Video games are rarely viewed in the best light by society. They've had more than their share of controversy thrown at them over the years; one example was the recent Mass Effect “SEXBOX" controversy over a brief sex scene in a thirty-plus hour game. People assumed the worst, even going as far as to say it was a "virtual orgasmic rape" simulator. The media often portrays video games as devices designed to corrupt children, and whenever the topics of childhood violence, social ineptitude, or addiction are brought up, fingers point to video games as the cause. As Daniel Floyd says in his video, “When controversy arises, our opposers don’t look at a game studio and see a team of artists, they see a team of toy makers that have gone too far.”
During Daniel’s video he spoke at length about a game that recently came under fire called “Six Days in Fallujah,” a third person shooter from Atomic Games about the second battle of Fallujah. The game was originally to be published by Konami, but when it was revealed, many decried the game as disrespectful to those who died in that battle; the height of bad taste. Konami quickly bailed and Atomic was left without a publisher. However, if Konami thought that this game was in poor taste, why did they give it the green light? They had to know it would stir some controversy, so why did they back off at the first sign of criticism? Daniel's take; “By caving in, you validate all of the accusations. You have legitimized slander founded and ignorance, and you guarantee a larger outcry the next time you consider a project like this."
“These games are not being judged by their content,” Floyd says, “they are judged because they are games.” He points out that other forms of media, such as books and movies, have explored difficult subjects such as war, genocide, sexuality and hatred with great success; these artists dare to show humanity’s dark side. “They venture into uncomfortable territories and find the truth hidden within. This is the stuff art is made of. What is it about games that disqualify them from exploring this harsh territory?” Until games are taken seriously, we will never be able to see their true potential as a respected form of media and art. To achieve this we must stand up for our medium, be open to criticism, and embrace what games have become and what they will be.
So what do you think? Do video games have the potential to be something more than what they are now? Do you think that they should be able to touch on dark subject matter that many other forms of media have touched upon? Do you believe that video games can ever be respected on the same level as movies, plays, or literature?
Charles (CoRn)
Thanks to CoRn for his submission!
ReplyDeleteVideo games don't currently get the respect they deserve because of the stereotypical view the media has; that video games are silly and childish. While some books and movies that touch upon similar subjects can even be considered art; video games are seen as just a hobby. The outrage and uproar from the gaming community is the equivalent of screaming "Stop treating us like children." The media has to remember that the gamers who grew up with the NES and the Atari 2600 are now in their 30's and 40's and have kids of their own. Why is 6 Days in Fallujah considered disrespectful when movies are allowed to feature, war, sex, violence, drugs, and rape? An R-rated movie and an M-rated game are the same thing; meant for a consumer who can handle that type of content. Mass Effect is an M-rated game. That means if you are not 17, you can't buy it. So why does the media blame the game for its content? The blame should be on the parents that buy the game for their kids. It says right there on the box "Contains sexual content". These same parents see their kids playing the game they bought for them, and irrationally blame the video game for a half-minute scene they could find an equivalent of on TV. Unfortunately, I don't see the media swaying its views on video games anytime soon, but hopefully the growing gamer community will one day rise up and give game developers the honor and respect they deserve as innovators and artists.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Video Games are treated so poorly just cause of their own title. "Video Games." ..."Games" they arn't books or abstract art or anything that the common man views as art. Of course games can and are childish. But thats why we have the ESRB(Even though I have a disdain towards them)exist. Its there to give the general public an idea of what kind of audience its for. If a game is rated M for Mature, I believe it should be viewed with a mature outlook. Not that its a kiddish game. Or that it should be automatically hated for its rating. Like Fried Gold said parents and kids are warned before they even buy the game what they're getting into. But, you can turn on the news and here about how a man killed his wife and ran off leaving his newborn child in a room full of smoke cause the father was drunk or high. Did the news caster warn you that the following segment would contain such graphic and violent imagery? No, of course not cause they need ratings they're just gonna keep telling you to tune in at 11 for their special report. Thankfully, many people do see Video games as art and have earned themselves a spot amongst the three newest forms of art being Cinema,Comics,and Television. Video games and its culture have earned a right to be were they are. So they shouldn't be punished for wanting to delve into a real human topic. Taking into consideration the above title “Six Days in Fallujah,” and how people were offended by it because it was "disrespectful to those who died in that battle;" Did we hammer on Infinity Wars for Modern Warfare? Or any other war game. The thing is, there are over 6 billion people in our world we call earth. Someone is going to get offended. But what they should do is handle it like an adult and simply back away from it. Not boycott it or try and lynch the developers.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that video games absolutely have a right to cover "dark" material. Obviously the game will get a higher rating, but that's what the rating system is for: to let people know how "mature" the content of a game is. Most people these days ignore ratings, and pretty much forget they exist (from what I've seen), which is what I believe leads to this view of video games. Because people ignore the ratings, they think that it's the fault of the game for showing them or their kids things they didn't expect to see, when if they'd read the rating they'd have known to avoid the game.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I think that causes this is that "game" implies something simple, fun and clean, like Monopoly or duck duck goose. What the average non-gamer doesn't seem to fully realize is that games are simply another form of media, with different genres and different levels of maturity to them. In short, I think that most people subconsciously label a "game" as something that should be clean and non-provoking entertainment, and are then appalled when the game is something else.
I think the media hates games because games give an interactive medium which TV, books, films, whatever, can't deliver. It's a kind of jealousy and you try to flaw everything about what your jealous of. Ever god damn Pong was critisized for being brain-washing. It was 2 bars and some bouncing pixels! But, because you can control it and play with it, everyone it would overtake their medium in popularity. As games have progressed, there have been more things to flaw like sex, guns and drugs use, yet this can all be seen in films.
ReplyDeleteI think I might have started blabbing at the end. I don't read my own typing. Who do you think I am, a guy with a point?
I think video games get more criticism for "harsh" content than other media because people assume, however right or wrong, that video games are mainly geared toward children. No one would balk at a show about the Nazis on The History Channel, but animate that exact content and try to air it on Cartoon Network.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that a violent video game begets violent behavior; I believe that people prone to violent behavior are also prone to buy a violent video game.
I think the media sees video games as a toy. Rather I (and many gamers may agree) think they are a media device. When A game touches on a contreversial topic it is declared as inappropriate child's toy (like prostitute accesories to a MR. Potato head), rather than another portrayal of story. In film there will always be a romance aspect (including sex or not) so why isn't it acceptable for a game. I think this is why Mass Effect 2 is so great, everything has plot to it in that game (more plot then some movies due to amount of choices given to you). If you were to break it down, games are just like a movie or television, the diffrence being is that you control the character (or in case of pong: paddles). I also feel why games r seen as a toy is because of their origin, games that based around challenge, Pong had no story, just two children competing, and still today there are online shooter like COD or TF2 who are primarily shooters that are based on competition. Which leads to another point: violence. The fact that teen violence is being blamed on COD is ludicrous. Band of Brothers: extremely violent movie, SAW a more gore intensive movie (U think those child shooter never saw movies like those). Music also has taken violence, what with rappers singing (rapping or what ever the "gangstas" like to call it) about getting high, shooting cops, and impregnating girls (not blaming rap for societies problems). Even Metal, extremely violent music.
ReplyDeleteSo I think games have the right to dive into mature content, and more games like Fable and Mass Effect should be encouraged along with those plot less (or in case of COD, minimally plot driven) competition games. Phew that wuz a lot of typing
There is a bit of a double standard here, but I think there is a decent reason for it. Essentially it is the fact that video games are still a new medium and in general people are still unsure what potential it has.
ReplyDeleteThink about movies. When a new movie is coming out that will take place during a real war, people inevitably think about previous movies that do this very well, eg Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan. There is no pre-release controversy because people already know that movies can present this subject matter very effectively.
With video games, however, there isn't much to go on. The average person hears about a game that will take place in a horrifically violent time or that will have a cinematic sex scene and they think of... well, probably GTA, to be honest. There simply aren't enough (well known) examples of such subject material in video games where the general public is comfortable with assuming that it will be presented well. Throw in the already mentioned preconceptions involving the medium's interactive aspects and that it is aimed at kids and there's no wonder that people are getting upset.
What is to be done about this? Well I think the game should come out, of course. Time has proven that the works people want to see the least are the ones they need to see the most. If people continue to express themselves through video games I am sure that acceptance in some form will gradually take root.
(Note: I'm not much of a movie buff so I don't really know how well the first war movie or sex scene was taken. Knowing how people think, however, it should be safe to assume there were similar controversies.)
(Also note: I know my comments so often come back to the notion that video games can be art, but as these discussions deal with the "culture of video games" I think this is inevitable.)
I'm at a bit of a loss in terms of whether Video Games will become an accepted form of media. It seems to me that the main difference between something like movies and video games is the ability to teach. Movies let you sit back and think about the plot and dwell over moral lessons, whereas Video Games (especially multiplayer games) are more similar to playing a sport: They teach you strategy, coordination and teamwork, which you can't learn from watching a film. However, movies have something that Video Games can't bring to the table. Documentary films. For example, a WWII documentary is going to teach you the course of battles, Important events and multiple perspectives. A WWII Video Game probably won't teach you the history of WWII. Sure, you might be placed in a historically accurate team in a historically accurate setting, but you probably won't learn much outside of the names of battles, the weapons used and the outcome. I think the real tipping point will be when games become a lot more immersive. Immersive to the point that you forget you're holding a controller. Imagine that you're watching that documentary, but instead of the host just telling you about a battle, you're in a huge simulation of the battle, and there are commentary nodes placed around the battlefield. You may not be able to be harmed, and you may not be able to harm the other soldiers, but it would nonetheless a harrowing experience. This level of immersion brings up another problem, however: despite being able to combine the lessons of a movie, teachings of a documentary and coordination of a video game all in one package, anything with T-rated content or higher will be smashed with a mighty fist of outrage from the media and public. Making video games more immersive is a tightrope walk of death, but as far as I can see, it's the only way that video games can stand up and, in the media's eyes, become something greater than, well, just a game....
ReplyDeleteMan, I knew one of these days this argument was gonna come out on the show. Oh well, here we go.
ReplyDeleteGaming is an art form. Yes, I said it, yes, I know it sounds crazy, but it truly is. As I've said in earlier comments that I've made, games can A. Send a message towards the player, and B. Leave an impact on the player. Now think about other forms of art. Especially.. well art. What is the one thing that it's made to do? Stir up controversy. If gaming is going to succeed as the art form that I think it will, there's going to need to be a game or two that breaks boundaries, and tries to take chances. If nobody takes chances, games will remain the same. And that's exactly what Atomic is doing: Even with all of the media attention that it will get (and trust me, it will), the developers won't stop making it. Why? Well, A. Because they want to make money, and B. Because it's their game, damn it. They want to use the gaming medium as a way of expression. And, even though its controversial, expression is a backbone for not only advancing gaming, but advancing society itself. (Deep for a 16 year old, eh? :3)
If games want respect, they gotta earn it. Just like movies and music have, games just haven't broken out yet. Games need their metaphorical "Citizen Kane", if you will. "But Freky," you say, "what about the Wii? Hasn't that helped in spreading games out to a wider audience?" Well, you're half right. While it has helped people who would never play games to start playing games, the Wii has been loaded with a bunch of party game trash and cart racers lately. (And I'm a Nintendo fanboy, and I'm still willing to admit that). That isn't what makes gaming great in my opinion. Games that are able to send a message, tell an alluring story, or just have the ability to be questioned from a non-gaming standpoint are the ones that are considered classics. Party games and kart racers don't do this. They're mindless trash that people throw around to get a couple of bucks. Don't get me wrong, I love Mario Kart as much as the next guy, but it clearly isn't using the medium to it's greatest potential. I think a perfect example for the game I'm describing is Bioshock. Alluring story, stunning visuals, and a powerful message to boot.
But, do I think that in 30 years gaming will be as big as movies from a message sending standpoint?
No.
Those games like Bioshock come once in a blue moon. We rarely see games with any kind of a compelling story, impressive message, or what have you. All we're giving to the unaware public are mindless shooting rampage games, complex RPGs with sexually confused preteens, and people spending every waking moment of their lives leveling WoW characters. For gaming to become a respected storytelling medium, developers need to start taking risks. Which is why I like what Atomic is doing. When you get in a routine, it's hard to break out of it, sure, but when you break out of it, you can have experiences that you never would have dreamed of. So, long story short, if the industry doesn't start taking chances like Atomic, we're not going to move forward; we're just going to be stuck in neutral.
-Freky
Games are NOT movies. Movies are movies.
ReplyDeleteI think we are going the wrong way making games more "cinematic".
Gaming is a way to tell a story, but in games there is something that does not exist in movies: gameplay.
Should developers try to outdo movie directors with great stories, a profession with a lot of history or should they do something new, make games that can do what movies can't?
Story is all good, but stories are in many cases better told in a more static and less interactive medium.
I read what Freky said and I see a problem there.
You are thinking about the future of games the same as the history of movies and music.
I think that the “Citizen Kane” of gaming will be when we have decent AI, creating a story depending on your reactions and choices. You could have close to an infinite amount of endings. Then developers can worry about the most important thing, making it fun to play.
As long as the offending part doesn't ruin the game/is good part of it. WHO THE FUCK CARES?!?
ReplyDeleteI think that if example there is sex scene in Mass Effect 2. Only small percentage of players thinks that it is offending. If somebody thinks that he/she is a idiot that should not play games.
I think that the biggest problem is for the people that doesn't play games, doesn't know what games even are. They like to whine how bad games are and so on.
I think content in video games can be anything, as long as it is good game.
On all this talk of story in games, I have to throw in my sixteen and one-third pennies.
ReplyDeleteSure, sometimes good story can pull me into a game. Call of Duty 4 had a great single-player story that really pulled me in, and the gameplay kept me there. However, I also find Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts for the 360 tons of fun, and there's virtually no story to that game. I just love it for the gameplay (and because I played B-K as a kid). Games don't need story and shouldn't rely heavily on it unless they have the good gameplay they need to back it up. I don't usually find story-heavy games to be very fun.
[...] NoG Blog: The Respect that Games Deserve [...]
ReplyDeletesure but they supply endless stimuli and fun and attachment to a delightful community. and to those who miss to interrupt my bliss, go f**k yourself, this is my vice, don't ruin it for everyone just cause your kid is a freak and you don't want to blame yourself as a parent!
ReplyDeleteTwo comments:
ReplyDeleteFirst, with regards to the Grand theft auto example being the problem for serious games, the difference is Grand theft auto IS intended for fun. It IS a "game".
My issue with the game about fallujah, is that I don't think it should be called a "game".
There is nothing in the definition of movie that brings along "having fun". "Game" on the other hand does. A "game" about Fallujah is offensive if it is a GAME.
In most cases, (but not all) creativity leads to controversy.
ReplyDelete