I realize there will be a ton of people disagreeing with me here, but I think people overall are way too touchy when it comes to politics, religion and violence in games.
And I don’t think video game makers should have to be more careful than movie makers. If it’s okay to have in a movie, it’s okay to have it become gameplay.
There IS a big difference between movies and games. Movies are passive, all you do is receiving while games are active and you’re performing actions within a magic circle.
However, they’re both crafts and products created most often as entertainment creating fiction.
Of course, everyone has to be considerate of our cultural rules and the law, even if they differ around the world. But aside from that, I think it IS okay to have a game where you take the role of a sadist out to torture civilians. It might not be for everyone, and it shouldn’t be sold to just anyone, but I don’t think the developers would be doing anything wrong by creating that game.
Developers should also be able to express strong religious opinions in games, but if the game isn’t of that particular culture’s favorite flavor, it would never see the light of day. I’m not saying I’m a big fan of Jihad or whatever, but I wouldn’t be upset if there was a game about it in the shelf of the retailer.
As I experience it, it seems movies can get away with more stuff than games. Maybe because it’s been around longer or maybe because it’s often executed with more skill than games.
I’m not saying I find a lot of pro-Jihad movies on the shelves here either.
Right now there are articles online about how horrible it is that you can kill civilians while trying to infiltrate a terrorist group in Modern Warfare 2. The journalist describe this act as very brutal and awful.
But tell me, why is it more brutal to kill a civilian than a soldier?
Not from the mentioned scene.
Anyway, there would be absolutely no problem with having that scenario in a movie. It could even be called a strong and effective scene. Why should game developers have other social responsibilities?
There’s a poll on Aftonbladet.se, a large Swedish news paper where the question is:
- Should video games be able show terrorist deeds against civilians?
66.4% out of 22557 people voted “Yes, of course”. Another 12.9% said “Yes, if there’s a good reason” while the rest said no.
I’m glad about 80% said Yes and I hope the attitude will spread.
I think game designers have the same social responsibilities as any other person and no stricter “rules” due to the media of gaming. And I think it’s about time people loosened up!
Arcade
Arshak Ardeshir
Gustav Ziolkowski
Severin Brettmeister
Andre Beccu
The only game worth playing is the one where everyone spends all there time trying to please Me. Everything else is a distraction.
I think you are missing a key difference, in that “playing games is learning” and thus designers have to make choices carefully. Also violence in games is presented as a reward and used as a tool to make the player feel more powerful. Movies and books are different that way. Most of the time other media depict violence either in a horrible manner or objectively. Whereas in games, violence is used similarly to dog biscuits.
Little follow-up. There is a huge difference in whether you shoot civillians or soldiers. There is even a difference if you shoot civillians or civillians that attack you.
I see how you mean.
But I think books and movies often use violence as a dog biscuit as well. “Thanks for watching the drama, now, here’s some tasty action and violence for you.”
And I personally don’t agree with you about movies most of the time depicting violence in a horrible manner or objectively. I think it depends a lot on the genre.
However, I totally respect your opinion.
You argument is valid, however it misses the point I was making. The main difference is that while playing games, you learn certain routines that you will eventually internalize. Other than films, games are about doing something and being rewarded for doing it right. In movies violent scenes are not rewarding you for actively doing something. I would even argue that they are not a reward in nature but more of an stimulus that is very pleasing and satisfactory.
I agree with games being active while movies are not, but I don’t think that’s enough of an excuse to slam so hard on games.
Quote: But tell me, why is it more brutal to kill a civilian than a soldier?
A civilian is no or little threat to a soldier. A civilian can’t really fight back or defend themselves. A civilian isn’t involved in anything that would put their life in risk.
A soldier is capable of killing you on sight. A soldier can fight back and defend themselves. A soldier is involved in something that would put his life at risk. A soldier working for some entity which might plan some “evil” deed (bare with me) surely is armed to the teeth and expecting company.
Brutality here is depicted in the cruelty versus an innocent and defenseless entity, such as a civilian, when shot dead or maimed without any particular reason than sick amusement.
Though I do agree with the author, we really need to loosen up.