Video Games Under Fire

Supreme Court Hears Case of Legislating Gaming Sales

Pushing the Boundaries of Violence in Video Games: The Chainsaw Kill

I received my October issue of Game Informer magazine today and came across an interesting story. After years of failed attempts, it seems the pussy whipped politicians and activists who are against video game violence are finally getting their ultimate wet dream. The Supreme Court has decided to hear the case of legislation in California trying to regulate the sale of violent video games in retail stores. If you know who I am, this little tidbit is an offense to me on many levels. First, I am an avid video gamer. Second, I majored in Broadcast Journalism and English, which are fundamentally tied to the belief of the first amendment. And thirdly, my conservative nature will not allow me to support a ridiculous law like this that restricts a free market enterprise like consumer electronics with government regulation. Puh-lease!!!

So how did all of this begin? Well, it all started a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away called California. For years, the state of California has passed measures trying to enforce the sale of mature video games to minors. The measure eventually became a bill, but was deemed unconstitutional by a circuit court...TWICE! Low and behold, the case was appealed and is now heading to the Supreme Court in November to determine it's constitutionality. So what's the bill say? From what I've gathered online and through Game Informer, the bill wants to impose a penalty to retailers who are caught selling mature games to younglings. It's something like $1000 per infraction. The bill also adds its own definition of what video game violence is...which is really not so simple. According to the bill, a violent game is "one that depicts “killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being” in a manner that meets all of the following requirements: (1) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find that it appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors; (2) it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors, and; (3) it causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors." Alrighty then, so that implies not just most video games, but tens of thousands of other works of creative art; be it movies, books, or comics.

So why the fuss about this law? Video games have always fallen under a large debate over whether they should be considered art. Considering now the complex nature that goes into creating a game, from level design, to art direction, story structure, etc. I find it difficult to NOT consider video games artistic masterpieces. Teams of talented individuals are ultimately creating an artificial world out of nothingness. When you consider the basis of the First Amendment, games should be protected, and thus not be allowed to be prohibited from sale.

One of the major defenders of video game rights is comic book mafioso Stan Lee. Mr. Marvel himself is standing up for video game rights, claiming the California bill impedes on our First Amendment rights. Lee has some experience in this field, considering that back in the 50's, comic books went through the same public scrutiny, which believed that comics contributed to juvenile delinquency. You can read his whole defense speech here if you like. Quite marvelously, pun intended, Lee brings up the obvious point of the first amendment protection we should all have. On top of that, he drives the point home that politicians are using the attack on video game violence as a way to boost their credibility to the public by supposedly helping America's youth, when in fact there is already a ratings system in place for games, (see ESRB) on top of the fact that many consoles have parental controls in place. Still, the big fuss comes when you mention the supposed link between video games and real-life violence and here is where I call BULLSHIT! I understand that many tragic events in American history are linked to video games. Columbine and Virginia Tech are the most notable in today's media, but what many people fail to understand is that many factors come to play in determining why a sick individual would perform such atrocities.

If you've ever watched a program called "Penn & Teller's: Bullshit," one of the episodes discussing video game violence does a great job in shooting down the stigma of video games being associated with violent crimes. What it basically says is there is no concrete, scientific evidence that links violent gaming to real-life violence. Instead, it is pure speculation that drives politicians and activists to pointing the finger at violent video games solely because they need a scapegoat. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Many experts say violent crime among youths since the 1990's has gone down since video games became popular. When looking at the f**k faces behind Columbine and Va. Tech, the main link between the two of them wasn't the fact they played violent video games or listened to Marlyn Manson, but rather the fact they were troubled individuals who were depressed. We need to recognize that humans are social beings. Thankfully, games are now trending towards a more social atmosphere and this is the direction we need to keeping pushing for. However, and this is a big However, video games can be detrimental to youth, but only with improper parenting. Parents need to be involved with their kids and teach them the difference between reality and fantasy, and that there are major consequences when we push reality too far.

Hopefully this is the stance the Supreme Court will take come November. If it comes to the point where government will control the sale of mature games then we will see a ripple effect like never before. Retailers will be scared to hold violent video games in fear of hefty fines, thus forcing developers to take less chances in creating their games. From there, who knows, maybe it'll make video games the scapegoats that most politicians are looking for. As it is, it also drives the point of why video games are taking the heat. Shouldn't violent movies like Hostel and Saw take the brunt from Congress? Or how about violent works of literature like "World War Z" or "American Psycho?" Might as well put a lid on Eminem while we're at it. The point is many times in life we want to blame other people for our problems but many times the only person to blame is yourself. I certainly hope it never gets to the point where I need to play "Wii Sports" for the rest of my life but who knows, I've seen weirder things...Like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Here is the episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit I was talking about. Seriously give it a go, it's very good. Enjoy

Medal of Honor Causes Uproar

EA Getting Flagged for Inclusion of Taliban

The revamp of Medal of Honor is coming with a price, and its not just $60

Although this is news that broke late last week, it's beginning to catch steam in the media this week instead. The folks behind the upcoming military shooter reboot "Medal of Honor" are getting their upcoming game pulled from all Gamestop stores that are located within Army and Air-Force compounds, because the game allows players to play as a Taliban members in its multiplayer mode. The Army and Air Force Exchange Service says it will not allow the game to be stocked within its compounds out of respect for family members of servicemen and women who have been affected by the war in Afghanistan. Soldiers can still buy the game and play it in their compound, but they will have to purchase the game off site to do so. Now, I consider myself a hardcore gamer, and I am the first one to chime in when it comes to freedom of artistic liberties in video games, but this is the one time where I can see and fully respect both sides of the argument.

The infamous Call of Duty airport scene.

For starters, the inclusion of allowing gamers to play as the Taliban is a bold move on developers part. Video games have always been in the mainstream in terms of battling the skewed perception many people have of violence in video games, but I think that EA is playing with fire by including real-life militant factions in its game. For the past couple of years, "Call of Duty" was receiving the backlash for its realistic depictions of violence in its games. Most recently, the controversial airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 which forces gamers to play as an undercover CIA agent who infiltrates a terrorist organization, and is forced to partake in an attack on an airport terminal, ultimately killing dozens of innocent, unarmed civilians. As harsh as the scene may look to the average person, I defended the developers decision to include the scene because it was THE pivotal point in the story that drives the game's plot forward. I don't want to spoil it, but it was unpredictable and had an ultimate twist to it. I'll admit, it did teeter on the line of being tasteless violence, but I think Infinity Ward (the guys who created Call of Duty) handled it very well by allowing players an opportunity to opt out of the level all together if they wish. Still, I can't say I'm 100% in support of Medal of Honor.

The Taliban in Medal of Honor. You can see why its controversial

For Medal of Honor, the developers are going for a realistic take on their story. They're including a plot that revolves around the current war in Afghanistan, allowing you to play as members of the US Army Rangers, as well as an elite American Military Unit called 'Tier-1.' Because of the nature of the story, many people are quick to bash the game for its touchy content, but I can't be the one to point the finger at EA just yet until I see how they handle the story. EA should know what it's getting itself into, and so far I think they have the right approach in handling the publicity of their game. EA has gone on record saying that it respects the military's decision to ban the game from Gamestops within military bases. As for its stance on playing as the Taliban in multiplayer, an EA spokesperson talked with AOL news stating "the reality of the game necessitated it. Most of us having been doing this since we were 7 -- if someone's the cop, someone's gotta be the robber, someone's gotta be the pirate and someone's gotta be the alien." I couldn't agree more with that rationale, but still, it's completely understandable for some people to be uncomfortable controlling members of a realistic terrorist organization that kill US military soldiers.

Playing as the bad guys in Red Dead Redemption

Still, when looking at popular games like Red Dead Redemption, Modern Warfare, and even Gears of War, someone is always a bad guy when it comes to online deathmatch games. Red Dead Redemption has you play as federales, bank robbers, etc. while Modern Warfare has you play as an ambiguous terrorist organization known as the "Op-For" or opposing force. Gears of War also has you play as the cannibalistic Locust. While everyone has their take on a bad guy, the only catch with Medal of Honor is that the bad guys are not fictitious. They are very real...and very dangerous. Still, I understand it's really a catch-22 at this point. Although I understand why people are upset with the game's content, I will say that developer's have complete discretion as to what they do with their game. And lets face it, if you opt to buy a military shooter video game, you should know what you're getting yourself into.

Call of Duty Black Ops...This guy is eerily similar to Solid Snake

All this hub-bub over the game is the same thing that happens with a bad joke that pokes fun at a realistic event too soon. There's a very famous comedic quote that says "Tragedy plus time equals comedy." Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this issue is something to be laughed at, but the point the quote makes is that you need to let time pass by before it is socially acceptable to tackle a certain issue. Why do you think a game like "Call of Duty: Black Ops," which takes place during the cold war and Vietnam, isn't getting as much heat from the press? Vietnam was an atrocious event that led to the deaths of  tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and French combined. Still, there have been a number of games released detailing combat violence in the canopy jungles of North Vietnam and yet, the media never really tackled it. Whatever the case may be my point in all this is that I understand where critics of Medal of Honor are coming from. They're banning the sale of the game out of respect for the families. I get that. I find it very analogous with the whole rubbish in the news of building a mosque on ground zero. (For the record I'm against it...which is probably the reason I understand the stance the military is taking on the new Medal of Honor game.) Sure you have the right to build and defend your mosque or video game or whatever it may be, but at the same token there must be a morsel of mutual respect, and for that matter some common sense, in understanding that there are always two sides to every argument.