An article on Cinema Blend today calls out video game publisher Konami for its upcoming Saw game, saying it “has no portent moral message or even a directive in which the overt violence and scenes of mutilation correlate to something sane people might find enlightening, entertaining or fun. In other words, Konami is publishing a game that’s as sick, twisted and pointless as the intellectually-deficient movies of the same name.” The story’s headline says that Konami should be “ashamed” of itself.
Well, well, well. I can’t speak to the intellectual deficiencies of the films — I get freaked out just seeing the posters — but I have to wonder: why is the author William Usher so surprised? Is there anything more present in popular, contemporary video games than murder?
This isn’t a indictment, and I don’t think that the incidence of violence in gaming necessarily reflects or affects who we are or what we do; I don’t think it’s inherently bad, and I don’t see it as some kind of looming social cancer.
But I do see it. Constantly. And it seems like game after game just boils down to “…and then you kill everyone.” It’s an action-adventure title about gems and mythology, where you kill anyone who stands in your path! It’s an elaborate story about Venice during the Renaissance, and you have to kill the person who betrayed your family! It’s the mob, it’s the army, you’re a special ops guy, you’re a genetically-engineered freedom fighter — and oh yeah, don’t forget to kill everyone.
I’m hard up to classify depraved vs. not-depraved murders in video games — is it worse to kill within a gory horror title, or within a war-oriented one or an adventure one? Eh.
Still, I do wonder about the ever-blurrier line between gaming and movies: Is there some kind of ethical or social difference between gruesome acts in films and those same acts in a game? What’s the difference between just watching violent behavior and sort of play-acting it?
Do you think there’s a difference, PopWatchers? Do horror games go too far letting people “play” depravity? Or is that just another facet of entertainment — like blood-drenched movies or spooky TV?
Comments (1-12) of 12 Add your comment
More and more people will become more and more desensitized. It’s not something you can really keep track of though.
I wonder if the same can be said for the Dexter video game and cable show?
IMHO, it is up to consumers (and parents of young consumers) to determine if something has no value.
I’m actually about to start on a history thesis on representations of the second world war in videogames, and it is interesting that they still shy away from the full atrocities of the war within games, despite claims by many that games are an art form in their own right. The word “game” itself has something to do with the issue, implying as it does that playing is purely recreational and removing the sense that it can provide any social education, as does the fact that the designers are required to fully create, imagine and mathematically map out depictions of extreme violence and sadism. Violence is typically justified as self-defence in games (or the violence is placed within a comic, and therefore unreal, context), because the developer feels like a kind of god who has created a world in which violence exists but within clearly defined moral parameters. In console games (as opposed to mmorpgs) with a clear narrative thrust, the designer’s power is absolute, so by adding extreme or random violence they, the god of the world, have implicitly approved a universe in which this can occur unchecked. Similarly, by playing a game within this context you are implicitly agreeing that such violence is acceptable and that you can contemplate taking part in it. By controlling your perspective and the movements of the camera you are actively CHOOSING to look at things that are disturbing and unpleasant. Oddly, for worlds that are entirely virtual, it actually feels more real and immediate than seeing films with real people that we know are only pretending – because rather than simply being talked to you become complicit in experiencing the images. Think about your willingness to watch films about the Holocaust because of the artistic and educational justification for watching them, and then think about the horror and disgust you feel at the idea of playing a computer game set within a death camp, and you get some sense of what I mean.
Ok, can I say, this new format SUCKS. I loved loved loved the old popwatch blog. PUT IT BACK!!!
I agree with G !!
I totally agree with G !!!!
Eh… I don’t think there is ever a “too far” with games. If some can’t stomach certain games, then they don’t have to play them. It should be up to every individual to decide his own “too far”, but don’t bitch at game companies for making games that cater to others’ limits.
Is there a reason why my comment isn’t being displayed? If there’s a limit on length then that should be made clear.
hello
Personally, I can’t imagine playing a game where the purpose is to kill/mutilate people, virtually or no. I find the Saw movies reprehensible simply based on what I’ve heard and read about them, because I sure won’t be watching them to formulate a first-hand opinion.
There are things that I like and that I don’t like about the new format. It would be nice if sites that plan to change their formats would get some user input on “improvements” before they switch, but I suppose that it would be impossible to reach a consensus, anyway.
Isn’t this the next logical step after GTA? I mean, after excessive violence with a purpose (you’re a thug/pimp/villain achieving villanous purposes), where do you go but excessive violence for the sake of being violent? Being a villain just to cause violence? Not that I agree at all; I’ll stick to my Star Wars and Batman Lego games.
As for the new format, I like it. I hated having to go back pages to get to the first comment and then move backwards to read them in order. Seeing people’s comments in chronological order makes sense to me!
evil!