Videogames, Violence, and Cultural Conundrums

Civil peace activists scored another victory today against the enemies of public health. Earlier this morning, legislators passed a bill mandating government take-over of all remaining videogame entertainment companies. The passage came as another blow to the gross supporters of free enterprise for “game development”. Rita Rosnec, a prominent lobbyist for AFCM (Americans for Clean Minds), proposed the bill early last year and received a wealth of support. Since then, Rosnec has become the leading spokesperson in the war on videogames and game entertainment. Speaking to reporters today, Rosnec said that “We are approaching a golden age of safe, secure, nonviolent freedom for our youth”.

            This development comes after a long line of other gains over “gamer culture”. Two years ago, the federal government successfully implemented a license system for the ownership and usage of gaming systems and software. Three years before that, in 2015, the government ordered that videogames featuring violence of any kind be automatically given an 18+ rating by the ESRB. In recent years, it has become a misdemeanor for kids to play games outside of their age rating, and a punishable offence for stores and suppliers to sell videogame material to unlicensed individuals. All across the nation, parents have been rejoicing with the newfound control the government has taken over videogames.

            The victories were strictly in the electronic sphere, either. Arguably corruptive “pen-and-paper” games have seen their own share of regulation. Since the 1980s, parents have expressed dissatisfaction at the notions of children playing games like Dungeons and Dragons or Shadowrun. Such activities, which require “roleplaying”, or assuming the personality and demeanor of imaginary monsters, sent red alerts to active mothers. Plenty of responsible groups, including parent-teacher associations and church societies, realized the harmful effects of such games on the minds and emotions of youth. However, the push against these “pen-and-paper” games had to wait until gains against more modern entertainment to be acknowledged. Now, only adults are permitted to play such loathsome things as D&D, and they are obligated by law to alert neighbors of the fact they are players.

            The future looks bright for the U.S as stricter control is exercised over such brash and reckless means of entertainment as videogames. Rosnec, speaking at an AFCM rally last month, declared that “We as a people are entering a brighter society. The shining minds of our young are clean of the filth that once proceeded from such devilish works as games”. When an attendee of the rally brought up the low decrease in violence over the past five years, Rosnec challenged that “The effects of our work will take time to notice. First we must remove the blade. Only then can we heal”. To this, Rosnec received great applause.

            Even individuals not thoroughly immersed in gaming culture understand its impact on society. Since the late 20^th century, games have emerged as valid and engaging modes of entertainment for the public. While the first few years of may have seen the proliferate use of terms like “geek” and “nerd” to describe a rather aloof cultural group, gamers today endure no such separation. Now, in 2013, videogames are widely accepted, with both old and young citizens finding commonalities in their love of franchises like Pokemon, World of Warcraft, and Minecraft. Even tabletop games like Dungeons and Dragons or Warhammer have assumed more familiar, if not as popular, places in modern society. Of course, the issue explored in the hypothetical future above is not the cultural relevance of games, but the cultural impact of violent games.

            Anyone remotely engaged in videogame news and reports has seen the way modern media reporters treat games. Any time a violent shooting or incident occurs, especially in relation to young children, a common scapegoat for the whole affair becomes videogames. As news outlets churn out coverage after coverage of some unfortunate event, the idea of “violent videogames corrupting society’s minds” seems to take precedent over more pressing concerns. Barely twenty-four hours passed after the recent shooting in Washington, D.C before reporters were trying to link the gunman to excessive videogame consumption. Several weeks ago, when a young child was found to have shot his old caretaker with a handgun, the issue that surfaced was not “Why did the child have access to a handgun?” but rather “The child was playing Grand Theft Auto IV at time of incident”. Sensationalism and scare-media have become core tenets of news coverage, giving rise to quick and thoughtless scape-goating in order to garner views.

                This is not to say that videogames are not violent. Certainly, the new generation of videogames has seen an explosion of narratives and gameplay that are wholly focused on violent conflict (Gears of War, Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed, etc). Such franchises are also incredibly popular in the market, and thus their influence and pervasiveness cannot be doubted. “The Agony and the Exidy: A History of Video Game Violence and the Legacy of Death Race”, an article on gamestudies.org, explores violent videogames and their societal impacts. In discussing current sales, the article says “the ESRB reported that only 5% of the games rated by the board received an M, or ‘Mature’ rating, but five of the ten top-selling games that year were rated M (Narcisse, 2011). All five of these M-rated top sellers – Call of Duty: Black Ops, Halo: Reach, Red Dead Redemption, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood – received their M-rating largely for violence (Kocurek).” Despite the relatively smaller classification of mature, violent games, public consumption seems to indicate its preference for such titles. The article continues on to make a rather insightful observation, that it “is worth noting as these games continue to adhere to acceptable discussions of violence and are by degrees less controversial than the transgressive violence depicted in Death Race, Carmageddon, and the GTA franchise (Kocurek).”

            There lie within the passage two points worth particular consideration: that our modern society possesses acceptable discussions of violence, and that some, but not all, videogames adhere to these discussions. In discussing violence with regards to ethical necessity, as in the case of a Western like Red Dead Redemption, or in the case of military action, as in Call of Duty or Halo, videogames are permissible. However, when a videogame begins to portray violence in the more wanton and criminal sense, such as in Grand Theft Auto, then society feels compelled to speak out against the fact. Society does seem to possess certain prejudices towards portrayals of violence (and actual acts or causes of violence). Yet these prejudices do appear to hold up across mediums.

            For instance, Pulp Fiction is a film which features violence within a fairly criminal and lawless sense. The Godfather is another film which features criminal violence. I select these two movies specifically due to their popularity and their usage of less-traditional protagonists.  When people watch such films, they are experiencing a violent narrative from the perspective of, by society’s standards, the bad guys. Certain television series, such as Sons of Anarchy, exhibit similar characteristics. Yet general tolerance of the violence seems to plummet when the narrative becomes interactive with the consumer (a la videogames).

            Based on this information, public treatment of violent videogames seems to be spurred from the interactivity. For many people, there is the experience of watching a thug beat up a bloodied innocent, and then there is the experience of controlling the thug. Perhaps there is some form of guilt or disgust that swells within certain people who play violent games, unable to separate digital worlds from reality. Yet the real issue, and the reason why so many individuals from outside of gamer culture react negatively towards violent games, is with other people, not themselves. A fear exists that other individuals, other gamers, play violent videogames to relish in the violence, to gain some thrill from it. Or, certain gamers may be unable to separate digital worlds from reality for the wrong reasons, and their sense of morals or ethics dissolves into a bloodlust for their fellow man.

Such was the case when the media discovered that Adam Lanza, of the Sandy Hook Massacre, played videogames. The same allegation has been placed on the Washington, D.C gunman. By being allowed to interact with violent worlds, to carry out violent actions vicariously through in-game avatars, these individuals become aggressive monsters. So the headlines read their tired, fear-mongering titles of “Videogames to Blame”. Kotaku, a media site dedicated to gamer culture, consistently reports on social, political, or economic events regarding videogames. One article, “Before Violent Video Games, There Were Just Plain Violent Games”, covers a Youtube video authored through PBS which discusses violence as part of our culture. The Kotaku article sums up that “games—be they contested on fields, playing boards or game consoles—either involve or allegorize violence (Good).” Thousands of youth compete and perform in violent athletics which feature high states of aggression (football, lacrosse, wrestling). But, I admit, there is a line to be drawn between the violence in athletic competition and the depiction of manslaughter in an interactive medium.

            The idea that certain individuals may be negatively impacted by violent videogames is worth attention. Some people may not possess completely sound minds which enable immersion in violent acts and conflict. The perpetrator of the Aurora shooting in Colorado, James Holmes, was evidently in need of emotional or mental aid, and depictions of violence, as in the Dark Knight trilogy, did not help his fragile state. Of course, he also stockpiled an absurd amount of weaponry and volatile substances. Where then are we led to scrutinize? Violent entertainment, public health, arms limitations? There is no easy, sure-fire solution to ending the violent outbursts which the U.S has been witness to in recent years.

            If society is largely in fear of violent videogames, then we have bigger concerns than the next installment of Grand Theft Auto. Games are not meant for everyone. A ratings system exists for a reason. A parent who lets their child play Call of Duty without any comprehension of the game, its gameplay, or narrative, is no better than one who lets their child watch Saw, or play with matches. Mature games exist for mature audiences. Yet what do we do when the mature audience cannot handle the game? Certainly do not blame the game, at least not blindly. For the sheer magnitude of people who play games, you would think mass shootings might occur every day with such logic as Fox News or CNN possess. Can there be gross representations of violence in videogames? Absolutely, just as there are gross representations of violence in film and literature (not so much as in television, though The Walking Dead may have a word on that). Unfortunately, videogames are a new form of medium in society, and their place is yet to be determined, their definitions still to be made. The unsure nature of games leaves them open to a society hungry for easy answers to truly complicated questions.

Works Cited

Good, Owen. “Before Violent Videogames, There Were Just Plain Violent Games.” Kotaku.        Gawker, n.d. Web. 22 Sep. 2013.

Kocurek, Carly. “The Agony and the Exidy: A History of Videogame Violence and the Legacy   of Death Race.” Game Studies. Game Studies, n.d. Web. 22 Sep. 2013