Redefining “Violent” Games

What’s one of the most violent video games ever?

Screenshot of Stage 1 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After the jump (if you’re on the homepage) I’ll be posting a review of this game by Classic Game Room that demonstrates that point, and it got me thinking again about what terms we use to describe video games and why the wrong terms are not helping the debate over “violent video games” at all. For either side.

What’s that you say? “Dig Dug isn’t violent”? The game has you dropping boulders on monsters when you’re not inflating them to death with your pump while avoiding being roasted alive and…whatever the heck Pookas do to kill you. See, the term “violent” has been misused, much like “simulator”. You know what else is violent?

• The Three Stooges
• The Looney Tunes/Merry Melodies
• old black and white Mickey Mouse cartoons
• Mighty Mouse
• Charlie Chaplin shorts

The first level of Bugs Bunny’s Birthday Blowout, depicting Bugs standing on a floating platform above harmful spikes. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

All of them feature violent acts done against other sentient beings, but all are done comically and over the top. We don’t think about how violent they are…except for the kind of do-gooders parodied by Marge in that one Simpsons episode who thought the squeaky clean world of Demolition Man was a dream come true. If they were willing to watch a violent movie with Silvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes. And yet, when those are targeted we laugh at the weirdos and move on. Why?

I’m no psychiatrist and I have a few issues with the psychological community at times, but my guess is it isn’t the depiction of violence that’s the problem, it’s how that violence is depicted. Compare Dig Dug or Donkey Kong (where the end has you dropping a giant monkey from 3 stories to land on his head after he tried tossing fireballs and barrels to kill you) to Grand Theft Auto or Mortal Kombat. What’s the difference? Gore, blood, and in GTA’s case a positive depiction of crime…for the most part.

I’ve said before that first person shooters are technically “murder simulators” or at least “killing simulators” since all the guys your mowing down are bad guys, monsters, and other threats. However, I also said that what they are NOT are “murder TRAINERS!”. I’ve given the example of the kids playing a Navy SEALs game against actual SEALs and the kids coming out the victor even though they wouldn’t last five minutes on a SEALs’ turf. Holding a game controller, even a light gun or Wiimote adapter, is a lot different from using a real gun. Even Airsoft guns don’t have the same kind of recoil, although I can’t vouch for maintenance.

View from cab in OpenBVE Train Simulator (Photo credit: DanieVDM)

There is a difference between a simulator and a training simulator. Go to a flight school or the right air museum and give their trainer a go. Then hit an arcade (if you can find one) and play After Burner. Then go play Microsoft Flight Simulator at home. Notice a huge difference? Different skills are required on each platform and only the simulator is close to teaching you how to fly an actual plane. And even then you need actual flight time with an instructor to be able to operate it in the air. That’s why the 9/11 terrorists had to go to a flight school to learn how to get a plane even close to their targets instead of using that flight game in Google Earth.

At the same time, violence isn’t the “problem” with video games. Take away the blood and there’s no difference between Contra and Gears Of War outside of difficulty levels and camera position. (And the fact that Contra somehow used more colors despite being on a less powerful gaming console.) Compare the classic NES version of Ninja Gaiden with the recent X-Box or Playstation versions and there’s a huge difference in how characters die. (Also in the female companion, but that’s another article. The new gals are a far cry from Irene.) It isn’t the violence because that hasn’t changed. It’s the level of blood, which spurts out in ways no body in the real world does, how limbs go flying, and how gory it is.

That said, I still maintain that these images do not drive people to violence. Look at how many game players there are playing M-Rated games. (“M” is the “R” of video games.) If Assassin’s Creed drove people to become assassins instead of being  a way to blow off steam after a hard day we’d have more dead bodies in this country than most war-torn third-world nations, if only because there are more people to be killed and assassins in that game are almost ninjas. The Columbine shooters had bigger issues than we thought and it had nothing to do with Doom or even being bullied. (USA Today reported that they were actually bullies themselves.) We’d probably have this same discussion about Care Bears if enough of them were found in one of their rooms.

Remember when role-playing games were the “biggest threat to our kids”? (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is some truth to the “desensitized to violence” complaint, but these were people who grew up with no moral sense of right and wrong or respect for human life. Even some of the desensitized haven’t seen real violence and if they suddenly have the urge to repeat stuff they’ve seen they are such a small minority of the audience/players that you could fill a small room with them. They wouldn’t be “better people” if they were playing Just Dance instead of GTA.

The “problem” is that people are angry, dejected, and depressed, possibly even unfulfilled. (Again, no psychiatric degree here. I just pay attention.) They’re looking for an outlet to let some steam out since they don’t really want to bash their boss’s head in, or that customer who insisted you were wrong for doing what your boss rightly told you to do. (I’ve had both good and bad bosses in my time.) So you live vicariously through the eyes of Booker DeWitt or Phoenix Marcus or some guy/girl named Shepard. It’s a way to get all that rage out of your system. Personally I’ve done better with superhero games. I find something like Ultimate Spider-Man more relaxing, just swinging around the city occasionally rescuing people or beating up bad guys…or in some challenges both, without even playing the main game. I don’t have an interest in blood and guts or eviscerating people in some gory yet creative manner.

This isn’t a defense or condemnation of either side of the debate. I don’t personally play bloody video games but I know plenty of people who do and they’re well-adjusted, decent people. If the games took on a less dark tone I wouldn’t mind, but as usual I’m not calling for the end of dark games, just that the light games still get to exist. All I’m trying to do is get the terminology right. Simulators aren’t trainers and violence isn’t just graphic violence. If people really want to protest some of the gorier games (and before they do they should either play them themselves or watch a play-through online to get their context right) they need to use the right terms and start treating gamers as human beings long enough to hear their side of the story. Otherwise, you’re not going to reach anybody and shouldn’t be surprised when they fight back for the medium they grew up on and enjoy. Especially when you insult them as future psychopaths without really know what you’re talking about.