary of computer games, violence becomes the most immediate way to represent power, control, autonomy, and mastery, all things these boys are seeking. They are also the things boys have historically sought from their backyard play. The images in video games are the same ones that surface in the drawings we used to make on notebook paper in the back of classrooms or the images we had in our heads when we hurled pinecone "grenades" at each other in our backyards. The difference is that many kids no longer have access to their backyards, so this play with power takes place in the living room and is no more open to adult scrutiny.

Transgression. As kids carve out an autonomous space for themselves, they are drawn to material that is shocking to their parents. This "shock" value includes scatalogical humor, slimey Gak, and violent stories. The pleasure comes not in the content -- what content do green slime toys have? -- but in the act of taking delight in something that meets adult disapproval.

Intensification. Since teens' lives are an emotional roller coaster, they seek forms of entertainment which are stylistically and emotionally intense. Here, the rapid-fire violence of video games takes its place alongside the loud music, the flashing lights, the brightly colored clothes, the intense tastes of soda pop and candy, the speed of fast-moving cars, etc.

Representation. This is less true of video games than other kinds of violent entertainment, but often such works are the only ones available to kids that represent the experience of being a cultural outsider, of not being trusted by adults, or perhaps even more powerfully, the only kinds which acknowledge the dark realities kids face in their day-to-day reality: broken homes, abusive parents, dangerous environments, diminished economic hopes, etc.

The challenge is to recognize and respect why kids consume violent entertainment so we can develop a broader range of products that respond to those needs. Can we expand, for example, the vocabulary for representing power in digital media?

Greg Costikyan, game designer, consultant, writer

Do you think computer games are too violent?

My personal objection to violence is aesthetic, rather than moral. Violence is a part of life, and is -- and should be -- a part of life. Hamlet is violent. Saving Private Ryan is violent. Quake is violent. They all use violence effectively and well. When I object to violence in games, it is because it is used in an inappropriate, distasteful, and pointless way; Postal springs to mind. Should game designers spend more effort conceiving of ways to make their games an interesting and engaging framework with which to struggle, rather than making the easy recourse to the use of violence to overcome obstacles? Certainly. Better design, and an appropriate design aesthetic, is devoutly to be desired. But I would no more eschew or prohibit violence in gaming than in any other creative form.

Do you think this alleged violence could cause someone to go find a gun and shoot someone?

Absolutely not.

What is the attraction of violent, shooter games such as Thrill Kill and Doom?

A visceral, edge-of-the-seat, tension-filled experience in which fast action and mastery of the interface is key to success. From a design perspective, games like Doom are not a lot different from relatively nonviolent games like, oh, a driving sim. The "violence" of the game lends an edge, to be sure, but I think you'll find that the fans of shooters will happily play "nonviolent" games with the same visceral appeal.

Do you know of any hard research which has proven any connections between media violence and violence in the real world?

No. Rather, I know of many studies that purport to show an increase in aggressive behavior in a controlled laboratory environment, but projecting from that to the real world is an endeavor fraught with peril.

If you have children, do you allow your children to play violent games?

Yes. Indeed, I frequently play Quake with my older daughter. She hasn't shot any of her schoolmates yet.

If in the future you were in a situation to make and market computer games, would the violence issue influence the products you'd develop?

No. I would (continue) to attempt to use violence, where it strengthens a game, in what I believe is a tasteful fashion. To make an analogy to other media, I'm happy to do the game equivalent of a murder mystery, but not the game equivalent of splatter-punk horror. But my work is fairly low on the violence scale, in any event.

WRAP UP!

The interviews here are not science by any stretch of the imagination. They are just points of view from folks I have run into, folks who design and play games, folks with common interests, and folks I have taught. It is obvious that the people quoted here have a passionate, critical relationship with this thing we call the computer game. They have studied games the same way that writers study how words work, painters how paint works, musicians how sound works, and film makers how the screen works. This new art must be mastered. It is not frivolous to say that this $9 billion-dollar market is art and is significant in today's culture the same way that books, film, radio, TV, and rock-and-roll were the significant media of the past. The game is the new thing, and it is in the driver's seat at the moment.

For educators, I think the most obvious way to think about computer games is to actually design them. What can be more educational than having children designing and critiquing their own and their classmates' designs -- peering intently at why they represented a person, gender, or race in a particular way; thinking about how someone will experience their creation, about how the blood and carnage they depict might affect the player of their game; and, yes, considering how a computer game that they have designed might just be the nudge to send someone over the cliff. Building and design is a very deep way to understand anything. Nothing is as frightening as presenting your work and having the professor turn around just after your explanation of your work and asking this roomful of inquisitors: So, what do you think? They all think, and they will tell you what they think. This is called learning.

COPYRIGHT 2000 Agency for Instructional Technology
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group