A History of Video Game Controversy

Decaffeinated Jedi writes "Sex, violence, animal cruelty, and scandalous pixels -- GameSpot has posted an in-depth feature examining the history of controversy in the video game industry. The feature examines several "major offenders" dating back as far as Death Race in the arcades up through more recent games like Grand Theft Auto III and Manhunt. Also included in the feature is coverage of the so-called "retail rogues" (games controversial enough that they were pulled from the shelves), as well as a docket of game-industry lawsuits and a look at the lighter side of game controversy. Who wants to bet that that the use-confiscated-drugs-for-short-term-benefit gameplay of Midway's upcoming NARC will make the cut in future articles about video game controversy?"

More violence doesn't mean better

[hambonewilkins]

This proves that more violence doesn't necessarily make a game better.

People hem and haw about violent videogames but games like GTA are good games with violence put in.

On the other hand, excessive games like Manhunt and BMX:XXX (both mentioned in the article) have pointless violence and sex that doesn't drive the game forward. In many ways, this mirrors movies: a movie like The Matrix may be violent but has a decent story behind it. Other action films feature a lot of violence but lack a decent hook.

Violence may sell, but when the consumer realizes the lack of anything besides the violence, the game stops selling. BMX:XXX tanked, to my knowledge, as did DOA:Extreme Beach Volleyball. I think its too early to say about Manhunt (which is widely regarded as really disgusting and way too far, even by gamers).

It's Really Just A Statement About The Direction

[Naked Chef]

society in the U.S. has been going the past 20-30 years...away from any conception of personal accountability or responsibility. We look for someone or something to blame society's ills on, when WE'RE the problem. Frivilous lawsuits related to lack of common sense, warnings on music and video games, "outrage" over the tiniest slights or perceived lack of "political correctness" in word or deed... Maybe getting offtopic a bit, but video game controvery is just one example. An interesting read, kinda sad though.

I wonder why...

[Dreadlord]

... nobody complains about movies although they had controversial elements like violence and sex much earlier than video games ever existed.

Controversy misplaced

[pieterh]

The standard answer when youths "go bad" is to search for the evil influences that twist their minds.
It's bullshit. Young minds do not need violent video games to give them ideas. What they need is decent supporting social contexts to show them the alternatives.
Society has to address the "economics of behavior", as one /. comment put it. Mass-production education, absent parents, junk food and junk society... these warp minds. Violent video games? Diversions that keep kids off the street and most likely beneficial insofar as they provide a release mechanism.
But... hey, it's easier to blame the victims than address the real causes of social problems.

Gaming Controvosy

[Un0r1g1nal]

Games are becoming more and more like the film industry, seeing just how much they can get away with and still make it to mainstream market. Also like the film industry they have to have as much violence, nearly nakid pixels, and if you can get lots of swearing in the narrative... all the better.

I remember when games didn't need all this crap added to them to make them good to play .. like the first couple of the dizzy series, and time and magik.. great games...

Think I will go dig my emulator out and have another go... you can see a field, exits are [north] [east] and [south]

Re:Pulling Games

[CashCarSTAR]

The ironic thing is that I'd be willing to bet good money that the members of those groups pulled their kids to see "The Passion of the Christ"...

Talk about violence and scars for life...

Optionally

[andih8u]

Since you're the parent, then you should be able to tell your child not to play these offensive games. Asking the government, wal-mart, or EA to do your parenting for you is absolutely ridiculous. Its not like these games don't have a big rating label on the front of the box; optionally, you could always just look around on the internet to get a pretty good idea of the content, or most shockingly of all, just watch them play the damn thing. These people are letting their children be the parents, then blaming someone else because they can't ever be bothered to show any interest in what their kids are doing. You're the one paying for the game...decide if they can have it or not.

It's all in parenting

[Sabalon]

I've been playing video games for a long time (and I still suck at them.) I remember playing Pong on some tv console thing in the mid 70's. I remember early arcade games (very abstract :), and I've played my fair share of FPS's.

Other than some motion sickness caused by FPS's, I don't think they've affected me at all. It's a way of blowing off some stress from time to time. Just because I may get in GTA and start picking off random citizens doesn't mean I'm gonna find an M16 laying around and do the same thing in real life - never mind the fact that my aim is even worse in real life than in a game!

The only violence that I can think of that could be attributed to video games happened in the early 80s. And even then it's more of a parenting thing. We had an arcade in a strip mall. Some teen girl was in there while her parents had gone to the supermarket. She left the arcade with a couple of guys who raped her. The arcade then instituted a policy that if you were under 16, you had to have a parent in there with you. Pretty much killed their business. We used to ride our bikes up there just to play games. After this happened, it was a ghost town in there. And it wasn't the games or the arcades fault.

Re:Controversy misplaced

[gbjbaanb]

I remember back a few years when 2 youths committed suicide, and they happened to enjoy Judas Priest's music. Naturally the parents took JP to the courts (who were found blameless BTW).

One commentator at the time remarked that it was a sad time when the parents took more interest in their kids when they thought they might win compensation than they ever did when the kids were alive.

I figure this is the problem, anything that someone starts to shout about has less to do with the issue at hand, than it does with that person wanting acclaim, money, or publicity.

Thank god for GTA

[vasqzr]

Before Grand Theft Auto came out, Doom and Mortal Kombat got blamed for everything. There aren't any high school kids around today that have played the originals of either of them.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[WorkEmail]

I think that BMX XXX was a gimmick to sell games. I never even gave it the chance and played it. I knew it would suck.

Now GTA III on the other hand was a really great game. And the other thing that people forget to mention s that a lot of the things that are considered really offensive in games, are the things that are not a part of the game itself, but something the player can "choose" to do if he/she wants to.

A lot of those games kind of put you in a free roaming world where you can do as you wish, true, some of the in game missions are kind of bad, but it is rated M for a reason, and if your kid is under 17 and playing it, it is your fault.

Phantasmagoria (SP?)

[Sentosus]

The old Sierra game titled here happens to be one of the freakiest games that I have seen. There was no need for violence, but still when I originally went to purchase it back in my youth, I was warned that it would send chills up my spine. It is too bad that we don't see violence used to further a story line and now we have it projected as an element of entertainment. We do not need gibs in BF1942, but the violent noises of death really add.

I must say the gargling noises of people in that game still gives me flashbacks. It adds to the experience, but in a way that gibbing people in UT2004 does not.

I hope that we see this as a passing fad and in the future we place more emphasis in realism vs. violence. Afterall, watch KillBill. The experience is only entertaining for the first few minutes and then slowly gets boring when a simple use a realism could have changed the effect.

SP --- OT as usual.

People, please.

[bad enema]

Take it easy, it is ONLY A GAME. No really, I'm serious. Relax.

The same people who want to ban violent games are the ones who are anti-gun control.

You know, people weren't any less violent before video games were created. This is both historically and theoretically true.

Public Library provides more graphic violence

[Mark_Uplanguage]

I'm always amazed at the ignorance of easily offended people. It's easier to go into a public library and pick up mystery/thriller books by James Patterson (and many many other authors), which I would state are more violent and graphic by way of explicit details in what was done (murder), how it was done and why. Just go look at some of the published Editorials available on his books. The point is that apparently the first ammendment stopped these offended people from making noise about the authors! I fail to see the difference in video games.

Not just video games

[Jim_Maryland]

It's not just video games that create controversy. Remember how Dungeons & Dragons was viewed?

Any game that doesn't fit the "norm" will create controversy. A little parental supervision will help in any of these games. Know the capability of your child to determine what types of games they can handle. If they can separate fiction/reality, they can probably handle some of the controversial games. Some kids may take longer than others to differentiate what they see on TV/video games/music/etc... and therefore should be buffered from the content. It's all up to the parents to make these decisions and deal with the consequences.

Re:Pulling Games

[Anonymous Coward]

If you aren't a Christian the violence will have little meaning. From what I understand crucifixian is a pretty nasty way to die - obviously. But then, the movie isn't about those slaves. A movie that featured entirely people being executed for their crimes would be grim and pointless, but just because YOU don't find any positive meaning in the movie doesn't mean that a very large number of people won't.

Re:am i the only one...

[Jonas the Bold]

"Somebody please think of the children" isn't liberal, it's mostly from the Christian right. Thier the ones that ban books, and try to ban movies, music, games, and everything else.

Communism is economic policy and not social, so is completely unrelated.

Labeling everything you disagree with "liberal" (or conservative, or right, or left, or communist, or anything else, for that matter) is stupid.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[Ayaress]

I agree entirely. I like violence, swearing, sex, whatever in games, as long as it fits.

An English teacher of mine in high school had a saying about using foul language in writing: "You can swear all you want, but you have to earn every word, or it'll only hurt you."

All games are built on a premise. GTA was built on the premise of street crime: Drugs, prostitutes, carjacking, even low-time acts of terrorism. Wether or not its a good game, how do you capture that premise in a satisfying way WITHOUT sex, language, and violence?

BMX:XXX was something completely else though. I really don't get the premise. If the premise were bike racing, then the riders would be at least wearing appropriate clothing (Ever ride a motor cycle wearing shorts? I burned my leg on an exauhst pipe doing that), because you don't ride a motorcycle naked. If the premise were naked people then what's the point of having them riding bikes?

It didn't build on the game's premise, and frankly, it wasn't all that great to begin with - for half or less of the price, I could buy a copy of Playboy or Hustler and a bargain-rack non-naked BMX racing game.

Re:Pulling Games

[nebenfun]

If you can't see the difference in the violence in let's say beating up hookers for money (GTA) and historical violence like saving private ryan, the passion, schindler's list, etc, you have a poor sense of perspective.

I think "those groups" have bigger problems than boycotting video game companies, tv and disney, etc...

but there IS a difference between GTA and the Passion, and it wouldn't be hypocritical for a Christian parent to refuse their child GTA but make sure they watch the aforementioned movies.

Re:am i the only one...

[snoopsk]

I have been playing violent fps games since my early teen years when Doom first came out. I also own a variety of real guns. According to some, I am a potential mass murderer.

This is another example of the lack of personal responsibility found in the US today. Most people don't realize that responsibility is necessary for liberty. When people do not take responsibilty for themselves, their freedoms will be revoked (games banned, etc).

Re:What about the old...

[Ayaress]

There are some things about the hentai games for the SNES and GB(A) though:

1. Nintendo didn't license them, and they already say, "Don't play games with out the Nintendo Seal of Approval." I doubt they'll comment on unlicensed games.

2. (As far as I know) none of them have been brought to the US (at least not openly - you can't buy hentai games in the store like you can in Japan, you have to order them), and Japan is a far more open society, both to new ideas and technologies, but in this case more open to forms of entertainment. There isn't a social stigma around pornography in Japan to the extent that there is in the US.

People who don't like it actually participate in capitalism the way it was INTENDED to work: They vote with their money and don't buy it. They don't sue the companies that made it (at least not anywhere near as much as we do). The people who do like it do the same, and they buy it, and it continues to get made.

Back to the US: It bugs me how people are so opposed to pornography. If you compare a few polls about how many people like looking at pornographic materials and how many people think they should they should be illegal, you'll see there's a striking overlap - people who buy porn, but say it should be illegal.
Porn is considered so socially unacceptable that if you ask people, they'll say it should be illegal even though they have a limited edition of Debbi Does Dallas hidden under their couch. It's like the smoker who says (between weezes and coughs and lighting a new ciggarette) that the tobacco companies should be forced out of business.

Re:Pulling Games

[rblum]

That difference, of course, only exists if you're Christian. If you're not, they're both multimedia works about violence against fictional characters.

Oh, in GTA, you're actually in control, so you have to make a moral choice, while in Passion, you just absorb.

Nope, violence is violence. Just because it happened in the past doesn't make it any different.

Apart from that, it's not about "my right to violence". It's about freedom of speech. Steven Spielberg wants to make a movie about people getting blown up (SPR), I want to make a game about blowing people up - why exactly should it be OK to censor one and not the other?

Re:I wonder why...

[Ayaress]

They do, and have for a long time. When I was young (early 80's), violent movies were the big target. Video games are newer. Holywood is established and entrenched, and it's unlikely any amount of litigation will budge them an inch. Video games are getting there, but there's still enough give in the market that they can win little victories here and there.

Re:am i the only one...

[snoopsk]

The religous conservatives want the games banned because they feel the games are morally wrong.

OTOH, liberals want the games banned because they beleive that games cause violence. It is a liberal mentality that suggests that society, not the individual, should accept responsibilty for an individual's actions. These same people believe that guns cause violence.

The extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are the ones trying to ban the games.

Re:Pulling Games

[OzPeter]

That may be so, but The Passion is rated R .. and from what I have heard for a good reason due to the use of violence as a shock tool in order to make a point about the sacrifice that Jesus made. The (quite reasonable by the sound of it) R rating is meant to protect children from just wandering in and seeing it.

Yet there *are* many examples of Christian parents taking their kids to see this movie without having seen it before themselves. This is totally irresponsible and I feel an extremely hypocritical action on behalf of those parents.

There was also the story this week of the 6th grade teacher who showed long excerpts of this movie to their class without the parents knowledge/permission.

Such blind belief that because its Christian, that any amount or portrayed violence is acceptable is worse than what is in a video game, because the adults are *forcing* their childrento see it.

OT There are a lot of interesting stories in the Bible that would not make it to any sermon due to the extreme levels of sex and violence. Check out "The X rated Bible" for more info :-)

Re:Pulling Games

[infinite9]

As a member of one of those groups, i'd like to chime in. I went to see the movie in theaters and took my 12 year old daughter. After seeing it, I'll let my 10 and 8 year old daughters see it also. I think they have the maturity to handle the violence in that context. I'm not about to say that it's ok for any 8 or 10 year old. I won't let my five year old see it either. That being said, I think it's ridiculous to ban video games, tv shows, music, or movies to protect the children. It's my job to filter what they have access to. This is supposed to be a free society.

Re:Blue Max

[dave420]

What the heck was that you just wrote?? Do you often write really, incredibly, obviously unfounded blanket statements about entire developed countries?

"Germans have a history of building up a meticulous and highly ordered societies, then burning up everything in a orgy of violence and mayhem"

What history was that? Are you talking about the 1st and 2nd world wars? If you've studied history, you'd realise they were part of the same war, a European (and eventually global) 'civil' war.

Germany has learned more than most countries, and has decided to err on the side of caution when it comes to dictatorial implications or nazi imagery, and this was an example of that. Anything regarding the world wars has to be presented in such a way as to educate the viewer about the dangers of [nazi] totalitarianism, as opposed to glorifying it. Hence, nazi swastikas and other imagery are banned in Germany, unless there's a really good reason to have it (ie museums, etc.).

Funnily enough, a video game featuring Germans fighting other countries was looked at with some scrutiny.

Saying this is as simple as "get rid of the red square otherwise we'll see WWIII" is unjustly trivialising a very complex and deep situation.

Germany has a very strong technical sector, and saying they don't innovate is ridiculous. Just thinking a statement like that is even logically viable shows a great insight into your perspective ;) It's akin to someone saying "All the French surrender on first hearing a shot" or "All muslims are terrorists" or "All Americans are addicted to twinkies and murder".

The question I have is ...

[maddogdelta]

Given the assumption that video games makes one violent, what games did Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Attilla the Hun and Jack the Ripper play when they were younger>

After WWI there was a great fear that the return of all the trained and experienced killers from european battlefields would create a violent crime spree of endemic proportions. Never happened. If real violence couldn't create that kind of effect, how come video violence is supposed to be a surefire violence trigger?

Re:Pulling Games

[dave420]

What's the difference? GTA didn't happen, "The Passion" certainly didn't happen like that, and "Saving Private Ryan" had about as much historical insight as my lunch did.

Seriously, just because it looks (or even claims to be) fact-based, doesn't mean to say it is.

Re:am i the only one...

[Jeffool]

And I think that maybe you're thinking that the libertarian way of thinking is in juxtapose to traditional liberal philosophy?

Don't let TV tell you what a 'liberal' is. And for Christ's sake, don't let a Democrat(hell, or Republican) do it either.

The words 'liberal' and 'conservative' have been around for quite some time and have meanings other than those espoused by the major political parties.

But hell, if we're making a game of it all, I suggest:
What causes violence?
(C): violence, control, hate, greed, weapons

(C)represents anarchistic philosophy - "blame" implies something is wrong. So long as everyone consents by taking part in the system that perpetuates violence, f'ck it. Let'em kill each other.

What ever happened to...

[Shirov]

Personal Responsibility! These kinds of stories should be moot. Bottom line, no one forces kids to play these games. Typically a kid gets the game from their parents or money provided by their parents. If this is not the case, the parents still have the right/obligation to NOT allow their kids to play the "violent" games. Parents, stop asking the government to raise your children and do it your damn selves!

--Ryan

Re:Optionally

[dave420]

It's a seriously good point. Seeing as the parent is the child's "guardian", and therefore responsibile for them - every time they condemn something for leading their kid astray, that parent is admitting, publicly, they're a bad parent.

In the cave-man days, who told the Sabre-Tooth tigers to stop eating the little kids? No-one. Their parents were being real parents and chasing them away with big-ass pointy sticks, not moaning and whining about needing a public committee to oversee a legislative addition to the "Constitution of the Third Cave from the Left". Shoooot. Your kids, your problem.

Re:Pulling Games

[Qrlx]

but there IS a difference between GTA and the Passion, and it wouldn't be hypocritical for a Christian parent to refuse their child GTA but make sure they watch the aforementioned movies.

I have to say, I disagree with that. There is little of "religious value" in The Passion.

The Passion is really just an excuse to show a ton of violence and suffering. By only focusing on the last 12 hours of Big J's life, you don't have the chance to see a character arc, or learn anything about WHY he's (willingly) being tortured and executed.

The fact is (well, the dogma is) that Jesus deliberately and freely returned to Jerusalem with full knowledge that he would be put to death. It is this selfless act of transcendence that Christians should be focusing on, not the ensuing orgy of violence.

Re:They didn't even mention THRiLL KILL!?

[AceCaseOR]

RTFA. It get's mentioned, it's just not in the top 10.

Re:Some of those games deserved to be banned

[drinkypoo]

Actually, I agree with you wholeheartedly. My subject line was knee-jerk, so apparently I am as guilty (at first reflex) as any of the people whose actions I decry in my latest livejournal entry which was initiated by this story, and which I will mirror here for your enjoyment. What I mean rather than banned (and what I should have SAID, I will grant you) is they should have been banned from mass retail outlets, because they should not be supplied to children. (If they are pornographic in nature, existing laws prohibit their sales to minors.)

Babble above, content below:

GameSpot [gamespot.com] has posted an article entitled When Two Tribes Go to War: A History of Video Game Controversy [gamespot.com] which on page 11 [gamespot.com] has the following delicious tidbit:

As the battle ensued, in January 2004 the Miami Herald reported that the city of Miami would enact an ordinance that would make it illegal for retailers to sell or rent "violent" video games to anyone under 18 without a note from his or her parent. Three of the city councilmen who voted for the ordinance were Haitian-Americans. The two who voted against the ordinance were not of Haitian decent. Retailers and rental outlets would incur warnings or fines of $250 per day or up to $500 for repeated offenses. GameSpot reported that Mayor Joe Celestin, a Haitian-American who introduced the ordinance and who is also one of Vice City's most vocal critics, said, "We don't believe the First Amendment was written to protect those who want to incite violence."

The interesting thing is that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America does not discriminate. There are cases where violence is justified, such as preventing taxation without representation. Well, Senor Celestin, please move to Haiti where more than 80% of the people are living in poverty, where two-thirds of the population is involved in agriculture, which is to say, weedin' and pickin'. Stop pissing on this great nation of ours, which is based on the notion that a person has the right to speak their mind without fear of recrimination. Not to mention that to this date there is still no proven link between violent video games, and violent behavior, you ignorant fuck. I wish I'd heard about this in a more timely manner, but suffice to say, the head of Miami's local government does not believe in the First Amendment. Free thinkers beware.

Damn, the more I read this, the worse it gets. I find new people to be offended by all the time.

the second film, Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, met a greater challenge when in August 2003 ABC Radio News Australia and other sources reported that mainland China had banned the movie entirely, calling it "anti-Chinese."

China's government complained that the film falsely portrayed China as "a country with no government and overrun by secret societies," according to ABC News. The BBC reported that same month that a Chinese official said, "After watching the movie, I feel that the westerners have made their presentation of China with malicious intention. ... The movie does not understand Chinese culture. It does not understand China's security situation. In China there cannot be secret societies."

HAHaHAHAHAHaHaAHA! In China, *snort* there cannot *snicker* be secret societies? Need I say more?

On February 15, 2004, Eidos attempted its first move into the spotlight from the other side of the stage by announcing that it would release a game called Whiplash, developed by Crystal Dynamics and aimed at kids 7 years of age and older. The game's objective would be to free laboratory animals from torture in the name of science,, the U.K. Telegraph reported. As noble as the game's premise may be to some, British police and MPs are not happy about it and have called the ga

Re: Custer's Revenge

[log0n]

The difference (people need to understand perspective and intent) is that Apache, Commanche, Tomahawk, et al aren't names that have the negative mental stigma that Jew (one can argue this) and Gypsy have.

Avoid slippery-slope mentality.

Re:It's Really Just A Statement About The Directio

[maxpublic]

People seem to want the government and other organizations to take care of them and take care of their children.

More importantly, they want the government to deal with their neighbors as well, in much the same fashion as the original Puritan colonies did. That is, "do things according to my moral code or I'll get the government to beat your ass."

The Constitution is of little concern to many Americans. They're far more invested in oppressing the people around them to confirm that they have the power to control their environment. Rights interfere with those activities, and because the Constitution is about rights it's an impediment to their goal to exercise power. The fact that such a view will come back to bite them in the ass is of little concern as they're sure that *they* will never become the target - since, of course *they* are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG.

Max

Re:am i the only one...

[maxpublic]

The battle cry of the extremist right is "for the chilllllddreen!"

The battle cry of the extremist left is "for the greater good!"

Both sides are fanatical loons and both want the exact same thing: to control what YOU can and cannot do. Their supposed differences are nothing more than trivial details.

Max

Re: It's all in parenting

[Vexware]

The truth is, parents should not have to supervise the games their children play if they have brought up their offspring correctly and ethically. I suppose the other parents, those who have not been able to bring up their children very well, belong to those who can't actually be bothered to check which games their offspring play!

But then, I believe games are not fuel of violence and hatred, but only ways of releasing and exorcising these feelings we have. People do not seem to understand that kids who go on kill rampages are kids that have been badly brought up, or who have had these feelings burned into them throughout their life, and games are just "idea whores" as much as films are, I would say. One could say films are not targeted; they are, but much more discretely than games are. We can observe a number of campains against the effect of video games, but campains against films pass nearly unnoticed -- yet this form of media is just as accessible, a lot of children know how to use eMule easily.

How come video games are targeted so much more than films?

The situation is worse all over the world

[Rolman]

For every idiot spewing BS about violence in videogames, there are three game-savvy people who can shout "ESRB!". This industry self-regulation system actually works quite well when people, media and retailers get involved with it. It's very efficient when the circumstances are the right ones.

The problem is, it's not as widely enforced as the movie rating system, and it's worse in some countries I've been in, where the ESRB rating is completely ignored and the video games can be sold to minors. Countries in Central and South America come to mind, and some countries in Asia. The US has been improving in this area, as some retailers actually ask for ID when selling mature games, but the situation is still far from perfect.

Let's remember the one with the money is usually not the child, and most of the cases where the offending game gets to a child's hands is the parent who bought it. Whenever there's a case like this the parent simply blames the company or the videogame industry altogether, and of course there's always a "Paladin of Justice" of sorts, ready to take the issue to the media or to some control circles.

In Mexico, for example, I saw a case of some people on national TV saying Pokemon is the devil's work and a priest encouraging children to burn their Pokemon toys (the priest, by the way, used to own a video rental store, ironic, huh?). This stupid issue stopped the very second some news arose about none other than the Pope himself endorsing Pokemon and praising it for getting children together to play. Pokemon is a children's E-Rated game, completely safe to play and yet there are people ready to use it for their own agendas. Now think about the real trouble makers like the M-Rated Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto or the upcoming Doom 3.

Every once in a while I get to see stupid, ill-informed articles about the issue on media in many countries. I think it's time the videogame industry defends itself by making the same amount of noise as those sensationalist idiots do. We have a good rating system, we need people to effectively use it, we need to strongly enforce it.

Sure we have the Right, but is it a Good Idea?

[sampson7]

Not one post so far has discussed the fundamental issue here -- the only thing kids tune out more than their parents are content-advisory labels. Sure, in a perfect world every parent would monitor their 2.3 children 24 hours a day and sit around the dinner table every night and talk about their feelings.

And I'm hardly one to advocate government censorship as an answer to anything. Hell, I loved Mortal Kombat when it first came out, and to this day FPS are some of my favorite ways to blow off steam.

But too many /.s are ignoring our collective responsibility to society and behind the cloak of the 1st Amendment and/or parental and/or personal responsibility. Sure, it's legal to depict violent actions. Sure, Hollywood does it all the time. But let's ask the next question -- okay, it's legal -- but is it good? Is it beneficial to society?

Too many parents work too many hours. Too many children sneak behind the backs of their parents. Too many video game stores sell to minors. ESRB ratings are a joke. (And I certainly remember turning 21 and buying alcohol for my under-aged friends.)

The result? Too many children see far too much violence, both on TV and on video games. This is bad. And I don't care that some looney-tunes wacko goes on a shooting spree after playing some Doom variant -- that's not the "bad" I'd talking about. Instead, I'm worried about the daily toll all this takes -- the desensitization to violence and misery and all the bad things in life that only add to the pressure of being a teen/young adult.

Rather than proudly trumpet the fact that the Constitution allows for these things, I'd challenge the Slashdot community to come up with answers. We're not going to stop children from growing up, and with a war on terrorism and brutality all over the news they can hardly avoid encountering mind-numbing violence on a daily basis. And I certainly wasn't (particularly) harmed by violence on a little screen. But today is different -- look at the way we drive on the streets at rush hour -- there's too much aggression in every facet of our lives. Freedom is a Good Things. But it also comes with responsibility. Sure we have the Right to blow up a bunch of pixels on a screen, but we also have a corresponding Duty not to introduce even more excessive violence into an already scary world.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[cayenne8]

"Adding more violence doesn't make something better?? Guess someone forgot to inform Mel Gibson of this before making his "masterpiece"."

Well...as I understand it...crucifixion (sp?) was a pretty messy and violent business. If he did an accurate portrayal of it...then yes..the movie would be quite violent.

Re: It's all in parenting

[AceCaseOR]

How come video games are targeted so much more than films?

Easy. The "grown-ups" in Congress are going "Well, movies weren't this violent when I was growing up, and we didn't have video games when I was going up, and there weren't school shootings when I was growing up, so it must be the fault of those dag-gum violent movies and those new-fangled video games."

Yes, that's a generalization, but unfortunatly it isn't too off base.

Really?

[sczimme]

The Constitution is of little concern to many Americans. They're far more invested in oppressing the people around them to confirm that they have the power to control their environment.

Wow, I didn't know that. Here I thought I was trying to do the best I can by my family and working hard to better myself, but it turns out I've been trampling the Constitution with my power-mad ways. Thanks for the heads-up.

/rolls eyes

Re:Not just video games

[Jim_Maryland]

I have to disagree on your statement that "it's really not up to parents to deal with the consequences". Parents are the primary influence in their children's life. Parents have a responsibility to prepare their children to deal with the "real" world. Part of that involves monitoring the other "influences" in their life. These other "influences" can involve anything: video games; friends; teachers; coaches; TV; etc.... I, as a parent, feel that I am responsible for my children's actions (and I'll feel that, even after they have grown up and left the house).

My opinion on the responsibility of the game vendors is that they should accurately follow the game rating systems for starters. After that, they should also focus their marketing efforts according to age too (don't advertise GTA on Cartoon Network).

As for your comment that "Games make it harder and harder for kids to make the distinctions you're talking about.", if the kid can't differentiate, the parent shouldn't be providing them with access to the game. That's where the parent's need to step up and limit there access to material based on the comprehension level of the child.

Re:Violence, Roman games, and the military.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I'm pretty sure I wasn't making a free speech argument.

You weren't. You were making a market argument (with the implication for the free speech argument that there is no problem, because market forces are already penalizing gratuitous sex and violence.)

But there was an ambiguity in your title ("More violence doesn't mean better"), to wit: What is the definition of "better"? This is especially problematic, given that the usual result of hand-wringing about videogame violence content is a call for censorship, followed by a debate about WHAT and how MUCH to censor, with "none at all" being portrayed as an "extreme" position.

So I was addressing the ambiguity, segueing into a point in the free speech argument by way of ilustration.

Re:The question I have is ...

[Pvt_Waldo]

Real violence, as witnessed by those in war, is far more numbing and has far more impact than video game violence. It shoccks the core. It lingers in the mind.

Video game violence just trivializes it. Nobody has nightmares about what they saw in a game. But they do have fantasies.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[OblvnDrgn]

GTA and GTA3 are nearly the same exact game, with the main exceptions being lack of multiplayer and the presence of better graphics and sound in GTA3.

I think you are seriously trivializing the changes between the first and third games. The switch between 2D and 3D alone makes it practically a different game, not to mention most of what makes the third game so significantly better is how immersive the game world is. All of the little improvements to the storyline and setting make the game that much more involving, which is part of what got the game such rave reviews, even if that's not what everyone is looking for.

In any case, I'll take the same points you made and come to a different conclusion. I don't think society became that much more accepting as time passed -- Postal 1 and 2 were reviewed much the same way, that is, badly -- but the first GTA was an open-ended game with a great premise and a decent action-based execution, and the third one was an all-around better game with the same premise, and that's what it takes to become a "classic."

Re:It's Really Just A Statement About The Directio

[StocDred]

the complimentary shapes of the penis and vagina

You're assuming biology is the only factor is determing right or wrong. Are midgets allowed to hump non-midgets? Are eunuchs allowed to marry?

something fundamentally wrong and unnatural

Your opinion. Some cultures think eating dogs is wrong and unnatural. Or kissing. Or allowing women to show their faces in public.

need to marry Joan of Arc, and a few of these Martian rocks look sexy.

And now you've leapt to the absurd. Although I do applaud your over-inflated vocabulary in your attempt to make your bigotry sound just and reasonable.

a gift from the creator

There is no creator. Sorry about that.

Re:More violence doesn't mean better

[Jagasian]

The original GTA was 3D, with the exception of vehicles and people. Some aspects of the game required driving motorcycles up ramps fast enough to launch yourself onto other buildings, islands, etc... too slow and you slam into the side of whatever you were aiming at. Play the game, it is clearly 3D. In fact, compare GTA3 in the bird's eye camera view to the original GTA.

The improved graphics and sound are not what made GTA3 a classic. What makes GTA3 and the rest of the series great is the open-ended gameplay. If gamers really wanted the best graphics and sound they would watch a modern action movie. Surely the cars and people look more realistic in movies than they do in modern video games. The thing is that gamers are playing games first and foremost because of the interactivity. The GTA series has loads of it: hence the open-ended gameplay.

Also, I disagree that GTA3 had a better story than GTA. They are nearly the same. The Liberty City part of the original GTA, and GTA3 have the same story and tell it in the same way. Now, GTA3 Vice City, definitely improved upon the story and continuity of the game, and I think it paid off. Lets face it, you didn't feel like an important part of the story in either GTA or GTA3, but in GTA3:VC you felt like you were the story.

However, many a reviewer dogged GTA3:VC has being too derivative... yet the same reviewers claimed that GTA3 was "revolutionary". Anybody that was there with the series from the begining knows that the series has mostly made evolutionary improvements with each release (barring such things as removing multiplayer).

Maybe the critics have a very short memory? I think the more probable case is that most gamers were introduced to the series with GTA3.