The Morality of Gaming

[Fenris]

I was browsing around yesterday and found this (http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/11/18/hit-the-bitch-danish-anti-domestic-violence-campaign/).

Basically, it's a game with a woman's face on the screen, with a man's hand reaching out from the viewer's perspective. You use the mouse to guide the hand and beat her. (Or, if you have a webcam, you can use your own hand.)

Her head jerks around in response to the battering, and blood and bruises appear. While you hit her, she has dialogue along the lines of,

“Why would I have slept with your best friend, he’s just as ugly as you!”
“Only your IQ is smaller than your penis”
“If I desire to go out with Maria, then that’s what I will do, it’s my life”
“Is that really the hardest you can hit?”

Eventually, she collapses.

Your Gangsta score is a percentage that goes up with every hit. The goal of the game is to reach 100%- at which point, the word "Gangsta" turns to "Idiot" and there's a lecture about domestic violence. The game was designed by a Danish anti-violence campaign, for educational purposes.

Most people (and me, too, if it isn't obvious) are appalled; when you design a game that "rewards" violence, in dramatic means with a full-resolution picture, it doesn't matter if you call the player an idiot at the end of it. You're training that pattern of behavior; that's what games do.

So, the general question of which this was a graphic example: can it be immoral to do something in a game? Is it wrong to virtually abuse this woman, even though no real woman is getting hurt?

õ
I'm having second thoughts about DefCon!

[Eric D.]

I was browsing around yesterday and found this (http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/11/18/hit-the-bitch-danish-anti-domestic-violence-campaign/).

Basically, it's a game with a woman's face on the screen, with a man's hand reaching out from the viewer's perspective. You use the mouse to guide the hand and beat her. (Or, if you have a webcam, you can use your own hand.)

Her head jerks around in response to the battering, and blood and bruises appear. While you hit her, she has dialogue along the lines of,

“Why would I have slept with your best friend, he’s just as ugly as you!”
“Only your IQ is smaller than your penis”
“If I desire to go out with Maria, then that’s what I will do, it’s my life”
“Is that really the hardest you can hit?”

Eventually, she collapses.

Your Gangsta score is a percentage that goes up with every hit. The goal of the game is to reach 100%- at which point, the word "Gangsta" turns to "Idiot" and there's a lecture about domestic violence. The game was designed by a Danish anti-violence campaign, for educational purposes.

Most people (and me, too, if it isn't obvious) are appalled; when you design a game that "rewards" violence, in dramatic means with a full-resolution picture, it doesn't matter if you call the player an idiot at the end of it. You're training that pattern of behavior; that's what games do.

So, the general question of which this was a graphic example: can it be immoral to do something in a game? Is it wrong to virtually abuse this woman, even though no real woman is getting hurt?

õ
I'm having second thoughts about DefCon!

reminds me of the story on the Iphone "shake the baby" app that came out a year or two ago.
How it made it as far as it did is beyond me.

great question, - when you consider the context involving said game.
I don't know that it is wrong (i personally don't think it's necessarily right) but like a number of things, i can't imagine it does much for the human spirit

[StoneGold]

I dunno, you ever try and take the evil path in a Bioware game? Sometimes I feel like the biggest piece of shit ruining people's lives before I kill them just for the fuck of it. And they're all pretend.

[Black Atom]

How come it's not letting me play it? Do I need Flash downloaded?

[Fenris]

reminds me of the story on the Iphone "shake the baby" app that came out a year or two ago.
How it made it as far as it did is beyond me.

Oh, I remember that. And there was one where you shot at illegal immigrants crossing the border, too.


great question, - when you consider the context involving said game.
I don't know that it is wrong (i personally think it's wrong) - it certainly isn't right. but i can't imagine it does much for the human spirit.

That's the kind of question I'm trying to work out. Is there a right and wrong of the imagination?

õ
A work in progress!

[Fenris]

I dunno, you ever try and take the evil path in a Bioware game? Sometimes I feel like the biggest piece of shit ruining people's lives before I kill them just for the fuck of it. And they're all pretend.

I haven't played Bioware. Sometimes I play the Drengin (i.e. evil aliens) in Galactic Civilizations and think, "Wow, I just commited genocide."

Well, I'm sure that in real life you'd feel even worse.

õ
Um, I hope so, anyway!

[Fenris]

How come it's not letting me play it? Do I need Flash downloaded?

Apparently they're not letting anyone but Danes play it, probably due to the public reaction.

õ
Which seems like rather a half-measure!

[Donald M.]

Apparently they're not letting anyone but Danes play it, probably due to the public reaction.

õ
Which seems like rather a half-measure!

Based on the message that pops up when you go to the site, it's more likely their servers couldn't handle the volume once people learned about it.

[Eric D.]

Oh, I remember that. And there was one where you shot at illegal immigrants crossing the border, too.



That's the kind of question I'm trying to work out. Is there a right and wrong of the imagination?

õ
A work in progress!

tread carefully, -don't want to evoke the Orwellian thought police :wink:

[Fenris]

Based on the message that pops up when you go to the site, it's more likely their servers couldn't handle the volume once people learned about it.

Point taken. Thank you, Donald!

õ
And good grief, it's too popular!

[Black Atom]

It seems like there was an SNL sketch or perhaps a South Park episode where a group of people try to show the consequences of some really terrible act by actually performing it in front of their kids/the public while they look on in increasing disgust and horror. This seems like that.

[Fenris]

tread carefully, -don't want to evoke the Orwellian thought police :wink:

Certainly not!

But then, right and wrong are about as far from Orwell's dictators as you can get. Their whole point was that there is no morality, internal or external; only obedience to whatever the state's latest message tells you.

õ
Or is that not what you meant?

[Fenris]

It seems like there was an SNL sketch or perhaps a South Park episode where a group of people try to show the consequences of some really terrible act by actually performing it in front of their kids/the public while they look on in increasing disgust and horror. This seems like that.

Hmmm. Did it work?

õ
It sounds like it could be either one!

[Paradox]

Fenris wants an answer:

That's the kind of question I'm trying to work out. Is there a right and wrong of the imagination?

Nope. It's a rude and nasty game I'd never even think about playing, but it is just a game.

[Fenris]

Nope. It's a rude and nasty game I'd never even think about playing, but it is just a game.

Nasty I can certainly agree with. But rude?

That seems like an odd description. Like the real problem is that you'll offend people by playing it, or some such.

The whole "just a game" notion is exactly what I'm questioning, I guess.

õ
That "just" is the real killer term!

[Chris N]

I definitely agree with the use of the word just to imply there is a limit on how evil a game which does no harm can be.

I will point out the positive end of it. Some people in this world want to do bad things but recognize it is wrong but have, shall we say, urges. I'm all for providing an outlet for these urges that leads to nobody being harmed.




Now if only they'd make a video game where I can virtually play with people's feet...

[Paradox]

Fenris thinks I'm not severe enough:

Nasty I can certainly agree with. But rude?

That seems like an odd description. Like the real problem is that you'll offend people by playing it, or some such.

No, I meant rude. It's horribly impolite to make a game out of such things. It's also obnoxious. I think people take the word "rude" far too lightly these days, as if it were just fine to be "only rude".


The whole "just a game" notion is exactly what I'm questioning, I guess.

And I'm not. Reality and fantasy are two entirely different things and people who cannot separate the two have bigger problems than any webgame can contribute to.

[Chris N]

I would describe it as insensitive.

[Paradox]

It is, but also a pretty weak word. Makes it sound like you're hurting someone's feelings.

[Sean Whitmore]

How long until the expansion pack comes out? This game is in dire need of some combo moves.


SEAN

[Roquefort Raider]

Honestly, I'm not that upset. It sounds as if no matter how vicious the player gets, the woman remains stronger than him and keeps insulting him. (Way to go, lady!) In a sense, it shows what weak cowards domestic abusers really are inside.

On the other hand, I don't think most people actually playing such a game would be receptive to its intended message. They'd probably just think it's cool to hit someone until they bleed.

But then that's what most games are about, right? Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, maim, eviscerate, hit, blow up, defenestrate, steal, destroy, kill again and sometimes jaywalk. Oh, and talk jive if you're playing GTA.

[giovedi]

Well, I don't think that those who play violent games are violent. It's being able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

That's not the worst game I've heard of, though. There was that "rape play" game in Japan. But there's been the Modern Warfare 2 controversy as well.

[SOGG]

I'd look at it in its cultural context before deciding. imho, in places like the Philippines, people would likely not get to the first slap. It's not that we're not a violent people, we are (as the recent events in Maguindanao show) but there's a very heavy cultural undercurrent of not attacking the helpless. It's why EDSA 1 worked.

The rape game in Japan was probably not as abhorrent in their society probably because of the history of sexuality in that country (and in most of East/Southeast Asia). People might play at it, even fetishise it during sex, but it's not something that someone would actually do. Or if they did, the legal and/or societal penalties tend to be very harsh. Places like Singapore even have laws vis-a-vis rape of prostitutes.

So yeah, we've got a few Danes on the board, I hope they chime in.

[SOGG]

Great thread, Fenris!

[jesse_custer]

Honestly, this sounds pretty tame compared to other games.

So no, I don't think it's a big deal.

[Fenris]

I definitely agree with the use of the word just to imply there is a limit on how evil a game which does no harm can be.

Certainly there's a difference between doing something in a video game, and doing it in real life. If this were actually being done to a woman, then it would be a very different discussion.

But I wasn't disputing the word "just" in that way. Obviously, it's less bad to beat someone up in a video game than to beat them up in real life. But is it wrong at all?

I think that it is; and while the consequences are obviously less- in the game, no one's getting hurt, and no one's going to prison- that doesn't mean that there is no question of right and wrong to ask.



I will point out the positive end of it. Some people in this world want to do bad things but recognize it is wrong but have, shall we say, urges. I'm all for providing an outlet for these urges that leads to nobody being harmed.




Now if only they'd make a video game where I can virtually play with people's feet...

Okay, now that's completely beyond the pale.

õ
Shocking!

[critical mass]

If you feel bad from playing that, you might as well feel bad about shooting up innocents in Grand Theft Auto. Which I don't. Whether I'm being immoral for killing virtual people, I don't know. I'm not a philosopher.

[The Black Guardian]

Honestly, I think the suggestion that there is anything wrong with beating people up or killing them in a game shows a severe disconnect from reality.

[RolandJP]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/29/Ilikewherethisthreadisgoing.jpg

[Loren]

Eventually, she collapses.

Your Gangsta score is a percentage that goes up with every hit. The goal of the game is to reach 100%- at which point, the word "Gangsta" turns to "Idiot" and there's a lecture about domestic violence. The game was designed by a Danish anti-violence campaign, for educational purposes.

So the lesson imparted is: beating your woman may be cool, but just don't beat her into unconsciousness. It's apparently a matter of moderation. Slapping her around makes you a 'Gangsta,' but if you keep it up to the point where she collapses, then only at that point are you an 'Idiot.'

[jessecuster3]

This sounds really tame compared to the airport scene in Modern Warfare 2. And that sold well over 5 million copies.




For those that haven't seen it, there's plenty of people who have posted it on youtube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN1TBRhDg3s)


I should mention this was the first video I have seen where the player does not shoot.

[Aaron Kashtan]

This is a really interesting question which comes up sometimes in academic media studies. Ian Bogost (a well-known video game theorist at Georgia Tech) wrote a book, Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames, about how video games influence people. I haven't read this book, but it might be interesting for anyone who wants to look deeper into this topic. Also, Steven Johnson talks about the question of morality in the introduction to his book Everything Bad is Good for You. He argues that even if video games are immoral in terms of what the player does, they might be good for us in other ways, such as by improving our cognitive skills.

On watching that "No Russian" video I was profoundly disturbed, even though I sometimes kill pedestrians on purpose when I'm playing GTA games. I think the difference might just be that in GTA games, the pedestrians are such assholes! They're always yelliing at you for no reason. So according to video game logic, killing them seems somehow justifiable. Whereas in the clip from Modern Warfare 2, the people at the airport really are just innocent bystanders who've done nothing to deserve their fate. Also, in GTA you're never in a position of having to kill so many innocent people at once -- usually it's just one person at a time.

[meethraa]

I want to believe that thinking, talking about, or virtually representing something bad is never wrong in itself. In fact, the suggestion that it is, disturbs me infinitely more than any violence in any video game.

[meethraa]

Also, the vast majority of games reward violence, which was NOT the case with this one, going by the description.
The problem here is not so much with the depiction of violence as much as the inability some people have to deal with provocation.

[Radioactive Zombie]

This is about as effective as that Anti-Homophobic Campaign where they called you names.

Most people will have fun smacking the woman. Hell, I'd say I would if this forum was different. It's not exactly effective when you're encourage to smack the 3D woman up. The "punishment" you get won't make any netizen feel guilty, either.

[Fenris]

No, I meant rude. It's horribly impolite to make a game out of such things. It's also obnoxious. I think people take the word "rude" far too lightly these days, as if it were just fine to be "only rude".

Well, I agree that courtesy is underrated, and that rudeness is something we should be harder on. I just don't see how it applies to a video game that people play by themselves. Isn't rudeness something that happens between people?




And I'm not. Reality and fantasy are two entirely different things and people who cannot separate the two have bigger problems than any webgame can contribute to.

A game like Tetris is pretty separate from reality. Geometric blocks falling endlessly out of the sky, rotating by telekinesis, and disappearing when they're lined up properly? Nothing in our world is like that.

But this game features a realistic picture of a woman, who suffers realistic injuries, as a model of a problem that happens in the real world all the time. That is not completely separate from reality, in the sense that Tetris is; it's obviously based on reality.

More to the point: we train for real situations with games- enacted simulations of real-world events- all the time. We perform actions in the imagination, where it's safe and there are no consequences, in order to perform them better in reality.

That's probably why the capacity for gaming exists in the first place, and why it's shared by creatures like wolves and cats. Do we have any reason to believe that it doesn't work?

õ
Or that this is some kind of exception?

[Fenris]

I'd look at it in its cultural context before deciding. imho, in places like the Philippines, people would likely not get to the first slap. It's not that we're not a violent people, we are (as the recent events in Maguindanao show) but there's a very heavy cultural undercurrent of not attacking the helpless. It's why EDSA 1 worked.

The rape game in Japan was probably not as abhorrent in their society probably because of the history of sexuality in that country (and in most of East/Southeast Asia). People might play at it, even fetishise it during sex, but it's not something that someone would actually do. Or if they did, the legal and/or societal penalties tend to be very harsh. Places like Singapore even have laws vis-a-vis rape of prostitutes.

So yeah, we've got a few Danes on the board, I hope they chime in.

Yeah, that would help a lot. We have the context we bring to it, and we can't necessarily work out what they meant themselves.



Great thread, Fenris!

Aw, thank you! :smile:

õ
I am thankful today!

[metr0man]

I
Your Gangsta score is a percentage that goes up with every hit. The goal of the game is to reach 100%- at which point, the word "Gangsta" turns to "Idiot" and there's a lecture about domestic violence. The game was designed by a Danish anti-violence campaign, for educational purposes.


If the people really meant for it to be an anti-domestic violence tool, they clearly are not gamers, and don't understand how gaming pleasure works.

Just the visual, and accompanying SFX, of reaching 100%, and a visual of "completion" flashing across the screen, IS the pleasure, it produces the CHEMICAL RELEASE that gives you that burst of positive feeling happiness pleasure... like in World of Warcraft when you reach a new level or get an Achievement. It doesn't matter what the message at the end says, its the fact that you've gotten to the message that makes you feel good.

[FeminineMystique]

Oh, I remember that. And there was one where you shot at illegal immigrants crossing the border, too.



That's the kind of question I'm trying to work out. Is there a right and wrong of the imagination?
õ
A work in progress!

I'd say no, there isn't. We may find a game like this tasteless...I know I certainly do...but saying that it's "Wrong" for someone to even imagine it is getting into very creepy 1984 territory.

[Roquefort Raider]

That's the kind of question I'm trying to work out. Is there a right and wrong of the imagination?


That's a very valid question, and although we're all wary of censors and of their willingness to impose barriers to what we are allowed to think, see, hear or read, I don't think the casual response "it's only pretend" is as strong as many would like to think.

A newspaper article once described how a store owner had set a wolf trap in his shop because of repeated burglaries, and how he had actually caught a thief. After hearing of it, all my North American colleagues thought that was funny, but all the European ones were appalled that someone had been badly hurt just for the sake of protecting a store. Clearly, our sensitivities were different on the matter.

In the case you present here, Fenris, a video game shows a woman being beaten even as she's insulting her attacker. Most people (not all of them gamers) seem to think that's pretty tame, and having seen the games my own kids enjoy I can see why. Our pop culture has made us familiar with the depiction of violence, and we're kind of desensitized to it. That doesn't mean we're all about to go out and hurt people in real life, but still... Even things as innocuous as games, movies and TV shows can influence us. I know that I'm not upset by the level of violence depicted in American comics, but I shudder at what's found in some japanese manga. Different exposure, different levels of sensitivity.

I'm not worried about the cartoon violence of games like Resident Evil, where it's very easy to tell reality from fantasy. But because games are part of our cultural continuum nowadays, I think it would be irresponsible to make games where real violent racist or otherwise discriminatory messages are sent -things like the "all Arabs are terrorists" meme. It may not be used in a game because of a nefarious agenda; it could just be riding the zeitgeist. But it's a dangerous message to send.

To answer your question, then, I don't know if things that are imagined and not acted upon can ever be really wrong. But producing a game, a book, or a movie is already more than just imagination. That's where the freedom to think or to express oneself should be tempered by responsibility. Hopefully, if we all exert our freedom with a measure of common sense, censorship will be kept at bay.

[Fenris]

I want to believe that thinking, talking about, or virtually representing something bad is never wrong in itself. In fact, the suggestion that it is, disturbs me infinitely more than any violence in any video game.


I'd say no, there isn't. We may find a game like this tasteless...I know I certainly do...but saying that it's "Wrong" for someone to even imagine it is getting into very creepy 1984 territory.

Well, fair enough. Though I'm inclined to ask, "Why not? Why shouldn't there be questions of right and wrong in our thinking, as well as our actions?"

Here's an example, which is kind of far afield: can we reasonably interpret Othello without some ethic of the imagination? When Iago carefully, artfully creates a mental picture of Desdemona's adultery in Othello's mind, it doesn't really work to say that his imagining is distasteful. It's a poisonous and evil fantasy, and it works by corrupting Othello's own imagination; that's the whole point of it.


õ
But Othello is a game, so it's not that far off-topic!

[The Once And Forever]

Well, fair enough. Though I'm inclined to ask, "Why not? Why shouldn't there be questions of right and wrong in our thinking, as well as our actions?"

Here's an example, which is kind of far afield: can we reasonably interpret Othello without some ethic of the imagination? When Iago carefully, artfully creates a mental picture of Desdemona's adultery in Othello's mind, it doesn't really work to say that his imagining is distasteful. It's a poisonous and evil fantasy, and it works by corrupting Othello's own imagination; that's the whole point of it.


õ
But Othello is a game, so it's not that far off-topic!
The thing about thoughts is that they require you to choose to express them before they can have any impact. Regardless of what you think, if you do not make your thought known, there is literally no one but yourself that can question or challenge it.

If Iago is choosing to paint that picture in Othello's mind, if he's making an active effort to create such an image, then it is wrong, but not of the same as if he were to simply think all those things to himself. In that case, he's still choosing to attempt to corrupt Othello, so it's not just all fantasy on his part.

[Alexander the immortal]

My understanding is that books or games or even movies that really encourage real physical violence (instead of say being them , being escapism) are rare.

[Fenris]

The thing about thoughts is that they require you to choose to express them before they can have any impact. Regardless of what you think, if you do not make your thought known, there is literally no one but yourself that can question or challenge it.

That's true; but I'm not sure I see your point. The fact that I'm alone with a thought doesn't make that thought amoral. It just means that the responsibility of moral choice rests entirely with me.



If Iago is choosing to paint that picture in Othello's mind, if he's making an active effort to create such an image, then it is wrong, but not of the same as if he were to simply think all those things to himself. In that case, he's still choosing to attempt to corrupt Othello, so it's not just all fantasy on his part.

He's interacting with Othello, yes; but he's doing this entirely by means of imagination. It's only possible because Othello's imagination is receptive to it; and the horror of the play is that he is so very receptive.

At any rate, if we're talking about the morality of games, then it's clearly not a matter of thoughts we think up ourselves; it's a matter of thoughts that the game designer has given us to think. Which is why the Othello analogy seems to work for me.

õ
Even playing Solitaire in solitude, we aren't!

[Fenris]

My understanding is that books or games or even movies that really encourage real physical violence (instead of say being them , being escapism) are rare.

That seems to be true. yes. But I'm not enough of a utilitarian to say that physical violence is the only form of wrongdoing.

Or is that not what you meant? I may be misreading you.


õ
More information required!

[Alexander the immortal]

At any rate, if we're talking about the morality of games, then it's clearly not a matter of thoughts we think up ourselves; it's a matter of thoughts that the game designer has given us to think. Which is why the Othello analogy seems to work for me.

Well the analogy only works if a game designer is an Iago , he so meticulously designed a game to affect a lot of people (who we would call Otheloes) that where receptive of the games manipulation , with the intend to make them commit , actions that could cause their (and others) destruction and suffering.


Not very realistic IMO. But if it did happen , then i guess most would condemn it.


Iago's with Othelo interaction , is a very specific kind of interaction , and that kind of manipulation i believe it's not that often found at games. or games are the best medium for the job. Better to look at your tv channels and newspapers . Journalism in general. But then this becomes very very dangerous . If one starts looking at that , to restrict things. Who knows where this may lead.

I also think that games appear to be a bit of an "easy target" for many.

[Fenris]

Well the analogy only works if a game designer is an Iago , he so meticulously designed a game to affect a lot of people (who we would call Otheloes) that where receptive of the games manipulation , with the intend to make them commit , actions that could cause their (and others) destruction and suffering.


Not very realistic IMO. But if it did happen , then i guess most would condemn it.

Heh! No, most people (thankfully) are not Iago. Or anything like it. Iago is a Shakespearean supervillain.

But if we're talking about the general capacity for morality in the imagination, then Othello is relevant, because the imagination's corruption is what the play is all about. And corruption doesn't require a villain (except in drama, I guess); it can happen under much more mundane circumstances.



Iago's with Othelo interaction , is a very specific kind of interaction , and that kind of manipulation i believe it's not that often found at games. or games are the best medium for the job. Better to look at your tv channels and newspapers . Journalism in general. But then this becomes very very dangerous . If one starts looking at that , to restrict things. Who knows where this may lead.

So... the idea that thoughts are moral is a dangerous thought? A bad thought, that good people should not think? There's a degree of irony at work! :smile:



I also think that games appear to be a bit of an "easy target" for many.

Among some older people, probably. But that's just demographics, which works both ways: for people who like games, which include a whole lot of folks these days, it is a very hard target.

õ
But that makes it interesting!

[longdecember]

It's just the old school Calebresi vs. Kant debate. As others have mentioned Shakespeare did it with cross dressers. Gamers do it with GPUs.

[Alexander the immortal]

Heh! No, most people (thankfully) are not Iago. Or anything like it. Iago is a Shakespearean supervillain.

But if we're talking about the general capacity for morality in the imagination, then Othello is relevant, because the imagination's corruption is what the play is all about. And corruption doesn't require a villain (except in drama, I guess); it can happen under much more mundane circumstances.

Iago corrupted the imagination of someone with words (or with interactive images if you would preffer) . Others can also do it , the best medium for the job are not games however. This happens extremely often , in the cases of Journalism in general.

If you ask me Iago is worse than Othelo but Othelo is overall a bad dude as well.
(Irrelevant opinion )



So... the idea that thoughts are moral is a dangerous thought? A bad thought, that good people should not think? There's a degree of irony at work!


Thoughts are morals ? I don't get you. I thought the issue was things that can corrupt the mind of people. Games are not thoughts , and i assume the thread is about the "corrupting games" (and as a result people whose their thoughts where corrupted)

And my opinion is that this is quite uncommon. If Corrupt or " evil thoughts" ( thinking to kill the neighbor ) are bad things , it's another matter.

My opinion is that it is certainly something that i would rather did not happen. Not because an individual couldn't make that thought. But because he didn't want to.



Among some older people, probably. But that's just demographics, which works both ways: for people who like games, which include a whole lot of folks these days, it is a very hard target.

People see games as a target because it's a very new medium that has yet to gain the acceptance in society that other "interactive mediums - information agents " have.
(far more influential to the mind of those who interact with them. But that is the prime reason of Journalism , to inform and to influence. Which is considered important. Games however who have a different purpose in general , are seen in a "less necessary for society " light )

[Fenris]

Iago corrupted the imagination of someone with words (or with interactive images if you would preffer) . Others can also do it , the best medium for the job are not games however. This happens extremely often , in the cases of Journalism in general.

Well, yeah; most people would agree that journalism can be turned to evil. It's pretty well-established; that's why we have libel laws.

Games are much less efficient as a conveyor of factual information. But because they're participatory- because you actually do something, as opposed to just sitting and listening to a news report- there is the potential for a different moral dimension, that doesn't really exist in journalism.



If you ask me Iago is worse than Othelo but Othelo is overall a bad dude as well.
(Irrelevant opinion )

But interesting!

Their badness is of entirely-different kinds, I think.



Thoughts are morals ? I don't get you.

Nonono! I meant "moral" there as an adjective, not a noun. "Thoughts are moral," as in "Thoughts are a valid subject for morality to apply to."



I thought the issue was things that can corrupt the mind of people. Games are not thoughts , and i assume the thread is about the "corrupting games" (and as a result people whose their thoughts where corrupted)

As is common with Fenris threads, there are two or three different notions going on that I'm liable to mix up. The thread is about games, and their (arguable!) moral context; several people objected that none of our private thoughts have any moral context, so it shifted to that as a related matter.



And my opinion is that this is quite uncommon. If Corrupt or " evil thoughts" ( thinking to kill the neighbor ) are bad things , it's another matter.

I'm not arguing that evil games are lurking around every corner; their frequency wasn't really something I'd gotten to. I was more interested in the general case of its possibility.



My opinion is that it is certainly something that i would rather did not happen. Not because an individual couldn't make that thought. But because he didn't want to.

I think I'm misunderstanding you here. He didn't want to what?



People see games as a target because it's a very new medium that has yet to gain the acceptance in society that other "interactive mediums - information agents " have.
(far more influential to the mind of those who interact with them. But that is the prime reason of Journalism , to inform and to influence. Which is considered important. Games however who have a different purpose in general , are seen in a "less necessary for society light )

For that reason; and because, traditionally, most games were associated with children. Which brings in a very different emotional dynamic than we're used to with journalism.

õ
Must... go... to... bed!

[jesse_custer]

I just think it's hilarious that one would continue talking about morals when no real people are being harmed.

But that's fine. Let's attack an entire mode of entertainment because we don't understand the appeal.

[Alexander the immortal]

Well, yeah; most people would agree that journalism can be turned to evil. It's pretty well-established; that's why we have libel laws.

Games are much less efficient as a conveyor of factual information. But because they're participatory- because you actually do something, as opposed to just sitting and listening to a news report- there is the potential for a different moral dimension, that doesn't really exist in journalism.



I disagree. You don't do anything on games while Journalism does call you to do something. Escapism participatory or interactive experience is different than something that actually influences you.

Killing someone in a game as is watching someone kill people in a film or reading such book , is a relatively very harmless thing. And i see it as almost always , a form of entertainment . Or sport. Not the most healthy "sport" but still.

Of course there games like American Army which are basically recruitment tools but those are rare.

What exactly are your examples of games that offer an " immoral interactive experience "


Well, yeah; most people would agree that journalism can be turned to evil. It's pretty well-established; that's why we have libel laws.

Wait are you saying that anti- Slander laws is a safe precaution that "journalism , won't be turned to evil" . I would have to strongly disagree. Of course i think serious precautions could be far more dangerous than Journalism being used for "evil" .

Though in the end , the specific circumstances matter.

(To analyze better my thought , journalism is a tool to be used by people to influence others into following their interests (and of course factually representing the truth ! lol ha ha. But this is not necessarily bad . Plus my "evil" may be your Good. but that applies to a lot of thing , isn't it ? I could get into specifics what i could consider very bad journalism. Or with what interests that specific journalists serve , i can never identify with , but that is another matter)



Nonono! I meant "moral" there as an adjective, not a noun. "Thoughts are moral," as in "Thoughts are a valid subject for morality to apply to."

ok...


As is common with Fenris threads, there are two or three different notions going on that I'm liable to mix up. The thread is about games, and their (arguable!) moral context; several people objected that none of our private thoughts have any moral context, so it shifted to that as a related matter.

Alright but i kind of answered to that as well.


I'm not arguing that evil games are lurking around every corner; their frequency wasn't really something I'd gotten to. I was more interested in the general case of its possibility.

I am asking for a specific example to understand what is an "evil" game. Do you mean the Danish one ? Any other examples ?


I think I'm misunderstanding you here. He didn't want to what?

He didn't want to Kill me .


For that reason; and because, traditionally, most games were associated with children. Which brings in a very different emotional dynamic than we're used to with journalism.

Indeed. However journalism which affects the adults (and even young children ) affects the children more , actually both directly (in how it shapes their perception) and indirectly (on how it shaped the world that the children are living to).

But games have an effect as well , of course. (very minor in comparison and they are vilified IMO.)

[Fenris]

I just think it's hilarious that one would continue talking about morals when no real people are being harmed.

And I'm glad you're entertained, Jesse!

One of the interesting parts of this thread, for me, is seeing how invested people are in the notion that their thoughts must be amoral: only actions are liable, and any suggestion to the contrary is laughable.

It's possible, I guess, but it's kind of weird. It requires that we put our thoughts in a whole separate nihlist category from the rest of the world, and we almost never do that with anything else.

If I do math in my head, and I get a wrong answer, then my math thought is incorrect. It doesn't matter if I've applied that math in the real world or not; the thought is simply wrong.

Or to put it differently: attempted murder is a crime, even if you don't hurt anyone, because your thoughts there are absolutely relevant. They are, literally, criminal thoughts.



But that's fine. Let's attack an entire mode of entertainment because we don't understand the appeal.

Okay, what thread is this from? Because no one's come anywhere close to "attacking an entire mode of entertainment."

õ
Unless questioning something is a form of attack!

[Fenris]

It's just the old school Calebresi vs. Kant debate. As others have mentioned Shakespeare did it with cross dressers. Gamers do it with GPUs.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Calebresi. Though if he's contrasted with Kant here, I guess I can pick up something by implication.

The old-school debates are generally the best ones.

õ
But that's probably because I'm old!

[Freakzeek]

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z207/ash4455666/EggmanHighScore.gif

[Fenris]

I disagree. You don't do anything on games while Journalism does call you to do something. Escapism participatory or interactive experience is different than something that actually influences you.

I don't see why. You're influenced, in one way or another, by everything that happens to you; and by everything you do. If nothing else, the force of habit doesn't make those kinds of high-level distinctions.



Killing someone in a game as is watching someone kill people in a film or reading such book , is a relatively very harmless thing. And i see it as almost always , a form of entertainment . Or sport. Not the most healthy "sport" but still.

Well, it's obviously less harmful than doing it to a real person!

But again, I'm not a utilitarian; I'm not arguing that something must be doing direct physical harm in order to be bad. There are good and bad states of mind, and we have some imperfect ability to choose between them.



What exactly are your examples of games that offer an " immoral interactive experience "


*Shrug* I don't have that many. The Danish girlfriend-beating game is one example. Online race-hatred groups have put out video games where you shoot blacks and Jews; that would reasonably qualify. (Not least since the games are presumably intended as propaganda for their cause.)

It's not like I'm assembling some kind of Evil Games List. But it seems clear to me that some such games do exist.



Wait are you saying that anti- Slander laws is a safe precaution that "journalism , won't be turned to evil" . I would have to strongly disagree. Of course i think serious precautions could be far more dangerous than Journalism being used for "evil" .

Nah, that wasn't what I meant. I just meant that libel laws show the general social agreement that journalism can be abused, and that the abuse matters.



Though in the end , the specific circumstances matter.

(To analyze better my thought , journalism is a tool to be used by people to influence others into following their interests (and of course factually representing the truth ! lol ha ha. But this is not necessarily bad . Plus my "evil" may be your Good. but that applies to a lot of thing , isn't it ? I could get into specifics what i could consider very bad journalism. Or with what interests that specific journalists serve , i can never identify with , but that is another matter)


Well, maybe. What interests do you identify with?

õ
My time's running short tonight!

[Freakzeek]

http://graffitigamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/high-score.gif

[Freakzeek]

http://www.nosebeep.org/trash/highscore.png

[Serik]

I regularly play as a warmonger in Civilization IV, nuking my enemies' cities at the first available opportunity, thereby annihilating milling of virtual people in virtual cities that are thousands of virtual years old.

And then there's DEFCON, the amazingly fun nuclear war simulator. A woman faintly sobs in the background once the nukes start to fly; victory is measured in how many millions of people you manage to kill before being wiped out.

I find nuclear war in Civilization more disturbing because it's a choice, and not the entirety of the game, and the cities you destroy have a certain cultural legacy within the game. (How much legacy depends entirely on your involvement in the game and whether or not you imbue it with any sort of meaning beyond being a virtual boardgame.)

While moralists accuse this wife punching game, GTA, etc. of being evil, needlessly violent, etc., games like Civilization and DEFCON seemingly escape their scorn. I guess it has to do with the abstraction of the violence. You don't actually see people incinerated or die of radiation poison in the aforementioned games; population numbers change on the screen and that's really it. But if you think that videogames are immoral, or at least allow players to engage in immoral fantasies, wouldn't the one that allows you to kill millions of virtual people be "worse" than the one that just allows you to slap around a single person?

In a way, the airmen operating nuclear silos are in the same sort of abstracted position as the videogamer playing Civilization IV or DEFCON: they enter codes, turn launch keys, and condemn an untold number of people to death, without ever seeing the results of their action or even contemplating what's about to occur. (Training is specifically designed to eliminate contemplation.)

People worry about gun violence, stabbings, domestic violence, etc. I'm more worried that our culture doesn't bat an eye about how we've abstracted mass murder in the most extreme and disturbing way imaginable.

[ggundam8]

We as human begins are human recorders. Everything you see, tastes, smell and hear can become part of you, if you want it or not. It shouldn’t even be a question if violent media or media in general changes you, the question should be how much it changes you. Many like to say it is just a fantasy it’s not real, but isn’t the whole purpose of a fantasy to immerse you into its reality.

In the case of video games the designers very goal is to get the player as connected as possible into there reality. This is way we see people dressing up as fictional characters and learning how to speak fictional languages. There is most definitely an effect one each one of us. However, that effect differs from person to person.

To the question at hand I say yes you can be immoral in a game. What is wrong is wrong no matter what form it takes. I for one have no problem admitting that I have done bad things in real life and often do immoral things in videogames.

[ggundam8]

We as human begins are human recorders. Everything you see, tastes, smell and hear can become part of you, if you want it or not. It shouldn’t even be a question if violent media or media in general changes you, the question should be how much it changes you. Many like to say it is just a fantasy it’s not real, but isn’t the whole purpose of a fantasy to immerse you into its reality.

In the case of video games the designers very goal is to get the player as connected as possible into there reality. This is way we see people dressing up as fictional characters and learning how to speak fictional languages. There is most definitely an effect one each one of us. However, that effect differs from person to person.

To the question at hand I say yes you can be immoral in a game. What is wrong is wrong no matter what form it takes. I for one have no problem admitting that I have done bad things in real life and often do immoral things in videogames.

[Roquefort Raider]

While moralists accuse this wife punching game, GTA, etc. of being evil, needlessly violent, etc., games like Civilization and DEFCON seemingly escape their scorn. I guess it has to do with the abstraction of the violence. You don't actually see people incinerated or die of radiation poison in the aforementioned games; population numbers change on the screen and that's really it.

You're quite right in your appraisal : I see Civilization as less scorn-worthy than GTA. Not because its violence is more abstract, but because it is only one part of the game. Also because as someone who's built a whole civilization, the gamer stands to lose much from violence; the price of violence is therefore more apparent.

In GTA, thugs go around destroying things and killing people; that's pretty much the whole point of the game. The scorn I have from it comes from its vacuity and its glorification of violence for its own sake, and its (probably unintended) message that violence is fun and has no consequences worse that restarting a level.

Oh, sure, people can make the difference between that violence and real world violence; but Civilization still strikes me as more... well, civilized.

[jesse_custer]

One of the interesting parts of this thread, for me, is seeing how invested people are in the notion that their thoughts must be amoral: only actions are liable, and any suggestion to the contrary is laughable.

Yeah, that's right. Only actions are liable. You aren't liable for thinking about killing someone. I don't see people getting arrested for thinking things.


It's possible, I guess, but it's kind of weird. It requires that we put our thoughts in a whole separate nihlist category from the rest of the world, and we almost never do that with anything else.

I think one problem is that you are assuming one is thinking bad things while playing a violent video game. A video game is a very animalistic mode of entertainment. Meaning you live the moment through the game. Thoughts are usually reserved for strategy and puzzle solving.


If I do math in my head, and I get a wrong answer, then my math thought is incorrect. It doesn't matter if I've applied that math in the real world or not; the thought is simply wrong.

Yeah, but this isn't an exact parallel. I can think of killing my boss, and that's wrong, but if I never even get close to killing him, it's irrelevant. All that really matters is how I conduct myself in reality.


Or to put it differently: attempted murder is a crime, even if you don't hurt anyone, because your thoughts there are absolutely relevant. They are, literally, criminal thoughts.

Attempted murder is an action, though, not merely a thought.


Okay, what thread is this from? Because no one's come anywhere close to "attacking an entire mode of entertainment."

Surely you are aware that video games are sometimes blamed for violence in the real world. In other words, I'm getting tired of this inherently flawed idea of "Moral Gaming." As someone who has played games his entire life with many friends, I view the idea as incredibly silly.

Also, regarding your first post about being rewarded for bad things in gaming, the main reward of gaming is fun. You might think it's bad for people to have fun playing a game where you kill innocent people or whatever, but it's still a damn game at the end of the day.

[MNM]

I dunno, you ever try and take the evil path in a Bioware game? Sometimes I feel like the biggest piece of shit ruining people's lives before I kill them just for the fuck of it. And they're all pretend.

Which Bioware game had an evil path like that? the ones I've played have always felt tacked on because the people making the game made it clear that the good path was the one you should take.

[Fenris]

I regularly play as a warmonger in Civilization IV, nuking my enemies' cities at the first available opportunity, thereby annihilating milling of virtual people in virtual cities that are thousands of virtual years old.

And then there's DEFCON, the amazingly fun nuclear war simulator. A woman faintly sobs in the background once the nukes start to fly; victory is measured in how many millions of people you manage to kill before being wiped out.

Yeah, I've played both of these. And DEFCON is particularly audacious, in that it specifically punishes you for playing defensively: you get more points for enemy casualties than for your own people's survivors.

It is pretty disturbing.



I find nuclear war in Civilization more disturbing because it's a choice, and not the entirety of the game, and the cities you destroy have a certain cultural legacy within the game. (How much legacy depends entirely on your involvement in the game and whether or not you imbue it with any sort of meaning beyond being a virtual boardgame.)

While moralists accuse this wife punching game, GTA, etc. of being evil, needlessly violent, etc., games like Civilization and DEFCON seemingly escape their scorn. I guess it has to do with the abstraction of the violence. You don't actually see people incinerated or die of radiation poison in the aforementioned games; population numbers change on the screen and that's really it. But if you think that videogames are immoral, or at least allow players to engage in immoral fantasies, wouldn't the one that allows you to kill millions of virtual people be "worse" than the one that just allows you to slap around a single person?

I guess it depends on the focus of the critique. If we were treating the game world as something real, then the deaths of millions would certainly be worse than the abuse of one person. But if we're dealing with the psychology of the player, then the abuse may be worse- in fact, it probably is worse, as per the cliche that a million deaths is just a statistic.



In a way, the airmen operating nuclear silos are in the same sort of abstracted position as the videogamer playing Civilization IV or DEFCON: they enter codes, turn launch keys, and condemn an untold number of people to death, without ever seeing the results of their action or even contemplating what's about to occur. (Training is specifically designed to eliminate contemplation.)

People worry about gun violence, stabbings, domestic violence, etc. I'm more worried that our culture doesn't bat an eye about how we've abstracted mass murder in the most extreme and disturbing way imaginable.

It almost has to be abstract; who can really see something that big? We can imagine one death, or maybe two or three; the deaths of more people than we can count is something else again.

õ
It becomes elided into something merely exciting!

[Fenris]

We as human begins are human recorders. Everything you see, tastes, smell and hear can become part of you, if you want it or not. It shouldn’t even be a question if violent media or media in general changes you, the question should be how much it changes you. Many like to say it is just a fantasy it’s not real, but isn’t the whole purpose of a fantasy to immerse you into its reality.

Exactly.
If fantasy doesn't immerse you- if it doesn't elicit some level of emotional response- then it's poorly-done fantasy, pretty much by definition.

(By the way: Welcome, ggundam8! I hope you enjoy the board.)



In the case of video games the designers very goal is to get the player as connected as possible into there reality. This is way we see people dressing up as fictional characters and learning how to speak fictional languages. There is most definitely an effect one each one of us. However, that effect differs from person to person.

To the question at hand I say yes you can be immoral in a game. What is wrong is wrong no matter what form it takes. I for one have no problem admitting that I have done bad things in real life and often do immoral things in videogames.

That's true for me also. I will probably play DEFCON sometime again, though there are obvious problems with it.

õ
But then, it's also a safe bet that I'll do bad things in real life!

[Fenris]

You're quite right in your appraisal : I see Civilization as less scorn-worthy than GTA. Not because its violence is more abstract, but because it is only one part of the game. Also because as someone who's built a whole civilization, the gamer stands to lose much from violence; the price of violence is therefore more apparent.

In GTA, thugs go around destroying things and killing people; that's pretty much the whole point of the game. The scorn I have from it comes from its vacuity and its glorification of violence for its own sake, and its (probably unintended) message that violence is fun and has no consequences worse that restarting a level.

Hmm! That's true, and I haven't thought of it that way before. Consequences matter, particularly in games, since we're inclined to view them in "practical" terms of winning and losing.

õ
At least, most of the time!

[Donald M.]

Oh, sure, people can make the difference between that violence and real world violence; but Civilization still strikes me as more... well, civilized.

Of course it is. GTA is the gaming equivalent of a blood-soaked gangster movie and Civilization is an over-produced History Channel documentary.

While I won't argue that positive influence is more likely to come from Civ than GTA, I still feel that any direct negative influence any game can be blamed for starts with the player. A game can feed a proclivity to violence, but I refuse to believe it can create it.

[Fenris]

Yeah, that's right. Only actions are liable. You aren't liable for thinking about killing someone. I don't see people getting arrested for thinking things.

Maybe liable isn't the word I'm looking for, then, if it's explicitly and purely legal.



I think one problem is that you are assuming one is thinking bad things while playing a violent video game. A video game is a very animalistic mode of entertainment. Meaning you live the moment through the game. Thoughts are usually reserved for strategy and puzzle solving.

I'm thinking of the entire field of mental events here. Not just articulated rational thoughts, but emotions and motivations and background assumptions.

Yes, a video game is highly immersive. But saying that this cannot possibly have any kind of effect on someone is implausible.



Yeah, but this isn't an exact parallel. I can think of killing my boss, and that's wrong, but if I never even get close to killing him, it's irrelevant. All that really matters is how I conduct myself in reality.

Irrelevant to what, though? After all, the wrong math sums in your head aren't relevant to anything in the real world; but they're wrong math regardless.

Again, I don't think that fantasies about killing your boss are anything remotely comparable to actually killing your boss; but saying that something is mildly wrong is different from saying that it can't possibly be right or wrong at all.

I think the former is a more reasonable conclusion.



Attempted murder is an action, though, not merely a thought.

An action that doesn't hurt anyone, necessarily. And yet bad, based on the content of thought. An attempted murder that fails and hurts no one is morally worse than an accidental death that actually does kill someone- because of thoughts.



Surely you are aware that video games are sometimes blamed for violence in the real world. In other words, I'm getting tired of this inherently flawed idea of "Moral Gaming." As someone who has played games his entire life with many friends, I view the idea as incredibly silly.

Um... I've played games my whole life, too. Most of us have.

I'm sorry you're tired of the subject. But, frankly, other people aren't; and we'd like to talk about it.



Also, regarding your first post about being rewarded for bad things in gaming, the main reward of gaming is fun. You might think it's bad for people to have fun playing a game where you kill innocent people or whatever, but it's still a damn game at the end of the day.

If I read a case of someone stealing a nickel, I'd think that was a really petty and insignificant wrongdoing. But if someone insisted that it wasn't wrong- that right and wrong don't even apply to things that small- then I'd be interested in talking about that, and why they thought that morality only applies to the biggest things in life.

õ
Which is kind of where I'm going!

[Roquefort Raider]

If I read a case of someone stealing a nickel, I'd think that was a really petty and insignificant wrongdoing. But if someone insisted that it wasn't wrong- that right and wrong don't even apply to things that small- then I'd be interested in talking about that, and why they thought that morality only applies to the biggest things in life.

I think there's a culture-specific sliding scale of what goes under or above the morality radar. Here, nobody feels they're acting immorally when they get five bucks to mow the neighbor's lawn and fail to report it on their tax forms. It's just too small an amount.

With violence, it's a little similar. We're all okay with the Roadrunner tricking Wile E. Coyote into falling off a cliff. It's so cartoony it has no connecton to the real world.

With more accurate-looking violence, we're currently at a level of tolerance where a video game in which people steal cars, murder policemen and run down pedestrians can be seen as good fun. However, that's only because on the precise subject of imaginary violence, we have developed a pretty tough skin. I doubt a video game called "Gangbang in the daycare center" would be considered appropriate, even if it's all make-believe.

The same would go for nudity in European comics,in fact. "Immoral!!!" would say Strom Thurmond when full-frontal nudity is depicted in comics meant for 10 years old. "It's just a story", would say Europeans.

[Paradox]

ggundam8 goes with this old saw:

We as human begins are human recorders. Everything you see, tastes, smell and hear can become part of you, if you want it or not. It shouldn’t even be a question if violent media or media in general changes you, the question should be how much it changes you.

Or if it does at all. We're not "recorders". That implies that we take in everything at equal value. We have minds that can select or reject things as we will. We're not robots.


Many like to say it is just a fantasy it’s not real, but isn’t the whole purpose of a fantasy to immerse you into its reality.

Not really. It's to take you away from THIS reality for a while, but that in no way implies a "reality" of fantasy. For some it does, but that's an individual reaction, not something inherent in fantasy.


To the question at hand I say yes you can be immoral in a game. What is wrong is wrong no matter what form it takes.

Is it? What if your morality is based on not harming others? You can't harm a game.


I for one have no problem admitting that I have done bad things in real life and often do immoral things in videogames.

I will admit to doing things in videogames that would be considered immoral had I done them in real life. That's not the same thing at all.

[jesse_custer]

Um... I've played games my whole life, too. Most of us have.

I'm sorry you're tired of the subject. But, frankly, other people aren't; and we'd like to talk about it.

Video games have but one purpose: fun. If you don't contribute to that subject (i.e., a game should be judged by whether it's fun), I lose respect for you. This type of questioning is not good for the industry.

[SOGG]

Video games have but one purpose: fun. If you don't contribute to that subject (i.e., a game should be judged by whether it's fun), I lose respect for you. This type of questioning is not good for the industry.

Man... I think your posts are really thoughtful a lot of the time, but I think you're wrong here. Video games are a form of art, and as such, have more than just one purpose.

[jesse_custer]

Man... I think your posts are really thoughtful a lot of the time, but I think you're wrong here. Video games are a form of art, and as such, have more than just one purpose.

I should clarify. I'm not against people perceiving video games as art (I simply don't understand the usefulness of that perspective), but ultimately, the game has to be fun for me to play it. Very few games have what I would label artistic merit, though.

So yeah, I simply don't understand the Video Games As Art perspective, and I don't have a big problem with it, even though the perspective could result in a pretentious game that isn't fun.

What I'm mainly against: arguments that blame real violence on video games (even as a contributing factor) or other related moral arguments. I think they're a waste of time and needlessly damaging to gaming.

[Eric D.]

certainly not trying to derail here, - but here's an interesting quote from Ebert--worthy of note, - in regards to why he doesn't view video games as art.


"Yours is the most civil of countless messages I have received after writing that I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."

joystiq article (http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/30/ebert-video-games-inherently-inferior-to-film-and-literature/)

[SOGG]

certainly not trying to derail here, - but here's an interesting quote from Ebert--worthy of note, - in regards to why he doesn't view video games as art.



joystiq article (http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/30/ebert-video-games-inherently-inferior-to-film-and-literature/)

My gut reaction is: He thinks that the reason why video games are inferiour is because there is no authorial control? WTF? The guy who writes the video game controls reality. How much more authorial control does he want? Muttermutter. pretentious luddite no-op muttermutter.

My more thought out answer is: as we humans go through life, the things we build allow us a greater amount and variety of art. Is cellphone t-rex art? Is transformers 2? The definition of things change all the time -- including things we once thought fundamental like the study of economics. I'd argue that because video games require player choices that they are a new kind of art -- a collaborative kind. And though I think that it is a select few videogames where I can reasonably make this argument and not feel like I'm grasping at straws, I do think that those games exist.

I mean really, gi-joe: the rise of cobra is art but Planescape:Torment is not?

Please.

[Donald M.]

I don't begrudge Ebert his opinion on video games. He's old and old people are notorious for their reluctance to embrace change. :biggrin:

I respect his opinions on film and especially respect his willingness to judge films on their own merits, which often leads to some unexpected three and four star reviews. He doesn't know video games and why should we expect him to?

Besides, considering his main exposure to games has likely been the uniformly awful movies based on them, can anyone blame him for not taking games seriously.

I do think he's off on the games as art debate, but he's earned the right to be wrong, says I.

[Paradox]

jesse_custer thinks we're powerful:

Video games have but one purpose: fun. If you don't contribute to that subject (i.e., a game should be judged by whether it's fun), I lose respect for you. This type of questioning is not good for the industry.

This type of questioning on a comic book message board does jack-all to the industry.

[Paradox]

Donald M. gets my cane waggled at him:

I don't begrudge Ebert his opinion on video games. He's old and old people are notorious for their reluctance to embrace change. :biggrin:

DEATH TO THE AUTOMATED LOOM!!!

:biggrin:

[Donald M.]

This type of questioning on a comic book message board does jack-all to the industry.

Now, now, the internet was founded on self-importance and the belief that all opinions somehow matter, especially yours. Well, not the ones that disagree with you. Or the ones that agree with you, but in a weird way that you just can't support at all. But other than that all opinions matter.

Except yours, old man.

[Reptisaurus!]

A game like Tetris is pretty separate from reality. Geometric blocks falling endlessly out of the sky, rotating by telekinesis, and disappearing when they're lined up properly? Nothing in our world is like that.


So I'm the only one who sees this as forced, high speed, penetration by phallic objects?

Honestly, I see it as as much of a question of the audience' interpretation as anything.

"I hear a song about playing on the slide at the playground. Therefore, I need you to go kill a bunch of people, OK?"

I don't think we are now - or ever will be - conscious enough of what art triggers what in who. It's entirely possible (though I have no capacity to judge) that people might be able to excise their violent impulses in games of this type and not have to go bat-shit and shoot up a Burger King.

[Fenris]

I think there's a culture-specific sliding scale of what goes under or above the morality radar. Here, nobody feels they're acting immorally when they get five bucks to mow the neighbor's lawn and fail to report it on their tax forms. It's just too small an amount.

Well, I guess. But the intersection between law and morality (especially bureaucratic stuff like the fine print of miscellaneous income tax reporting) is pretty fuzzy, don't you think?

Hm, another example: most people would agree, if you pressed them, that "white lies" are technically just as dishonest as normal lies. But they're so small, and so basic a part of smooth social functioning, that we excuse them really easily.



With violence, it's a little similar. We're all okay with the Roadrunner tricking Wile E. Coyote into falling off a cliff. It's so cartoony it has no connecton to the real world.

Right; regardless of how much dynamite he gets blown off the cliff by, he just gets a singed coat and a dismayed expression out of it. And that only for a moment!



With more accurate-looking violence, we're currently at a level of tolerance where a video game in which people steal cars, murder policemen and run down pedestrians can be seen as good fun. However, that's only because on the precise subject of imaginary violence, we have developed a pretty tough skin. I doubt a video game called "Gangbang in the daycare center" would be considered appropriate, even if it's all make-believe.

The same would go for nudity in European comics,in fact. "Immoral!!!" would say Strom Thurmond when full-frontal nudity is depicted in comics meant for 10 years old. "It's just a story", would say Europeans.

Oh, Strom would likely have some problems with it regardless of what age group it was meant for.

õ
"It's just a story" is a really interesting defense!

[Fenris]

So I'm the only one who sees this as forced, high speed, penetration by phallic objects?

Well, some of the objects, aside from the square. And that s-shaped one... ew!



Honestly, I see it as as much of a question of the audience' interpretation as anything.

"I hear a song about playing on the slide at the playground. Therefore, I need you to go kill a bunch of people, OK?"

I don't think we are now - or ever will be - conscious enough of what art triggers what in who. It's entirely possible (though I have no capacity to judge) that people might be able to excise their violent impulses in games of this type and not have to go bat-shit and shoot up a Burger King.

I've heard the "games prevent psychotic death sprees by venting homicidal stress" idea before, but I don't know that it's ever been tested. (Could it be reliably tested? How?)

I can only imagine it, and only broadly. But if I were prone to killing people, and found relief by killing in video games, then I might describe it as a small and necessary evil.

"Yes, they're evil. That's why they work. I'm not getting any relief from reruns of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood."

õ
Obviously speculative!

[StoneGold]

I've heard the "games prevent psychotic death sprees by venting homicidal stress" idea before, but I don't know that it's ever been tested. (Could it be reliably tested? How?)

Mostly in testing stress levels after playing games. Except in most studies, stress levels are more elevated after gaming. But it's really a non-sequitor either way.

[Paradox]

It's the "killer ape" argument (which, of course, ignores the fact that most apes aren't killers). That there's something primitive inside all of us that has a tendency towards violence. Testing would be a bitch, however.

"We deprived this psychotic teen of GTA for three months and he killed seven people. I guess our theory is correct!" :tongue:

[StoneGold]

"We deprived this psychotic teen of GTA for three months and he killed seven people. I guess our theory is correct!" :tongue:

That's what I'm saying, it ignores any other potential stimuli. But that said, the catharsis effect is mostly bullshit. I mean, other than gaming for three hours straight saps the energy out of you to engage in any physically active violent event.

[jesse_custer]

This type of questioning on a comic book message board does jack-all to the industry.

I agree. I can understand why you thought otherwise and consider the misunderstanding a typical post-modern problem.

If you take that quote and put it in the context of my overall argument (with particular attention to the point about those who try to link video games to violence and other related moral arguments in the real world), I think it will make more sense.

But in a nutshell, I don't see the moral element of gaming. At all.