Violence and Video Games: Not a One-sided Argument

Violence in video games has to be one of the most controversial, debated, and yes, perhaps, proportionally irrelevant social subjects in the past decade. As I write this, civilian heads are being cracked on one side of the street in Argentina while in a fancy hotel not two blocks down, George W. Bush and his industrialist cronies from the host nation are taking photo ops and talking about making a "brave new world."

But I digress, the point that I'm trying to make about violence and video games is that the problem (if you want to call it that) can hardly be considered exclusive to the video game industry. It would, of course, be ridiculous to think so, and yet it seems we have to point this fact out over and over again.
The social and political issue with the use of violence, strong language and otherwise "anti-social phenomenon" in works of art (and I consider games; as much as movies, books and comics; as works of art) has been the cause of some of the very first cases of censorship in modern human history; it's the same problem that Leonardo Da Vinci had with the establishment if he didn't play by the book and Michelangelo had with the Pope when he was painting naked people on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

The free expression of the artistic form has always been in conflict with those trying to govern people. Such freedom is dangerous because it has so many ways of reaching the minds of its consumers and in the process, often conveying an idea that often is inherently against the ideal type of control over its subjects that most if not all governments strive to achieve. Art can be a very powerful thing, and that is why art is good. It can be as influential as "The Last Supper," or it can be more modest in its goals and scope and yet still powerful (if on a smaller scale).

But in order to artistically express oneself, one has to have the freedom to tackle the issue in whatever way he sees fit... ideally speaking.

This is where the real problem arises.

How do we determine that fine line between trying to express yourself creatively by using whatever unconventional means to do it, and using graphic, or pornographic images for pure shock value in hopes of either feeding your ego, or simply trying to raise as much dust as possible in an effort to make more money?

How do we, as consumers, authors (or whomever), make that distinction?

Here we are clearly delving into the murky waters of subjectivity. Instead of trying to argue pro or against this or that theoretical assumption, I will try to offer a couple of industry-related examples, which should better illustrate the distinction that I'm trying to make.

One great example that shows how violence can be used as an art form, and how strong language and often graphic scenes (of albeit cartoon) violence can have artistic value, are some of the more popular online "gamer" comics, such as Penny Arcade and VG Cats. If you take a look at those strips, you'll see violence and harsh language being used in such a way that the seemingly vulgar scenes serve a purpose - which is to make you laugh, and more often than not, to convey a cynical message about the industry or the society in general.

On the other hand, you'll often find works in the game industry brimming with classic examples of shock content, where excessive and often gruesome displays of violence are usually followed by a catchy one-liner. Instead of the distasteful scenes serving to the meaning of the message being conveyed, whatever retarded message is in there, serves as a guise for the images that are displayed for pure shock value. The reasons why someone would take this approach are self-explanatory.

The Postal games are a good example of shock violence being used for no greater purpose than to distress the audience under the guise of the authors trying to express themselves creatively.

This takes me back to the most important question that is being posed in this article. How do you know when that fine line between artistic expression and mindless vulgarity has been crossed, and what do we do about it?

It is my belief that the crux of the matter lies in the INTENTION of the author. In our every day lives, we judge intentions of others in almost every situation that we find ourselves in. So why is it so improbable to assume that on aggregate, the audience is quite capable of discerning the true intentions behind works that are created to educate, entertain, or indeed to fool us.

The real problem arises when these works that serve no other purpose than to act as tools for their authors to feed their egos or line their pockets with cash, become fuel for the fire for those who sit on the opposite side of the social spectrum. Those who are ironically, ideologically very close to the ones they are "fighting against." I am speaking about the "Jack Thompsons" of the world.

It is my belief that the gaming industry would never find itself under such scrutiny if more people, or rather more people IMPORTANT to the industry, would publicly condemn shameless attempts at making us look like fools; shows like the Spike TV Video Game Awards, games like Postal and stunts like the "Hot Coffee" mod that Rockstar pulled. (I am not generalizing Rockstar's opus here, nor do I want to go into that particular discussion. For the record, I believe that some of Rockstar's games have genuine artistic value.) This is not a matter of self-regulation by legal or corporate means. This is not a matter for the ESRB, but a form of public expression that will single out the examples of vulgar opportunism from the honest attempts at creativity.
Our "community" needs to show that it has the maturity and most importantly the intelligence to realize when someone is trying to shaft us with shock tactics, and more importantly to be vocal enough about it to reach the ears of the mass media. (Or to speak with their pocketbooks. That usually gets their attention. -Ed.)

Maybe then, attention junkies with their own shameless agenda like Jack Thompson, people whose antics belong on the "Jerry Springer Show," would be exposed for what they really are - ideological buddies of the shock jocks within our own ranks.