[Wow. You've got spam on your LJ account!? How weird!]
As to you comments about the two questions? I tend to agree with you there.
I think they the media does have the potential to reshape culture - particularly when its shown in a culture outside of where it originates.
I think that GTA is the thin edge of the wedge. Its just a bit of fun though, and occasionally its somewhat relaxing to just go around randomly shooting imaginary people before reloading the game and going on from where I left off. Even a game as controversial as Postal is still just a bit of mindless fun (right up to the point where you discover just what you can to with a Tasar). But some games cross the line pretty thoroughly and I find them disturbing. And the line is not in the imaginary "actions" themselves but rather in the in-game consequences that those actions attract.
Lets take Saints II for instance. Whilst is seems like GTA on the surface, there are subtle differences that are quite disturbing (now bear in mind that I haven't played GTA for some time....). Saints II gives you money to spend on designer clothes and paint-jobs for your car if you drive recklessly, run people down, destroy service stations or murder tramps because, say, they're in the ruined hotel you want to make the base for your posse! You even get monetary rewards for doing graffiti.
This kind of thing sets my spider sense a tingling. I don't mind the actions in the context of the game, but the rewards put a whole different spin on it. If the rewards were in terms of reputation, then that would be fine. That's how it works in real life. Get a bad rep with people and you can't negotiate with them. Get a positive rep and they do you favours.
But nowhere do you get paid for running over pedestrians!
If I'd been on the censorship board, I'd have been close to banning it. Or, like with the Fallout game, insisted on a modification to the game play before allowing it into the country. (With Fallout, the Censorship board in their wisdom insisted that Morphine be renamed something less identifiable, like Med-Ex).
Spammers seem to be pretty active this week. Don't know why! First I've had on my personal journal for a long long time...
I think you're exactly right about what makes some games problematic in their treatment of violence. I'm not against games that require you to be violent. And I'm not against gore. RE4 is one of my favourite games; there's nothing that relieves the stress of customer service like making zombie heads explode! The thing that irks me about some violent games is definitely the reward system for being a violent criminal.
I think the specific line for me is games that reward you for hate crimes. It gives me the heebie-jeebies that, just for one example, killing a prostitute so you don't have to pay her is something the makers of GTA want the player to look at as an achievement, something that will make the player feel good and accomplished and want to keep playing. Obviously it doesn't translate to that person then thinking it's okay or a good idea in real life, but the reward for being a shitty person does squick me, particularly when there are plenty of people who actually do commit just that crime in real life, and plenty more who wouldn't do it themselves but don't think it's that big a deal.
Have you ever played Infamous? I haven't played it personally, but watched over Lavaeolus' shoulder and I found the set-up with the choices to be good or evil really intriguing.
Hehe, sounds about right for somebody who chooses the evil path. You get super electricity powers (or something), and you have to choose which way to use them, for selfish reasons or to help others, and your powers develop according to how you use them. The evil way does offer more petty stress relief :) Sometimes all the choices are pretty murky grey areas. Your character is kind of a douche either way- the point is whether you just go with it or try to stop yourself from becoming a monster.
As to you comments about the two questions? I tend to agree with you there.
I think they the media does have the potential to reshape culture - particularly when its shown in a culture outside of where it originates.
I think that GTA is the thin edge of the wedge. Its just a bit of fun though, and occasionally its somewhat relaxing to just go around randomly shooting imaginary people before reloading the game and going on from where I left off. Even a game as controversial as Postal is still just a bit of mindless fun (right up to the point where you discover just what you can to with a Tasar). But some games cross the line pretty thoroughly and I find them disturbing. And the line is not in the imaginary "actions" themselves but rather in the in-game consequences that those actions attract.
Lets take Saints II for instance. Whilst is seems like GTA on the surface, there are subtle differences that are quite disturbing (now bear in mind that I haven't played GTA for some time....). Saints II gives you money to spend on designer clothes and paint-jobs for your car if you drive recklessly, run people down, destroy service stations or murder tramps because, say, they're in the ruined hotel you want to make the base for your posse! You even get monetary rewards for doing graffiti.
This kind of thing sets my spider sense a tingling. I don't mind the actions in the context of the game, but the rewards put a whole different spin on it. If the rewards were in terms of reputation, then that would be fine. That's how it works in real life. Get a bad rep with people and you can't negotiate with them. Get a positive rep and they do you favours.
But nowhere do you get paid for running over pedestrians!
If I'd been on the censorship board, I'd have been close to banning it. Or, like with the Fallout game, insisted on a modification to the game play before allowing it into the country. (With Fallout, the Censorship board in their wisdom insisted that Morphine be renamed something less identifiable, like Med-Ex).
Reply
I think you're exactly right about what makes some games problematic in their treatment of violence. I'm not against games that require you to be violent. And I'm not against gore. RE4 is one of my favourite games; there's nothing that relieves the stress of customer service like making zombie heads explode! The thing that irks me about some violent games is definitely the reward system for being a violent criminal.
I think the specific line for me is games that reward you for hate crimes. It gives me the heebie-jeebies that, just for one example, killing a prostitute so you don't have to pay her is something the makers of GTA want the player to look at as an achievement, something that will make the player feel good and accomplished and want to keep playing. Obviously it doesn't translate to that person then thinking it's okay or a good idea in real life, but the reward for being a shitty person does squick me, particularly when there are plenty of people who actually do commit just that crime in real life, and plenty more who wouldn't do it themselves but don't think it's that big a deal.
Have you ever played Infamous? I haven't played it personally, but watched over Lavaeolus' shoulder and I found the set-up with the choices to be good or evil really intriguing.
Reply
I've only seen people playing it briefly. I recall watching someone having their character kick a bystander half to death and cackling madly.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment