The Gamer's Dark Side: Bloody-Handed?
[The Aberrant Gamer is a weekly column by Leigh Alexander, dedicated to the kinks and quirks we gamers tend to keep under our hats. However, this special column deals, head on, with the subject of violence in games.]
The year is 1993, and a few kids are at the arcade, playing two-player Mortal Kombat. Sub-Zero versus Sonya, and the ninja’s winning. One of the kids is so small she has to hop up and down in the air to watch the fight, and she often does.
Sub-Zero’s being played by the oldest of them, and the kid’s practiced at this. The onlookers know exactly what’s coming. “Finish her!” They cheer in unison to Sonya’s dizzy swaying. The oldest kid bites his lip, steeling himself on the controls. Everyone’s watching, and he’s gotta do it right.
As Sub-Zero wrenches Sonya’s head from her body with the spine still attached, the oldest emits a guttural cry of triumph. The littlest child hops extra high to view the blood-drenched words spattered across the screen. Fatality.
All the kids squeal with the delight of the kill. My cousins and I.
Gamers had their psychological stability challenged several times in succession in the previous week. First, the American Medical Association decided it would review the classification of “videogame addiction” as a psychiatric disorder (it ultimately refused to classify it as such). Second, the ubiquitous Manhunt 2 debacle—a game so violent that it was essentially deemed by evaluatory boards in multiple countries to be unfit for play by anyone, and the intended consoles themselves refused to carry it. Last, the ESRB effectively yanked montage trailers of the upcoming third-person shooter Dark Sector from various websites, including Filefront.com, due to content they deemed “excessive” and “offensive”—despite the fact that that particular video’s been available for public view since the end of 2006.
Such moves may have wider-reaching implications beyond the immediate—after all, human history has repeatedly demonstrated the peril of the oft-cited slippery slope. The dual implication of the ruling—first, that future games will be policed with close scrutiny to be sure they’re family-friendly, and second, that a ratings board is judging propriety for an entire variegated demographic en masse—raised the hackles of gamers worldwide (as well, perhaps, it should have). Vitriolic message board rants, online petitions and incensed editorials were the norm, as the Manhunt 2 ban brought the concept of de facto censorship right to our door.
But before we make family a dirty word, before we organize ourselves on the defensive, if we are to mount a successful counter-attack, we must come to the discussion table with our minds completely in order.
Back to the nineties—1997, to be exact. I’m fifteen years old and Final Fantasy VII is, for the moment, the living end. My little sister, quite savvy for nine years old, is watching me tap my way through some battles against enemy SOLDIERs, critiquing all the while.
“How come he shot you five times, but Tifa can kill him right away by punching?” I don’t understand that either, but since it works out in my favor, I don’t mind.
“How come when you kill them they just turn red and disappear?” She asks.
“How come there’s no blood?”
Momentarily confounded for an explanation, the best I can do is, “I guess they can’t show that, or something.”
She ponders this, and agrees. “It looks stupid, though,” she says.
It did look stupid. We were no longer in the days when a hop on top of a monster’s head would do the trick. Characters had facial expressions now. We had brimstone and ash; we had dirt and torn clothes. The absence of wounds was simply out-of-place. When we asked for more blood, it was only to such incongruities we were referring. It wasn’t so much we wanted viscera; we merely wanted realism. The confetti of red pixels that erupted from a Resident Evil dog bite, once considered gory, eventually became to our perception artificial enough to interrupt our experience.
Now, we go for the throat, for the head. We’re eviscerating and vivisecting our enemies in increasingly elaborate ways. We’ve got an ice pick. A flamethrower. A chain saw. And melee games evaluate our brutality as we play. Vicious! Insane! Awesome.
The argument in favor of Manhunt 2—and many other more graphic games—is that we’re free to play them without the extra execution. The New York Times, when demoing the game, pointed out that the gratuitous kills are optional.
But then, what would be the point?
The Times also revealed that, as opposed to the basic bat-whacking and glass-stabbing in Manhunt 2 (this is what passes for generic these days), “you can stab him, wrap a cord around his neck, stuff his head in a toilet and smash him on the back of the head.” As the reviewer, Seth Schiesel, pointed out—using the Wii, this means approximating mutilation gestures with your hand at the same time.
Nowadays, game makers would never think of putting something like the bloodless death of Aeris in front of audiences. Many games in that decade provided an alternate play mode for those with a sensitive stomach; control over the level of gore. But those choices are fewer and farther between these days. Could you imagine the commercial success of God of War without the “brutal kill”? True, you don’t need to do them. And aside from the occasional blood-washed excesses, it’s a well-scaled, enjoyably rendered and lovingly designed game. But haven’t you ever deliberately executed the most gratuitous combo to finish an enemy? Because you were frustrated, maybe? Furious?
Or because dismemberment, skull crushing and mutilation killings are just fun?
Games are not reality. What we do in fantasy doesn’t necessarily come to bear on life. But to observe the trend in our medium, our fantasies are getting darker. We say that games don’t increase our aggression, our violent tendencies, and maybe they don’t; maybe they never will. There are plenty of hugely successful games—perhaps even the majority—that have no inclusion of violent conflict at all. But when you’re throwing a man into a wall, twisting a neck, scything someone in the face—and your heart rate is up, and your eyes are wide, and you’re utterly gratified by the pop-crunch-splat—we’ve all been there—it calls for an honest evaluation as to whether we are being affected, and how—if for no other reason than the fact that justifying ourselves blindly does us no credit.
We don’t want abstracted violence, do we. We want our headshots messy and our weapons realistic.
Are we crazy?
Are you sure?
The predominating issue here, of course, is that our fundamental right to choose what we consume should not be infringed. Those uncomfortable with violence in games are free to opt not to play them. But lest we forget, even in the First Amendment, there are limitations—think about, for example, what types of pornography are permitted and which are not, and the reasons behind those restrictions. There is far more permitted in cinema these days than there is in games—as Schiesel points out, the worst scenes in Manhunt 2 were not as “bad” as the Saw series of films. But then, movies don’t require participation, personification.
The idea of anyone else—“families,” ratings boards, et cetera—setting limits for us without our input is patently provocative. Much of it simply comes down to the fact that a stance against our industry is a hot trend in an unstable political climate. But before we defend ourselves with righteousness against the idea that there might be a line somewhere that we’re fast approaching—if the defense we mount is to be at all effective—it’d behoove us to take honest stock of the blood on our hands.
[Leigh Alexander is a blogger at Destructoid and her Sexy Videogameland site, and reviewer for outlets including Paste Magazine. She can be reached at leigh_alexander1 AT yahoo DOT com.]
Comments
Good article.
Posted by: Corey Holcomb-Hockin | June 28, 2007 11:22 AM
Re: "using the Wii, this means approximating mutilation gestures with your hand at the same time."
I just had an "ah ha" moment: what if "using the Wii, you can approximate intimate gestures with your hands or (body part) at the same time?"
What are the chances?
Posted by: Phalligator | June 28, 2007 12:40 PM
Phalligator, you probably could-- but this whole debacle comes down to the issue that Nintendo (and Sony, for that matter) won't carry Adults-Only games on their platform. No mutilation probably also means no... whatever you were thinking. :)
Posted by: Leigh | June 28, 2007 1:10 PM
yeah, I figured. And I really can't imagine those cute little Wiis getting down like that. But it would be cute.
Posted by: Phalligator | June 28, 2007 1:54 PM
This isn't about our right to "choose what we consume," this is about the right to choose what is produced. The AO rating, like the MPAA's NC-17, is being used as a punishment to kill the commercial viability of a product deemed distasteful. People can make and distribute all the violent games they want, but measures like these prevent anyone from making real money off of them and will discourage publishers from pursuing them in the future.
You admit that you don't have a real argument for or against video game violence, but you're willing to imply that your audience is crazy for enjoying it. You compare games not just to pornography, but illegal pornography:
"But lest we forget, even in the First Amendment, there are limitations—think about, for example, what types of pornography are permitted and which are not, and the reasons behind those restrictions."
So, which type of illegal pornography do you think games most resemble? Is this "images of consensual sex banned by state law" illegal or "child pornography" illegal? You don't specify, but you're suggesting we start a discussion by throwing games into one of these pits and trying pull them back out again.
This is a really badly thought-out piece of provocation.
Posted by: jc | June 28, 2007 2:28 PM
Must politely disagree with your interpretation. There's no implication that anyone's crazy-- only, necessarily, that there is no merit in a patent denial without examination.
Also, it was not video games being compared to pornography, but excessive violence and gore (the sort referred to in the film industry as "torture porn").
The implication that we as gamers are responsible for any self-examination at all is a touchy one-- but if we don't do it, then we won't be prepared when others continue trying to nail us to the wall.
Posted by: Leigh | June 28, 2007 4:39 PM
It seems as if this debate involves two arguments: the first is that Adults Only games should be stocked in stores and available on consoles, and the second is that Manhunt 2 should not be rated Adults Only - or rather, that no games should receive this rating.
I don't have much sympathy for the latter argument. And for the first, I think people are directing their anger against the ESRB when that's not where it deserves to go. Those big chains that refuse to stock the game are seeing beyond the short-term profits they'd get from selling Manhunt 2 and other AO titles. In exchange, they get to preserve their brand as 'family friendly'. Same deal for Nintendo. Tales of murder-inspired titles on the Wii aren't going to do much to attract the kinds of customers those Nicole Kidman advertisements are trying to draw in.
It's not about censorship. It's not about politics. It's about capitalism and what is best for the brand image of these companies. It's not something anyone is going to be able to convince Wal-mart or Nintendo to change because brand is of supreme importance to them.
And let's face it. They love this debate. They get to be the upstanding moral citizens that reject this kind of stuff unequivocally. It's amazing PR for them.
I don't think there's anything they could do to Manhunt 2 to lower the rating from AO now, save changing the whole premise of the game. The only place anyone's going to be able to play it is within Rockstar studios, I suspect.
Posted by: Natasha Driver | June 28, 2007 6:06 PM
Fair enough, Leigh, but what exactly are we supposed to do? What does "take honest stock of the blood on our hands" mean?
Whatever it is you want gamers to admit, you run the risk of generalizing that everyone's thinking the same thing. I mean no offense to your then-nine year old sister, but I don't think she's the best metric for the entire gaming population. Last I remember, it's pretty natural for kids to want to be more adultlike by engaging in adult content -- isn't that why we snuck into R-rated movies?
Certainly a lot of people want to see gore in a violent game. Some people might want it to be over the top. Others, however, might think "realistic" blood is played out and unnecessary.
While I couldn't agree more that gamers shouldn't shut down and jump on the defensive about this, I don't think we should throw our hands in the air and admit to being bloodthirsty pack animals either.
Anyway, at least you brought it up.
Posted by: Jared | June 28, 2007 8:12 PM
It'd be cool if they could keep AO-rated games in stores the same way they do "Adults Only" movies-- in a dimly lit, damp pink room behind a beaded curtain, and a depressing man in a flannel shirt keeps kids from getting a peek.
Posted by: Leigh | June 28, 2007 8:13 PM
I dig this argument - I agree that disturbing games should disturb us. We can want violence - I still laugh when I think about John Travolta and Samuel Jackson having to clean up that car in "Pulp Fiction." But there's a tendency among gamers to say that the ESRB is off-base - which they're not - or that nobody should get upset about violent content, e.g., "OMG, it's only a game, it doesn't matter if I run over all these old ladies and shoot everybody. These aren't real people." If acting like a sociopath has that little impact on you, then at the very least, there's something wrong with the game.
(See also "Saint's Row.")
I've given up on ever seeing AO games on consoles, though. Or (unvetted) indie games, or other unconventional games. It's all part of the same problem - the manufacturers choose to restrict their licenses. But that's why we have the PC.
Posted by: Chris Dahlen | June 28, 2007 9:20 PM
I think it brings the question of why do we play games really? I never played the first Manhunt and never had any interest to. Where I've played games with killing many, many times, that was always the means to the goal, instead of in Manhunt where it really is the goal. Not an obstacle to overcome, so that in turn puts an added weight on the actual death.
Then I don't enjoy the 'torture porn' vein of horror movies. They seem utterly pointless.
Posted by: Aaron | June 28, 2007 11:25 PM
There is something I don't get about the whole AO debate. Basically it's about "M"/Mature that means 17+, with possible nudity/gore/blood/violence etc. gets sold in stores, and apparently AO (which is the same as "M", just more 'intense') can't because its 18+? (Or at least have more trouble putting it up shelves). Isn't the time that only youngsters buy games long past? If salesmen actually be stricter with selling, like lets say alcohol or cigarettes (weird to put them in the same line as games), I would support that. You shouldnt be able to take AO rating games at home as a 14 year old. And if the 14 year old still wants to play it, he probably still could, over at a friends house or etc. same way he could get cigarettes etc.
There shouldnt really be sales restrictions upon AO rated games imo, if M is sold as well. The ESRB should draw a clear line between M and AO, and let the consumer decide what to buy.
Posted by: Maurice | June 29, 2007 12:59 AM
It's funny how all this attention gets thrown at Take Two and Rockstar, as if they are the only ones putting out games worthy of this debate. I'm not talking about this forum, of course, and I found it refreshing that both God of War and Saint's Row were brought up. It's nice to know one is not alone in his analysis.
I think what Leigh tried to say is that we need to look at the breadth of work in gaming before we can coherently defend a game that is under attack by people outside this well defined bubble we live in. The argument falls apart from the side of banning or de facto censoring Manhunt 2 when you look at all the other titles freely available on the market. Consequently, our argument that Manhunt 2 should live and die by the people's choice is weakened, not by our so called "bloodthirsty" state of mind, but by the fact we have those other games and we will continue to have violent games. Plus, these statements mean absolutely nothing to a non-profit lobbying group hell bent on getting their names in the papers. You cannot argue with people holding single minded agendas.
All in all, I don't think this is going to create some sort of chilling effect. I personally think this is just another saga in the long, tired fight against Rockstar and Take-Two. Maybe it is that Rockstar is made up of mavericks whose singular purpose is to push the buttons of politicians and "moral" people. Maybe not, but see what happens if Grand Theft Auto 4 gets an AO rating. I think the outcry will be louder if that were to happen.
Before I forget, good article, Leigh. Glad to see the ADD hive mind at Destructoid hasn't corrupted you completely. (I kid. . .or do I?) ;-)
Posted by: Dave | June 29, 2007 6:36 AM
Dave,
Aww, be nice!
And yes, that's what I was getting at, if a bit sensationally. Thank you!
Posted by: Leigh | June 29, 2007 9:35 AM
I would disagree with the comment that our fantasies are becoming darker. Our fantasies have always been both light and dark for as long as we have had them. The problem is that now we possess the technology to portray those dark fantasies more realistically.
Combine that with this ridiculous notion that an adult dominated medium enjoyed primarily by adults should refrain from exploring adult themes and you can easily explain the outcry.
The average gamer is 33. There is no reason for the industry to be infantilised for a minority of its user-base. Especially since, and I am constantly amazed by the infrequency of this information, there are parental controls on the Wii, the PS3 and the 360.
To suggest that the only way to keep games out of the hands of children is an 'AO' rating and relegating them to "a dimly lit, damp pink room behind a beaded curtain, and a depressing man in a flannel shirt keeps kids from getting a peek" like pornography is only going to reinforce the idea that videogames are a child's medium and prevent it from growing into the adult medium it can become.
Posted by: Number Three | June 29, 2007 1:07 PM
Leigh,
If you want to sit with the "cool" kids, that's totally on you. I'm not slighting you for it; in fact I think you bring a bit of class to the joint. I'm just saying, I prefer to get my news with a little less high school/college snark. Plus, being Rickrolled 3 times a week is not my cup of tea.
Wait, this totally should have gone private, shouldn't it have? I am soooo bad with public decorum. ;)
Posted by: Dave | June 29, 2007 1:17 PM
I really don't think the issue is a psychological one. I think the progression described in the OP is more a factor of a growing medium trying to cast off a stigma of being "kid's stuff" that still exists among the elder audiences; a stigma that is in truth at the very heart of vidgame censorship debate.
It's wrong headed of course, these days the 18-34 crowd are the biggest audience for games, or at least the "core" audience intended by quite a few releases. But to an older generation, when you say video games, they think of it as a kid's toy, and it is unfortunately that older generation that tends to sit in Congress. There was an excellent episode of the Daily Show that I wish I had a link for, where Stewart played a montage of various statements from the Senate floor made by politicians on the vidgame censorship issue, and the sheer volume of cluelessness was incredible.
Maybe what this indistry needs is a real Frank Zappa. And a rating system that more resembles the Parental Advisory sticker on CDs, than the overly political bureaucracy presented by the MPAA or the Comics Code.
For my own part, I have "examined myself" on the issue of the psychology of it, and I just don't see it. I've been playing video games since I was a lad, and a fair number of them were quite violent. I remember sitting in front of the tube iwth a Gamepro in hand testing all the fatalities in Mortal Kombat II.
And yet I've grown up one of the most ardent pacifists I know. I find the concept of using violence in the real world to be utterly distasteful, and even downright juvenile. Whether it's the thickheaded drunks at the local pub who spend the whole night looking for fights, or a government that seeks to solve it's resource problems by bombing innocent civilians, I see violence as something we as a species are supposed to grow out of. It's childish nonsense that shouldn't even be entertained by reasoning, civilized adults as a real solution to any real world problem.
So yeah, personal experience does not equal reality for all parties concerned, but it remains that my own personal experiences and belief sit pretty nicely with the notion that these games are not somehow inherently dangerous.
It's all a matter of realizing the difference between fantasy and reality, and forgetting that line is a damgerous path to take. It is forgetting that line that DOES produce actual real world violence from video games, and yet somehow you seem to be suggesting that we ignore it completely in your thesis here, which is frankly ridiculous.
Video games are not real life, any more than movies are, or TV is, or roleplaying games are, and learning how to seperate the reality from the fantasy is one of the most fundamentally important mental skills we must develop in an era saturated with entertainment media of a dizzying variety.
And the lack of recognition of it's importance is another of the aspects that creates the furor over vidgame censorship, in that it is a lesson that I think is not as well understood by the older generations. This lack of understanding feeds into the debate because a lot of the people out for blood are deliberately ignoring the importance of this comprtmentalization, because treating the events of a video game as equivalent to real action helps bolster their attacks.
Really there's a lot of similarities to be drawn between the vidgame issues, and the anti-D&D movement in the 70s and 80s, in that at the heart of the matter, it wasnt' the players who were mistaking fantasy for reality, but the MADD types and the fundamentalists who actually seemed to believe that a simple game of wizards and dragons and, yes, the occasional cartoonish demon, somehow resembled real life occultism.
So really, I think all this article serves to do is muddy the waters of the debate, and misdirect the conversation down avenues that are ignored for good reason, and potentially feed into the very psycholgical errors that fuel the political opportunists who seek to attack gaming on a regular basis.
Posted by: J Arcane | June 29, 2007 6:31 PM
Our fantasies have gotten darker, really? It's only been a tiny slice of time since public executions were basically a form of mass entertainment, even if veiled as a moral lesson to would-be wrong doers. Consider the many bloodsports humans have indulged in over time. We've really only had a brief half century or so of bizarrely sanitized lifestyle.
Just looking over a catalog of historical execution methods, some still used up to the 18th and 19th century. Even if not overtly "entertainment," you must have a pretty heinously twisted psyche to come up with some of that stuff.
I agree that we need to be AWARE and in control of this side of ourselves. The greatest risk IMO is to repress it or pretend it doesn't exist. How do you control what you don't understand? Fantasy/play is fundamental in resolving these things with the *proper framework*
Posted by: jlamb | July 26, 2007 10:12 AM