Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Entertainment Games

A History of Video Game Controversy 354

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A History of Video Game Controversy

Comments Filter:
  • What?! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by falzer ( 224563 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:24PM (#8498942)
    I think XEvil [xevil.com] deserves a mention.
  • Blue Max (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sumocide ( 114549 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:24PM (#8498948)
    The olde C64 top view airplane shooter Blue Max is (yes is, not was) banned in Germany. For it's controversial gameplay which involves shooting 4 pixel wide enemies, 80's style.

    Only effect the ban had was that every youth absolutely had to copy the game.

  • by Chris_Stankowitz ( 612232 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:24PM (#8498950)
    japanese pr0n games for nintendo? Did anyone really get off to these things? Has nintendo ever made any statements about these games? Do they make games like this for current consoles?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:27PM (#8498979)
    "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?"

    You mean like the gubbemint's use-confiscated-"alledged drug assests"-as-revenue-enhancement-for-short-term-ben ifit is contreversial?

  • by ADRA ( 37398 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:36PM (#8499090)
    "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?"

    Can anyone say:
    Fallout 2
    Any game with 'stim pack' such devices

    Mind you, having the cool jitters can actually add depth and understanding to the drug usage, and hopefully become so sick and tired of the jittering controller or the blured screen that they actually get steared away from drugs. But that's not news so the first time someone gets high and blames NARC, you'll see headlines from here to Baghdad!
  • Re:Pulling Games (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:37PM (#8499108)
    There's a big difference between purposeful violence and senseless violence - of course it's still way too much for kids.

    (Especially kids like my little cousin, who got nightmares from the munchkins in the Wizard of Oz :))
  • by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:42PM (#8499160) Journal
    The majority of the video game market is males, aged 18-35.. Google yourself for the demographics, I'm too tired too.

    Bitching "what about the children!?" is pointless. There are plenty of age appropriate games out there, Mario, Sonic, Crash Bandicoot are still about.

    But, there now exists a generation of adults who grew up on video games. They aren't kids stuff anymore.

    The latest big budget kill-fest video game should be measured against the yardstick of the latest big-budget R-rated movie, not the latest disney flick. Compare it to HBO, not Nickelodeon.

    A 20 year old gets the jokes and satire in the GTA3 series. An 8 year old doesnt. Games are rated for a reason. Time for some personal and parental responsibility.

    That is all.
  • uh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 2MuchC0ffeeMan ( 201987 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:44PM (#8499192) Homepage
    yeah, i think we should put more liability on game makers for messing up our children's lives

    while we're at it, let's sue mcdonalds for making us fat [cnn.com], sue microsoft for making us dumb [slashdot.org], and other stupid lawsuits [power-of-attorneys.com]

    i do like this article though, it has a different prospective, it said night trap's goal was to 'save the teen girls' not kill them. i've seen worse movies, but nobody dares question the effects of hollywood.
  • by DelawareBoy ( 757170 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:45PM (#8499205)
    It's not the violence, it's the shock / originality. Anyone remember Carmageddon? Where the point of the car race is, well, run over as many people as possible? (Including little old ladies with Walkers). Once GTA has a few dozen rip offs, this will be a non-issue. Example, a fairly good graphics game where you deal drugs to high school students would be insanely popular. Right up until it was banned, the company sued, etc. it's when a) companies push limits and b) Those products are recognized by the media. Add those two together and you have a great recipe for controversy. -DB in 2004
  • Re:Blue Max (Score:3, Interesting)

    by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:46PM (#8499218) Homepage
    Of course, Blue Max was set during World War I. No Nazis here. Tho I do suspect the ban was indeed political.
  • by oniony ( 228405 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:47PM (#8499224) Homepage
    The earliest game I can remember that caused concern was Barbarian. This was a combat game for the Spectrum and others that had lots of blood, decapitation novel for the time. I think the cover of Crash magazine (Oley Frey, I think the artist was called) caused most of it, I reckon!

    Syndicate was another memorable game, one of the first to allow mass carnage and easy access to fire.
  • Violence is A-OK! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bentonsmith ( 81425 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:49PM (#8499249)

    You can get away with near infinite violence in the media in the US.

    You can get away with far less in terms of nudity. I mean look, we had a little breast flash on national television a little while ago, and everyone went agog. From what I have been told, europeans have far less tolerance for violence, and more tolerance for nudity.
  • by Sentosus ( 751729 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:51PM (#8499266)
    I used to compete in laser tag. We actually had tournaments (Mad Props to those in Irmo, South Carolina). It contributed more to my last shooting abilities than any video games. Now, when we talk about knowing specifics to weapons, Counter-Strike has told me to hide behind a wall of 2X6 boards if a 9mm glock is firing at me and to hide behind 3 feet of concrete if a Desert Eagle is firing at me.

    If nothing else, the games have taught me the limitations and information a spec sheet could not. Theif flashes a .50 Calibre pistol vs. a Glock 9mm, I am more willing to pass them the money I have. Afterall, with the .50 calibre pistol, you are fighting for you life while a Glock carries some chance of survival.

    My parents never taught me about death. I learned my ways of sacrificing animals and fighting from the Old Testament of the Bible.

    SP --- Finding evil in all things, just to keep it fair.
  • by dfg5959 ( 760225 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @12:56PM (#8499304)
    Adding more violence doesn't make something better?? Guess someone forgot to inform Mel Gibson of this before making his "masterpiece".
  • by JavaLord ( 680960 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @01:02PM (#8499382) Journal
    One that I never hear mentioned is Bloodsword for the Apple II computers. It was a 1v1 fighting game, and it came out around 1985. Needless to say, it had the blood of the early mortal kombat games with the ability to chop someones head off in mid combat. Then a goblin would come out and kick around the severed head like a soccer ball. You never heard of it, because it wasn't popular enough to be blamed for something. It's only the popular violent games that get pegged by people looking to place blame rather than assign personal responsibility

    Take Doom and Colombine for example. Instead of blaming the teachers for letting those kids be teased everyday, or blaming the kids themselves for venting their frustrations in an unacceptable manner (ie shooting up the place) the media and the parents had to blame doom. Does anyone really think if doom wasn't around those kids wouldn't have shot the place up anyway?
  • Re:Optionally (Score:5, Interesting)

    by canajin56 ( 660655 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @01:11PM (#8499493)

    A friend of mine's older sister would buy anything for her kids, who were like 10 and 5 at the time. Although the older one got his pellet gun taken away because he kept shooting out the car and house windows. But the younger one got to keep his, since he was mostly good with it. But they certainly get all the violent video games they want. Why? Because otherwise they wouldn't like her. Last time she wouldn't because they didn't have the money, the 5 year old said "I hate you!" so she bought it. When she wouldn't get them icecream before dinner, they said they would kill her so she bought it for them.

    They've learned they can do anything to the babysitter and they won't get in trouble. Last time she took their precious Playstation away for fighting, so they wedged the bedroom door closed with a chair while she was putting it in the closet. She tried to call the parents but they cut the phone line! She climbed out the window but they had locked the front door. Then they started shooting at her. She ran 2 miles to the next door neighbors (They live in the boonies, you see) and the mom came home and yelled at the babysitter for bothering her and taking their games away, then bought the kids ice-cream. (They didn't even have to threaten to kill her this time!)

    On top of they, she is convinced the older one is the smartest person on the planet. He gets straight A's in elementry school, you see...mostly because she does all his homework and projects for him...but only because he's too smart to waste his time with them, you see ;)

    Long and the short of it, she doesn't want Wal-Mart doing her parenting beacuse she doesn't want ANYBODY doing her parenting. She doesn't want her kids being repressed and deprived. And she certainly doesn't want them mad at her

  • Or at least, should have been sold only in adult bookstores. Custer's Revenge? That's fucked up right there. It doesn't mean I think it shouldn't exist, pretty fucked up no matter how you look at it.

    A note on Wolf3D: Germany bans anything naziesque, whether you're being nazis, or killing them.

    Incidentally I played (most of) phantasmagoria and aside from deciding it was a really cheesy game, I was nauseated by the experience of having my female character raped to further the story line. Given their track record i'm not sure "banned in Australia" really merits inclusion on the list. Although, I can't remember, if that's the game that has the sequence of a woman being killed by being fed her own guts through a funnel, I guess I can understand it. However, that's not mentioned here. The game was made by a woman though, the ever-famous Roberta Williams who is responsible for (in the old days) some fantastic games and (more recently) the stupidest puzzles ever known to man. So given that the main character is female, the author is female, I'd say it's man-hatin' if anything. Which should also hardly put it on the list.

    The games that I feel are most justifiably contraversial are Grand Theft Auto 3/VC and Postal/Postal 2 (each game's second installment is basically the same game with different enhancements.) I feel this way because of all the different more or less realistic ways you can kill people in them. Postal (2, at least) is obviously goofy, like you can blow people's heads off while they're vomiting and vomit will come out of their neck. (Time for a MAD-style "Yeeeecch.") The thing that makes them different from, say, Unreal Tournament is that they are such a plausible setting, using (mostly) realistic weapons that the average person can get their hands on. (Obviously Postal has many departures from this, and GTA has a couple.) At least in games like Half-Life you're in a totally mythical situation.

    Now, I like these games, I don't think they should be banned - but I can see why people get into such a froth about them. The bottom line though is that parents are responsible for parenting, not game companies. You don't let your kids eat rat poison and wash it down with antifreeze, even though rat poison looks like candy and antifreeze looks kinda like mountain dew. Why is this any different, besides the fact that we don't know if playing violent video games is actually harmful?

  • by pedrop357 ( 681672 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @01:21PM (#8499622)
    Brain also misplaced.

    You forgot to mention that as video games have gotten more violent and realistic, youth crime has hit rick bottom.

    Young minds need to explore death in a fantasy context, so they can control their demons. An excellent book about stuff like this is "Killing Monsters" (forgot who the author is).

    Mass-production education, absent parents, junk food and junk society... these warp minds.

    They've warped minds to the point that youth crime is way down, drug deaths are even rarer then they were 15 years ago, teen pregnancy is down. In fact, despite all the mind warping, all things negative teenage are down, but the same thing cannot be said for people in thier 30s and 40s-crime rate up. If you don't believe me, check out the FBI's UCR for the last 10 years.

    Diversions that keep kids off the street and most likely beneficial insofar as they provide a release mechanism.

    The kids who could benefit from the diversions won't use them and come from families that won't use them. The kids affected and generally forced into these diversions don't and never did need them. They just lose their ability to manage their own time and plan their own activities.

    To put it succinctly: The kids are alright, in fact they're much better then anyone says.
  • by Ayaress ( 662020 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @01:23PM (#8499645) Journal
    If you want to talk about commie liberals, I should remind you that it's mostly Republicans (and Blue Dog Democrats, who might as well be Republicans anyway) that focus on family values and "think of the children" and such. The liberal path in this (although most Democrats are far from liberal themselves) is that video games constitute art, and are protected by freedom of expression/speech/etc, and that if you want to stop people from buying them, why not tax them and raise the price rather than bogging them down with useless and unconstitutional chains.
  • by Half-pint HAL ( 718102 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @01:24PM (#8499651)
    Young minds do not need violent video games to give them ideas.

    Strictly, no. But games/films/comics/music/novels/plays/operas/philo sophy/politics will give them particular ideas. (Culture is no barrier to corruption.)

    For example, there is an interesting phenomenon in the UK arising from a series of adverts for a Chocolate bar: Cadbury's flake. These adverts involved beautiful women eating the bar rather provocatively. For a man who went through puberty while these adverts were being shown, you can often get a rough estimate of his age by matching his sexual fantasy to a particular Flake advert. Is it the bath advert? The waterfall one? Etc.

    A pubescent boy will have fantasies regardless of what he sees on TV, but what he sees on TV will doubtless affect what those fantasies are. I imagine there's a whole new generation of fantasies based on Lara Croft doing handstands....

    What they need is decent supporting social contexts to show them the alternatives.

    They need that too.

    Be careful of stating "They don't need X, they need Y" as quite often X and Y are complementary and should both be supplied.

    Don't present running down pedestrians as entertainment to 13 year olds while also saying why safe road use is A Good Thing (TM).

    HAL

  • by Ayaress ( 662020 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @01:44PM (#8499901) Journal
    Take them hunting. Peg Bambi in the throat, have the kid help gutting/cleaning it, take him to the butcher's and let him watch as they run the deer through the bandsaw, then give him a nice big slab of venisen. It didn't scare me off of video games (I've probably accumulated the digital blood of billions on my hands since), but it sure scared me off of guns. Either that, or it'll make them a vegitarian.
  • by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @01:52PM (#8500000) Journal
    This proves that more violence doesn't necessarily make a game better.

    Well, that doesn't address the issue of what the game is FOR, now does it?

    If the purpose is to make money, "better" means "make more money". Violence is a tool to attract male teenagers with pocket change in the "young warrior" stage of maturation. So the profit maximization function may include putting as much violence in as possible without getting banned from the arcade.

    If the purpose is to propagandize the player, then it depends on what you want to propagandize him WITH. Violence remains a tool to attract players. But now it must be tied to a propaganda message. Which can be done by the effects of use of violence in gameplay and the situations where using it improves, rather than harms, the score.

    But then the issue becomes "what message do you want to propagate"? Political Correctness? The current legal system's rules? How to be a better warrior?

    The Roman Games were viewed, by the rulers at the time, as a way to (in modern terms) desensitize the Roman population to violent death, in order to make them better soldiers.

    Which brings us back to the fundamentals of US law.

    The choice of "message" in any form of communication or art is a free speech issue. As such it's very heavily protected by the First Amendment. This is because government selection of moral codes is, in the view of the country's founders, more dangerous to the population than letting them select for themselves.

    Violence in video games may not be "nice" according to some moral codes. But limiting communication to a particular set of moral codes is NOT within the government's power.
  • by hambonewilkins ( 739531 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @02:18PM (#8500331)
    My argument is outside of the government. The market has decided the fate of games that are violent or feautre sex just for the sake of sex or violence. People hear they are bad games and stay away. In the case of BMX:XXX... far, far away.

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

  • by thefinite ( 563510 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @02:30PM (#8500469)
    Wether or not its a good game, how do you capture that premise in a satisfying way WITHOUT sex, language, and violence?

    The point that opponents of GTA and other such games would make: Why capture that premise *at all*?
  • Re:Optionally (Score:3, Interesting)

    by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @02:49PM (#8500737)
    Quite frankly, if I were the babysitter I would have summoned the police when the brats started firing at me with pellet guns, if not sooner. Let Mommy explain her negligent parenting behavior to the man with the badge.
  • by Mysticalfruit ( 533341 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @02:54PM (#8500779) Homepage Journal
    You are absolutely on the mark.

    To quote the great Dave Barry:

    "Fortunately, I live in the United States of America, where we are gradually coming to
    understand that nothing we do is ever our fault, especially if it is really stupid."

    In almost every aspect of life, I run into this. People who are unable to take responsibility for their action or inaction. Everything is always everybody else's fault.

    They didn't lose their job because they neve showed up to work on time and then left early and took a two hour lunch. They "quit" because the boss was a hardass.

    Here are some of the other funny ones that I heard lately.

    Some girl is suing the Army because she didn't realize that by signing up, she might have to goto war...

    A guy is suing his two (ex)buddies and a junk yard... The three mensa members decided (after some liquid courage) to go into a junk yard and put a bowling ball on top of a junk yard and take pot shots at it with a handgun. Needless to say, our buddy ended up short an eye over the whole thing... Now why it's the junk yards fault... see statement above...

    It's just amazing and tragic all at the same time.
  • Re:Pulling Games (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ScooterBill ( 599835 ) * on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:20PM (#8501047)
    Yeah violence is violence.

    I had a long email conversation with a member of some religious right group who was trying to justify the invasion of Iraq. This person used quote after quote from the bible showing how God condones the killing of people in the "right" circumstance. However, the quotes in the bible that condemn violence were conveniently forgotten by this person.

    In the end, we all make our own decisions. One person's rational logic is another person's whacko crazy way of thinking.

    "We're not gonna make it, are we?"
    - Terminator II
  • by Jagasian ( 129329 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:25PM (#8501117)
    It is all relative. The original GTA was NOT considered to be a great game by many people, especially the professional game reviewers. I distinctly remember reading professional reviews claim that GTA was a gimmic to sell games as you state about BMX XXX.

    At the time of GTA's release, I couldn't believe how the critics couldn't see the brilliance of GTA.

    Maybe society and culture changes to the point where stuff like GTA becomes acceptable enough to be considered a good game as was the case with the transition from GTA to GTA3.

    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. Also the physics model was improved in GTA3 by going from a 4 point model to an 8 point model. Hence cars could roll in addition to spin out. Other than those relatively evolutionary improvements, the 1st and 3rd in the series are exactly the same game. The both have the same theme, open-ended gameplay, violence, parody, etc...

    Yet the first was a "gimmic" while the third is a "classic"? So society is definitely fickle.
  • > Violence is a tool to attract male teenagers with pocket change in the "young warrior" stage of maturation

    Virtual violence can keep away from stress and real violence.


    I may be adding my Troll 0.02$, but i sometime enjoy playing dumb-ass-violent-idiotic games, becase it often gives me a great stress relief.

    After 5 minutes of carmageddon, i get some good laughing. Playing alien vs predator (which does not refer to real-life violence, but i love speedy good game) while listening to black metal can drain my whole stress away in a quarter hour. Just as instagib q3.
    And after that, i have evacuated all the anger i could have, and i'm again the smiling cute boy my girlfriend is so fond of. Either that or having sex, the result is the same, but video games do not make her eyes shine.
  • by joster ( 516980 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:44PM (#8501330)
    If
    real violence couldn't create that kind of effect, how come video violence is supposed to be a surefire violence trigger?
    I think the difference is in the reality of killing in a war vs. the reality of killing in a computer game. As realistic as the graphics and sound of computer games get, can they really simulate the experience of knowing that you have killed a fellow human being? I think that both in video games and movies, violence is often stylized such that killing people simply looks cool. Consider the lobby scene in The Matrix. Neo and Trinity have lots of guns. There are lots of bad guys with guns. Then in a very slick scene, they "kill" all the bad guys. Now just take a moment to think about killing someone you know. You are alive; He/she is alive. And say, with a knife, you stab them until they are dead. Just writing this is repulsive to me, but I think it expresses my point. To a mature individual, just a moment of thought and imagination is sufficient to know that the idea of killing another person is abhorrent. Now, for someone who is not mature enough to realize this and disconnect the idea of killing people with the fun of running around and shooting bad guys, they can become confused and think that actually holding a gun and shooting people is no different than shooting bad guys in the video game. I think that is how video violence can go wrong.

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Working...