Jack Thompson, an attorney who has fought long and hard against violent video games, Grand Theft Auto in particular, wrote this letter addressed to the mother of the chairman of Take Two, the company that produces GTA. (for the record, he didn't send it to her, but rather to her son's attorneys). The full letter can be found here:
http://diehardgamefan.insidepulse.com/2008/04/22/jack-thompsons-open-letter-to-take-two-ceos-mother/ .  Here is a small clip that interested me:

"Mrs. Zelnick, did you train up your son, Strauss, to make millions of dollars by pushing Mature-rated video games to children? Any kid can go right to little Strauss’ corporate web site and buy GTA IV with no age verification. Strauss is even marketing the new Grand Theft Auto IV on World Wrestling Entertainment tv shows seen by millions of kids."

Clearly WWE has enough 18+ viewers to draw the three potential presidential candidates to promote themselves on the show to potential voters. It's not as though GTA advertisements are airing during Hannah Montana (though, as an avid fan of both Grand Theft Auto and Hannah Montana, such an ad placement would certainly hit at least one of their consumers). To imply that the video game shouldn't be advertised anywhere that children might see it is outrageous; not even the alcohol or tobacco industries are held to that standard, and the health defects caused by either of those products are clear and generally without dispute.

Furthermore, any kid can go on the site and buy the game... if they have a credit card. Which means they'd have to have their parents buy it for them unless they have a credit card of their own, in which case parents have plenty of opportunity to monitor their children's purchases on it if they're concerned with what their kids are buying. This is a far cry from a child walking into a store alone and buying it with their saved allowance.

He goes on to mention a boy who murdered cops in Alabama and then stole a cop car and blamed Grand Theft Auto for the whole thing. That case is especially damning because it's similar to a scenario in the game where the character is in a police station and has to free an inmate, kill some cops, and drive off in a cop car outside. When the young man was arrested, he poetically explained that life is a videogame and claimed that Grand Theft Auto made him commit the crime.

I've always been of the opinion that one's actions are one's own responsibility, or in the case of minors, the responsibility of their parents. If a parent doesn't want their child to play violent video games, it's up to the parent to enforce this. This doesn't have to mean monitoring the things their child buys; I think it's up to a parent to educate the child on their family's views and ethics and rules about such things. It's also up to a parent to raise a child to be respectful of their parents' rules (and, for that matter, to teach a child that murder is wrong).

If a child is in the small margin of young people whose use of this media might give them the idea to recreate events they see in the game, beyond even limiting their child's involvement with a game, it's the parent's responsibility to notice red flags (that their child is displaying antisocial behavior, that they are experiencing social rejection, that they are depressed or psychotic, etc) and to get their child to a psychologist.

Clearly a large majority of young people can play games like Grand Theft Auto and not feel compelled to kill cops. The remaining few who commit crimes after playing the game did so because of their own inclination towards violent behavior. But it's easier to say that the child was playing Grand Theft Auto all day long for weeks (as was the case with the boy in Alabama) and blame the game, rather than acknowledging other factors in the young person's life, such as that he was depressed, or that he had no friends, or that he was being teased mercilessly by people at school, or that he had problems controlling his anger and emotions.

It's easier to avoid addressing the reason he was playing GTA all day long for weeks at a time or to consider that dedicating so much time to a single activity for that long is unhealthy in any case. Maybe he was playing GTA by himself in his room for weeks because he was being cast out by his peers, or because playing the game allowed him to shut out unpleasant emotions he was experiencing. Maybe he was playing with his friends and the game was just another aspect of the group's acceptance and promotion of violent behavior.

When the boy in question was arrested, he claimed that, “life is a video game, everybody has to die sometime,” he was either lying to justify his actions or he was in a delusional state. If he was lying than the whole point is moot. If he was delusional, then why not address the factors that caused him to have these delusions?

As long as we keep turning a blind eye to the other important issues that these kids face in addition to their involvement with a videogame, parents will continue to fail to make the connection between those issues and potential homicidal behavior in their kids. The more we ignore it the more it'll persist.

Reflections on Week 15: Violence in Video Games

Why I Don’t Trust Studies About Violent Video Games

Anything we read this week that calmly responds to negative claims made about violence in video games just seems like common sense to me so I'm not sure there's much more for me to add. Jenkins writes that “the overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure.” And besides that, violent video games are meant to be played by older people rather than young children. The National Institute on Media and the Family found that kids know more about ESRB ratings than parents, making it clear that concerned parents should use the ratings guide to evaluate the content of their kids' games.

I would, however, like to point out how ridiculous it is to do a study where one group of kids is given a commercial video game to play while another group is given a game about cancer and manage to conclude with a straight face that video games about cancer lead to “significantly higher gains in cancer knowledge” than games that are not specifically created to be about cancer. Gee, I wonder if they were surprised by those results. How am I supposed to take studies about video games seriously when the procedures and used systems of measurement are ludicrous to me? How do you seriously measure things like “aggression” anyhow? And how does one feel knowledgeable about the effects of violence in video games when many researchers are probably bent on believing them to be inherently good or evil even as they design their studies?

There was an article in The Onion a while back with the headline “Wii Video Games Blamed For Rise In Effeminate Violence” that makes fun of the current moral panic about violence in games:

“According to the American Psychological Association, prolonged exposure to cutesy video-game violence can increase aggressive frolicking and angry fluttering in children. Paula Greer, co-chair of the APA Committee on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media, warned that Wii games reward players for explosive girly behavior rather than enforcing proper negative social consequences.”

Won't someone think of the children?


Violent Video Games in a Post-Columbine World

Blaming the Wii for so-called “girly behavior” makes as much sense to me as blaming violent games for school shootings, but people do try to make the connection. Even before anyone knew who Seung-hui Cho was, anti-videogames lawyer/crusader Jack Thompson was a guest on TV news networks as a "school shootings expert." He twists research findings to make it seem like violent video games are how school shooters “train” themselves on gun use. Even after it was proven that Seung-hui Cho did not play video games while in college, Thompson continues to blame games for what happened and in this video he stretches his arguments so thin that not even news anchor Chris Matthews can take him seriously anymore. After the NIU shooting, Thompson went on the news and said the exact same things, though afterwards no evidence of video games was found in Kazmierczak's life.

When I think of people who cite anti-gaming statistics, I think of Jack Thompson. But he's on a pretty far end of the spectrum and I doubt most people are aligned with him. I usually don't talk to people about video games unless they play them too, so I wish I could talk to anti-games people just to know what they personally believe. I'm guessing it all comes down to believing kids are sponges who can't judge the content they're bombarded with as good or bad, similar to what Sternheimer said about the decontextualization of violence in media-effects research and the assumption that children are passive consumers. But considering the growing number of people who enjoy video games in the world, I'm not too worried about the issue right now. It might be a while (as even younger candidates like Obama like to use video games as a metaphor for underachievement), but eventually there will be a moral panic about some other thing and I'll be playing video games with my kids. Including the violent ones, when they're old enough.

Showing M-Rated Games Some Love

For the record, I may not play violent video games but do love watching other people play them. Over time I've come to consider playing violent video games to be equal in aggressiveness to hobbies like playing RISK, football, or paintball. Violent games are essentially spectator sports for me, so I watch my friends choose from a vast array of weapons and use all their cunning to obliterate their opponents as hard as they possibly can.

Despite being well-made and popular, games rated 'M' by the ESRB usually don't get any positive press. They deserve to receive praise for the things that make them fun to play, so I’ve written up an informal analysis of ..

My Top 5 Favorite 'M'-Rated Video Games to Watch Somebody Else Play (and Why I Think They're Great)

5. Grand Theft Auto series

It’s been a while since I watched somebody steal a police helicopter in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, but I still remember the occasion fondly. GTA: Vice City is a little different from the other games in the series because it’s set in 1980s Miami. The clothes are brightly garish, the décor is as tacky as the game’s graphics looks dated, and palm tree fronds sway in the breeze as you go about forging a criminal empire. The setting detracts from the violent content and sends the game into the territory of parody, spoofing mafia movies like Scarface or just doing a send-up of the '80s in general. The side missions are what attract me to this game as a spectator. When not gunning down rival gangs (or, ooh -- using a flamethrower!), players do things like land trick jumps on motorcycles or deliver pizzas during sidequests to garner cash rewards or earn gameplay advantages.

Trailer:




4. Halo series

Halo is pure fantasy violence. Faces are hidden behind helmets, weapons and battlegrounds are often off-worldly futuristic, and there is a strange cleanliness to every environment and even to the violence. There are different maps to play on, often familiar in appearance until you notice the enormous, pink-tinged crescent moon (or is it a planet?) taking up a huge portion of the sky. When Peter Jackson is finally allowed to produce the movie for this game (and despite encountering many difficulties, he says it WILL be made), maybe Hollywood will finally be able to say “Look, we made a video game movie that doesn’t suck" and maybe non-gamers will be introduced to Halo too.

Trailer:




3. Haunting Ground

The protagonist of Haunting Ground is more similar to the terrified, defenseless women in horror movies than the gun-toting protagonists in more prominent survival horror games such as the Silent Hill or Resident Evil series. Fiona wakes up after a car crash to find herself caged in an empty castle. While solving puzzles in an attempt to escape, Fiona meets up with dangerous castle workers: Debilitas, a shambling and monstrous version of Lenny from Of Mice and Men, is bent on grabbing Fiona and playing with her until she breaks. Daniella, the coldly beautiful, non-human cook stalks after Fiona with an unrelenting sense of purpose that makes it clear she wishes to eviscerate Fiona with the enormous shard of glass she carries with her. Unarmed and physically rather weak, Fiona runs and hides from room to room of the castle. Tension builds as you wait quietly for your enemy to leave the area – and if you use the same hiding spot more than once, they start to find you more easily. The following analogy does not fit my impression that Daniella is by far the scariest video game enemy I have ever encountered, but watching Daniella chase Fiona is a bit like watching a deranged Pepé Le Pew chase after a frantically fleeing cat. The whole process is enjoyably scary and the plot that unfolds is suitably disturbing.

It's impossible to experience the subtle, slow-moving creepiness of the game in a low-quality and truncated video clip, but here's gameplay footage with a surprise at 2:15 and an example of Fiona hiding at 4:36 :




2. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Most successful first-person shooters are set either in the past or in a far-off future, but Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is set in a slightly fictionalized near-future. You fight Russian and Middle Eastern rebels, shifting from location to location – such as Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and others. Debris flying in the wind, blasts of smoke and light from explosions, and other effects make for an insanely hectic battlefield as you are challenged on different missions to plant C4 on tanks, snipe enemy leaders, sprint in small teams through crumbling buildings to gain territory, etc. But one of my favorite things is that loading screens are used to display thought-provoking and often anti-war quotes. For example, "In war, truth is the first casualty" attributed to Aeschylus will flash by between battles or perhaps one will briefly see Winston Churchull quoted with “Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.” A full list of quotes used in the game can be accessed here.

Gameplay footage:




1. Half-Life series

No science fiction fan could possibly resist the perfect dystopia that is the Half-Life universe. Physicist Gordon Freeman leads the resistance against alien invaders and the humans who collude with them, often starting out with only a crowbar. It may be rated M, but it’s also one of the most critically acclaimed video games in history. The beautiful, broken-down, violent world of Half-Life reminds me of the one found in the film Children of Men due to how immersive both their environments and backstories are in their political oppressiveness. Fans have put together an impressively comprehensive backstory along with theories about the universe that you can view here, though it would make the most sense to people who are familiar with the games.

Here is a fanmade commentary about the first ten minutes of Half-Life 2, which includes an explanation of how the environment and gameplay work together to introduce players to the fact that an alien-led totalitarian government has taken over between the events of the first Half-Life game and its sequel:




Why don't I play these games myself? One day I might try, but for now I am content to just sit back and watch. I lack confidence when it comes to learning curves and I'm pretty sure I would play most violent games in a confused manner similar to this avid gamer's girlfriend during her first time playing a team-based, first-person shooter game called Team Fortress 2 :




Being fond of video games, I sometimes wonder what I'll do when I have children who want to play violent video games. Here are some articles written about gaming parents who have already encountered this problem and also offer more general advice on what kinds of video games to give children at different ages:

You Grew Up Playing Shoot'em-Up Games. Why Can't Your Kids?

When will I hand him his first controller? Will I let him play the gory combat games I love so much -- and, if so, when?

The Gaming Generation: Finding Time for Gaming, Even as an Adult

Scalzi says that finding a balance between challenge and fun is key; his 7-year-old daughter can become easily frustrated if a game is too complex, and that can make it far less fun for her, even if the game is rated "E.

Stephen King's EW column about videogames

Stephen King's column in this week's Entertainment Weekly is especially relevant to the class discussion in two weeks fears and concerns about youth and media. First, here's the column:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20188502,00.html

The column is all about legislation banning youth from purchasing certain videogames in Massachusetts. Although Stephen King explains House Bill 1423 pretty completely and rather fairly, here is a copy of the bill:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/185/ht01pdf/ht01423.pdf

I tend to agree with King's analysis of the bill. I especially agree with him when he takes exception to the portion of the bill that says certain video games and other media have no literary, artistic or social merit. So now politicians are literary scholars and art critics as well as law makers. Man, they know everything!

Also, I find it funny when King says teens can go see Hostel 2 but not play the less violent Grand Theft Auto. It seems like a more apt analogy would be a teen can go into a book store and buy a Stephen King book but can't buy the less violent GTA.

If nothing else, I think this legislation and article in Entainment Weekly demostrate that the issues we are discussing in class do have real world effects that reach across the media world, across the the political world, and into the lives of teenagers and all citizens.

Comic Book Confidential

In a comment on Mary's post about the harmful effects of media, I said this discussion has been going about as long as any media has been popular and targeted at youth. One example I mentioned was the U.S. Senate Hearings on comic books and their role in juvenile delinquency - this link has a summary and transcripts.

Here's a video that was used as evidence for those hearings:



This footage is an excerpt from Comic Book Confidential, a documentary by Rob Mann. My brother clued me into this - he saw it in his serial illustration class (all about storyboards and comic books and yes, I'm jealous) at Columbia College. He highly recommends it to anyone interested in comic books or issues with censorship and popular media.

The video isn't terribly expensive (less than $20), so if you're building a library collection of comic books it might be a valuable addition. Besides historical footage like this, it also includes interviews with many major figures across different genres of comics and graphic novels, from artists of traditional superhero stuff to authors of more complex titles.

Tyner's Chapter 7, media violence and information

I read ahead in the Tyner book. Chapter 7 made me stop and think. Tyner is talking about the history of media education in the U.S. She spends a large portion of the chapter talking about how the U.S. has viewed media consumption as bad for young people. In this discussion, the negative effect of media violence is brought up. This led me to some questions about research and finding truthful information.

As an undergraduate, I had psychology and communications professors who insisted that research showed a correlation media violence and aggressive/violent behavior. They did say it was only a correlation, but it was strong enough to cause grave concerns. One psychology professor went so far as to say it was comparable to the correlation between smoking and cancer. Other professors and sources from communications, English, and library classes have said that the evidence is absolutely inconclusive. Each side has their arguments and studies and swears they are correct. (Tyner does a nice job of going through the history of this research and pointing out problems in the research when they occur.)

I am not looking for a solution to this dilemma. I’m looking for a way I can make my own informed decision. When there is an issue, such as this one, that is controversial, how does one get past the rhetoric and agendas and find clear information? Both sides present “evidence” to prove their point, how can a person best evaluate this “evidence” objectively? Is it possible to get unbiased information?

Everyone respond to this post, because I have no idea. I need some good thoughts!