Support NeoGAF

[apana]

Like I've said before if we need to have more restrictions on entertainment in exchange for passing gun regulations it is well worth it. They could just enforce exisisting laws in a much stricter way. Perhaps the government could encourage some family programming or alternative types of games.

 

[Gamerwillz]

It boggles my mind how this had anything to do with video games...

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I don't suppose the game's setting accounts for anything.

There's an amazing game story waiting to be told based on Nietzches premise about those who fight with monsters, but the audience weren't a whooping and a hollering like a Jerry Springer audience based on their belief that TLOU is going to be it.

They were cheering on an unarmed man being executed, and they were doing it because "Fuck with me huh? Imma kill you muthafucker! BAM! You dead now, bitch!"

I'm not the only one who found that sort of distasteful at the time.

 

[BillyBats]

It's an interesting debate. In years past, I really wouldn't see anything happening as far as legislation regarding video game content or what have you. But now, Obama is a very Big Government president and I wouldn't be surprised to see some new government agency established that monitors movies, entertainment, gaming, internet, etc. They then would have the power to judge what is offensive and what isn't.

Who knows, that may be my paranoid conservative side at work. I get very nervous when we give the government too much control. Now it's large sodas, toys in Happy Meals, walking your dog on the beach, etc. etc. etc.....is taking away violent video games that far off? I know 99 percent of GAF is liberal but this type of regulation and Big Brother government is going to continue and get much worse....or better if you like that type of thing.

 

[Camp Lo]

 

[faceless007]

I think my main issue with it is this: Interaction is the core of video gaming, it is the main thing that distinguishes it from other, passive media like films or books, and certainly the major appeal of video games. I am incredibly disappointed that within this medium, so many developers choose to make games where the main or, not uncommonly, only way you really interact with the world is through violence. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that on its own, I enjoy violent games too as my GOTY votes reflect every year and will this year, but there is when it's so very dominant and big budgets are only rarely devoted to games that try to do something different, and when one of the main ways of increasing appeal of games is just upping the violence rather than pushing the medium forward by innovating and offering a truly different experience to players.

I've made this analogy before: Imagine a world where all the major Hollywood film studios, with the sole exception of Disney, made almost nothing but horror movies like the Saw films. Every high-profile studio release that isn't a Disney movie is a torture porn film, and if you want to see anything different at all, you have to go to film festivals and indie circuits. Now, I actually like the Saw films, but I would have concerns about the general health and artistic viability of the big movie industry if this were the case, and would wonder what it said about the consumer culture we live in if the major content-producers didn't see fit to make anything except that genre. Even though I occasionally want to see a film like that, that doesn't mean I want it to be the only kind of film made, or that that audience is the only audience that should be served by the industry.

 

[Burt]

Biden is wasting his time. This accomplishes nothing substantial.

Not like the VP has shit else to do.

 

[Riposte]

I think my main issue with it is this: Interaction is the core of video gaming, it is the main thing that distinguishes it from other, passive media like films or books, and certainly the major appeal of video games. I am incredibly disappointed that within this medium, so many developers choose to make games where the main or, not uncommonly, only way you really interact with the world is through violence. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that on its own, I enjoy violent games too as my GOTY votes reflect every year and will this year, but there is when it's so very dominant and big budgets are only rarely devoted to games that try to do something different, and when one of the main ways of increasing appeal of games is just upping the violence rather than pushing the medium forward by innovating and offering a truly different experience to players.

I think violence is going to pop up more often than not because violence (which is a more general concept than people give credit for) is amongst the most powerful stimuli (if not a concept which stimulation is directly tied to if you interpret the word generally enough). "Innovation" (a form of improvement) and newness/difference is all well and good, but those are going to play second fiddle to (or simply be tools to achieve) what humans enjoy most, which seems to be material that feature "violence" in at least some regard (if not prominently). I suppose it is more fair to criticize games for lacking role-playing options (e.g. dialogue choices) in favor of highly-focused combat systems, but even in said games I think it would be unreasonable not expect violence in some form.

I still think it is just a matter of taste. One that may be a bit too reactive to what we have now, with too much focus on wanting something different rather than wanting something better (in order words: novelty).

 

[I H8 Memes]

You're (almost) completely wrong on this. In 2011, Jared Loughner was found mentally incompetent to stand trial and was ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment. It was only after a year of treatment that he was found competent, when he then struck a plea deal. There has been no ruling on James Holmes's mental competency as of yet. So, no, neither have been found innocent by reason of insanity, but Loughner was certainly found to be unable to stand trial due to mental incompetence and Holmes hasn't reached that point in his trial.

Edit: Also, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure there's a difference between being found mentally competent to stand trial and being found not guilty by reason of insanity.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...hooter-james-holmes-could-be-proxy-trial?lite

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/11/aurora-suspect-james-holmes-plea-arraignment-delayed

Loughner was already plea bargained and convicted in a sham court proceeding that lasted little more than a half hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#Guilty_plea_and_sentencing

The same will happen with Holmes. Nobody gets found not guilty by reason of insanity in America. And nobody cares how crazy they were when they committed the crime. They only care if they can get enough drugs in them to make them presentable for a court appearance.

Loughners mental illness is so severe that they had to make the court appearance as short as possible and get him out of there as quick as possible. Lest people think Americans are the kinds of savages who imprison the mentally ill instead of treat them.

 

[Spirit Icana]

Joe Biden: What should we do with guns?
Game Industry: Pew Pew Pew

 

[Kabouter]

I think violence is going to pop up more often than not because violence (which is a more general concept than people give credit for) is amongst the most powerful stimuli (if not a concept which stimulation is directly tied to if you interpret the word generally enough). "Innovation" (a form of improvement) and newness/difference is all well and good, but those are going to play second fiddle to (or simply be tools to achieve) what humans enjoy most, which seems to be material that feature "violence" in at least some regard (if not prominently). I suppose it is more fair to criticize games for lacking role-playing options (e.g. dialogue choices) in favor of highly-focused combat systems, but even in said games I think it would be unreasonable not expect violence in some form.

I still think it is just a matter of taste. One that may be a bit too reactive to what we have now, with too much focus on wanting something different rather than wanting something better (in order words: novelty).

I couldn't disagree with you more, from other media we know that humans enjoy a diverse range of of entertainment, many of which are non-violent or where at least violence doesn't play the most prominent role. Why should I not desire this diversity in video games? Why should people be satisfied with big budget titles being so narrow in focus? The innovation here isn't novelty, or a mere matter of personal taste, it's finding a way to give us experiences that clearly have broad popularity by introducing new ways of interacting with a game world, or the refinement of existing ones, rather than just the use of violence. Which is a theme by the way that while broad, isn't quite as broad as you imply, because the distinction here is that in these video games, the core of the experience is centred around the use of violence by the main character. He isn't merely experiencing it, he is perpetrating it.

 

[Rentahamster]

I think my main issue with it is this: Interaction is the core of video gaming, it is the main thing that distinguishes it from other, passive media like films or books, and certainly the major appeal of video games. I am incredibly disappointed that within this medium, so many developers choose to make games where the main or, not uncommonly, only way you really interact with the world is through violence. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that on its own, I enjoy violent games too as my GOTY votes reflect every year and will this year, but there is when it's so very dominant and big budgets are only rarely devoted to games that try to do something different, and when one of the main ways of increasing appeal of games is just upping the violence rather than pushing the medium forward by innovating and offering a truly different experience to players.

Given that the basic structure of a game is to "beat" or "overcome" some sort of challenge, or to reach some kind of goal, there are a lot more ways to do this via a form of "violence" that is an easy way to represent through a gaming medium.

You can see this in its roots. Chess and checkers have pieces (eating, taking, defeating, killing) each other, you have ships blowing up asteroids, Pacman eating ghosts, and Mario stomping on Goombas. We just see this scaled up now as games become fancier and more complex, but the underlying goal of using a kind of violence as a tool to achieve a goal or defeat a challenge still persists.

Especially now that a story and plot are large elements to games, drama at its basic level deals with protagonists vs. antagonists, and those plot elements are usually resolved via a type of violence. In books and film, violent resolutions are popular as well, but are not necessarily essential since there are many stories that have non=violent plot progression.

However, since violence is a simple and effective and most importantly, interactive, tool to convey the hero vs. villain archetype plot progression in a game, it seems to me like this would be the most common device used by a developer.

Conflict and competition is a basic principle in "playing to win", and conflict is inherently going to be closely associated with violence. Similar to real-life sports, games that have players compete against themselves(e.g. puzzle games, simulation games, strategy games, etc), against an AI (e.g. platformers, adventure games, etc) , or against other people (e.g. fighting games, RTS games, MOBA games, fighting games etc) are a form of controlled violence: a much better substitute for real violence.

I think the main issue is to what extent we want to see realistic and gory violence in our games, especially now that technology allows us to create more and more realistic representation of real life. But still, I think this is mostly a matter of taste and art - areas of human creativity and subjectivity that fall under first amendment protections.

 

[I H8 Memes]

I think violence is going to pop up more often than not because violence (which is a more general concept than people give credit for) is amongst the most powerful stimuli (if not a concept which stimulation is directly tied to if you interpret the word generally enough). "Innovation" (a form of improvement) and newness/difference is all well and good, but those are going to play second fiddle to (or simply be tools to achieve) what humans enjoy most, which seems to be material that feature "violence" in at least some regard (if not prominently). I suppose it is more fair to criticize games for lacking role-playing options (e.g. dialogue choices) in favor of highly-focused combat systems, but even in said games I think it would be unreasonable not expect violence in some form.

I still think it is just a matter of taste. One that may be a bit too reactive to what we have now, with too much focus on wanting something different rather than wanting something better (in order words: novelty).

It's much more than the stimulus of violence. That is part of it, but it is also the limits of technology and the way we can interact with a game. There are very few ways to interact within a game world other than shooting or swinging a sword at something.

Right now there are very few ideas on how to interact within a game world that doesnt involve that kind of action. Look at a non violent game like Portal ... where you shoot portals at walls. Or Minecraft, where you either punch or swing a sword at the ground or a tree to break them and get materials.

Games dont have to be violent to be successful. But they do need to use those types of mechanics in a 3D environment to be interactive. And the truth is there isnt much room outside of shooting things for a shooting mechanic. The game industry is willing to listen to any ideas people have for a game that doesn't involve shooting things. minecraft and Portal are a testament that they can be a huge success. But whatever ideas you have for a 3D game that doesn't contain violence is still going to have to use the same mechanics as violent games.

When technology matures, so will gameplay. Perhaps something like Oculus together with a kinect like device that allows you to experience the correct scale in a game world as well as use you hands is the the kind of technological advancement that will allow more sophisticated gameplay. But make no mistake, violent games and violent movies will always be more popular.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Given that the basic structure of a game is to "beat" or "overcome" some sort of challenge, or to reach some kind of goal, there are a lot more ways to do this via a form of "violence" that is an easy way to represent through a gaming medium.

You can see this in its roots. Chess and checkers have pieces (eating, taking, defeating, killing) each other, you have ships blowing up asteroids, Pacman eating ghosts, and Mario stomping on Goombas. We just see this scaled up now as games become fancier and more complex, but the underlying goal of using a kind of violence as a tool to achieve a goal or defeat a challenge still persists.

Especially now that a story and plot are large elements to games, drama at its basic level deals with protagonists vs. antagonists, and those plot elements are usually resolved via a type of violence. In books and film, violent resolutions are popular as well, but are not necessarily essential since there are many stories that have non=violent plot progression.

If we accept this premise as true - and I would agree with 'conflict' or 'challenge' being necessary, but disagree that 'violence' is also true - would you agree that the majority of AAA titles do not just use violence as the premise for the 'conflict' but as a means to an end in and of itself?

Mario is not a game about violence, and you do not progress very far by killing goombas over and over again. Pac Man might involve eating ghosts, but your capacity to do runs out long before the ghosts do. Chess and Checkers might involve removing pieces in an abstract form of warfare, but going for 'highest kill count' is sub-optimal play in both examples; knowing when not to use 'violence' is far more important as a strategy.

Do you feel the same is true of the majority of AAA titles? That killing things is not a primary goal rather than a means to an end?

Going further, why is the 'conflict' in AAA titles predominantly gun violence?

 

[Oersted]

I think violence is going to pop up more often than not because violence (which is a more general concept than people give credit for) is amongst the most powerful stimuli (if not a concept which stimulation is directly tied to if you interpret the word generally enough). "Innovation" (a form of improvement) and newness/difference is all well and good, but those are going to play second fiddle to (or simply be tools to achieve) what humans enjoy most, which seems to be material that feature "violence" in at least some regard (if not prominently). I suppose it is more fair to criticize games for lacking role-playing options (e.g. dialogue choices) in favor of highly-focused combat systems, but even in said games I think it would be unreasonable not expect violence in some form.

I still think it is just a matter of taste. One that may be a bit too reactive to what we have now, with too much focus on wanting something different rather than wanting something better (in order words: novelty).

You are speaking truth. Depressing truth. Videogames have a long, long way to go.

 

[Littlegator]

You guys obviously haven't played Anarchy Reigns. It actively tells you to kill people in real life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dVKMla1LAY

 

[gutter_trash]

violence in media has risen earlier on PrimeTime TV.

Back in the 80's, the more dramatic and violent PrimeTime network shows would only appear at 10pm

Now, you got violence on network TV by 8pm.

Now with Cable TV, specialty channels and all, you got violence available all the time on TV.

It has risen, including our games (Russian airport mission in that COD game)

 

[twinturbo2]

The last I read, wasn't the Newton shooter's mother in fact some kind of doomer or prepper? Didn't let anybody in the house, collected guns and survival supplies or food?

If so I wonder why this fact hasn't been talked about on any national media outlet I've seen.

That, and the shooter was a video gamer. Specifically, he loved Dance Dance Revolution.

 

[Rentahamster]

If we accept this premise as true - and I would agree with 'conflict' or 'challenge' being necessary, but disagree that 'violence' is also true - would you agree that the majority of AAA titles do not just use violence as the premise for the 'conflict' but as a means to an end in and of itself?

Mario is not a game about violence, and you do not progress very far by killing goombas over and over again. Pac Man might involve eating ghosts, but your capacity to do runs out long before the ghosts do. Chess and Checkers might involve removing pieces in an abstract form of warfare, but going for 'highest kill count' is sub-optimal play in both examples; knowing when not to use 'violence' is far more important as a strategy.

Do you feel the same is true of the majority of AAA titles? That killing things is not a primary goal rather than a means to an end?

Going further, why is the 'conflict' in AAA titles predominantly gun violence?

(The avatar quote reference will be missed by many people who have not played Advance Wars or have forgotten the story. Alas.)

As I was saying, violence in most of these big budget games is, in fact, a means to an end for goal reaching or hero vs. villain plot progression. It's not usually the main goal, though, unless we are talking about multiplayer. Just as killing goombas over and over again isn't effective in Mario, killing respawing cannon fodder over and over again usually won't progress the plot much in an action game either. The exception would be for some mini-games within the overall game itself (e.g. GTA "kill all ___" missions).

In multiplayer, "racking up the kill count" would be just another tool for scoring points in order to achieve the goal of defeating an opposing team, so yes, is still in a way a means to an end. In most real life sports and competitive games, a points system is used to determine winners and losers, and oftentimes those points are gained via violent means. In the basic deathmatch gametype, it would be the most direct violence to points game mechanic since it's simply kills=points.

And yes, this is still like chess since knowing when to not use violence is also an important strategy as well for the sake of stealth and concealing one's information from the enemy. I would disagree that non-violence is a "far more important strategy" in chess because if you commit no violence at all, you will always lose.

but disagree that 'violence' is also true

I'm not sure if I answered this or not with my post as I didn't completely understand how it fit into the rest of the paragraph and how it connects with the rest of what you said.

 

[Riposte]

Rentahamster, I think you might be overlooking that the only reason people care about the "ends" of Mario in the first place is because the "means" is pleasing. I don't like thinking of it as a matter of means to a goal. If anything both violence and "winning" are means for expressions of power.

 

[chickdigger802]

http://kotaku.com/5975331/biden-meets-with-ea-activision-other-gaming-representatives

Newtown, Conn., school shooting. From right to left are, Attorney General Eric Holder, Entertainment Software Association President Michael Gallagher, Biden, Electronic Arts Chief Executive Officer John Riccitiello, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

You can also make out Robert Altman, CEO of ZeniMax Media (the company that owns publisher Bethesda, among others) and ex-Epic Games president Mike Capps—both seated in front of Biden.

 

[Rentahamster]

Rentahamster, I think you might be overlooking that the only reason people care about the "ends" of Mario in the first place is because the "means" is pleasing. I don't like thinking of it as a matter of means to a goal. If anything both violence and "winning" are means for expressions of power.

Not necessarily. The means is pleasing yes, but ultimately pointless without a goal. If they just stuck you level 1-1 with no castle at the end, and all you had to do was go back and forth, the game would get pretty stale quickly.


I guess you could say that it is a form of power expression, but at its most basic level, the violence in our evolutionary history was developed as a survival tactic, as overcoming challenges and effectively competing against others was important for staying alive.

 

[JNT]

Was the cheering a response to the shotgun blast or a response to the trailer? I haven't looked at the TLoU reveal/trialer thing in a while, and I certainly didn't see it "live", but I thought it ended/cut to the title card right after that. I know while I was a little shocked at the graphic nature of it, it didn't stop me from going "wow, this is amazing" and pasting the link into an IM convo with a friend immediately after I was done watching. :3

The trailer as a whole was pretty violent, so cheering for the trailer or cheering for the violence is only an illusory difference in my opinion. Either way, my theory is that violent games do not cause violence, since violence is already deeply rooted in our culture. Violent games merely take advantage of that fact.

 

[Hi i'm Caleb]

It may be a load of bullshit, but if it means we get less "play as a gun and shoot x" games then i'm all for it.

 

[Myz]

Biden is wasting his time. This accomplishes nothing substantial.

He is a politician, when is he not wasting time?

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I'm not sure if I answered this or not with my post as I didn't completely understand how it fit into the rest of the paragraph and how it connects with the rest of what you said.

I guess you are looking at games thematically rather then mechanically; as a means of interacting with the world, a mario games gameplay grammar is primarily movement based, and jumping is by far the most common 'verb' you use in gameplay.

If you describe gameplay in language terms, a level in mario would have 'kill enemy' far fewer times than 'move right' or 'jump'. 'move' is not a term of 'violence', where 'jump on enemy head' / 'shoot fireball' / 'kill enemy' would be.

A very tricky jump or sequence of jumps would provide a challange, or 'conflict' to a player, but would not be intrinsically 'violent'.

However, if you take a game like call of duty and describe it in linguistic terms, you will see that the majority of actions would be inherently violent terms; 'shoot', 'kill', 'reload', 'throw grenade', 'stab' etc.

 

[Myz]

It's funny how advocates of the second amendment focus on the 'right to bear arms' part and mostly ignore the 'as part of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state'.

Like being a member of the National Guard.

I'm also 99% sure when the constitution was written the entire concept of modern weaponry, whether it be a scoped, laser sighted, silenced, semi-automatic sniper rifle or a fully automatic assault rifle, and the resultant lethality modern firearms can provide would have been both unfathomable and appalling to them.

I dont ignore that at all. I think that the National Guard is completely necessary. I also believe though that its pretty straight forward about our rights as free human beings. You cant pick and choose, and while im not sure if our founding fathers would find modern weapons appalling, I am pretty positive that they created a government thats whole concept was to be "by the people, for the people." funny how we forget those things.

 

[Baconsammy]

The meeting should include officials from the Netherlands since per capita they buy more games than US Citizens and their gun violence is infinitesimal.

It may be a load of bullshit, but if it means we get less "play as a gun and shoot x" games then i'm all for it.

Never understood this attitude. Just don't play them if you don't like them. They're selling tons and helping to keep the industry afloat.

 

[KalBalboa]

I think a lot of people here are getting mighty defensive.

Video games are scapegoated all the time, and when I heard about Biden asking to have a discussion it made me realize it was the first time I could think of where a politician (not to mention the Vice President) asked to have a genuine forum and conversation rather than pointing a finger. Seems like a fair shake, to me.

 

[Lime]

The childishness of some posters in this thread is saddening. Refusal to engage in constructive dialogue? Telling politicians to fuck off? Refusing to acknowledge the gratuitous hyperviolence in many, many mass-marketed games? What the fuck.

Art/media should never ever be regulated by politicians. It is a complete non debate, anyone in favor of such regulation is suspect imo.

What about hate speech or Holocaust-deniers? Or yelling fire in a crowded theatre?

 

[Baconsammy]

I think a lot of people here are getting mighty defensive.

Video games are scapegoated all the time, and when I heard about Biden asking to have a discussion it made me realize it was the first time I could think of where a politician (not to mention the Vice President) asked to have a genuine forum and conversation rather than pointing a finger. Seems like a fair shake, to me.

Why have a discussion when he can just read the reports the government themselves already commissioned and determined that make-believe had no ties to real crimes? Why pay for the reports if you're just going to ignore them? Oh right, publicity. Or he could just use his brain and notice that Canada, the UK etc etc all play the same games as we do and they don't have gun violence issues. At that point you ask yourself, "Hmmmm what's different between us and Canada? What could it be?"

 

[Lime]

I think my main issue with it is this: Interaction is the core of video gaming, it is the main thing that distinguishes it from other, passive media like films or books, and certainly the major appeal of video games. I am incredibly disappointed that within this medium, so many developers choose to make games where the main or, not uncommonly, only way you really interact with the world is through violence. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that on its own, I enjoy violent games too as my GOTY votes reflect every year and will this year, but there is when it's so very dominant and big budgets are only rarely devoted to games that try to do something different, and when one of the main ways of increasing appeal of games is just upping the violence rather than pushing the medium forward by innovating and offering a truly different experience to players.

I've made this analogy before: Imagine a world where all the major Hollywood film studios, with the sole exception of Disney, made almost nothing but horror movies like the Saw films. Every high-profile studio release that isn't a Disney movie is a torture porn film, and if you want to see anything different at all, you have to go to film festivals and indie circuits. Now, I actually like the Saw films, but I would have concerns about the general health and artistic viability of the big movie industry if this were the case, and would wonder what it said about the consumer culture we live in if the major content-producers didn't see fit to make anything except that genre. Even though I occasionally want to see a film like that, that doesn't mean I want it to be the only kind of film made, or that that audience is the only audience that should be served by the industry.

I couldn't disagree with you more, from other media we know that humans enjoy a diverse range of of entertainment, many of which are non-violent or where at least violence doesn't play the most prominent role. Why should I not desire this diversity in video games? Why should people be satisfied with big budget titles being so narrow in focus? The innovation here isn't novelty, or a mere matter of personal taste, it's finding a way to give us experiences that clearly have broad popularity by introducing new ways of interacting with a game world, or the refinement of existing ones, rather than just the use of violence. Which is a theme by the way that while broad, isn't quite as broad as you imply, because the distinction here is that in these video games, the core of the experience is centred around the use of violence by the main character. He isn't merely experiencing it, he is perpetrating it.

Good, reasonable and reflective posts. I couldn't agree more.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I dont ignore that at all. I think that the National Guard is completely necessary. I also believe though that its pretty straight forward about our rights as free human beings. You cant pick and choose, and while im not sure if our founding fathers would find modern weapons appalling, I am pretty positive that they created a government thats whole concept was to be "by the people, for the people." funny how we forget those things.

My point is really that the second amendment is very specific about 'the right to bear arms'; it is qualified by the 'as part of a regulated militia'.

It is not saying everyone should have the right to bear arms; it in fact says the exact opposite, unless you choose to leave out the second part of the sentence.

I also reject the notion that carrying a firearm is any form of human right.

EDIT: Although this is probably veering into OT PoliGAf territory.

 

[Yamauchi]

I don't think there is much (if any) of a link between real-life violence and videogames. Having said that, I do get really tired of the gore in modern video games. I get tired of seeing heads exploding, limbs getting cut off, and bodies being zapped into bursts of blood and bits. I really wonder where that desire to see such intense gore comes from.

 

[Orayn]

What about hate speech or Holocaust-deniers? Or yelling fire in a crowded theatre?

Hate speech (in the absence of threats, inciting people to violence, etc.) isn't illegal here, and there aren't any immediate plans to change that. It's a pretty huge topic to cover, but I think there's a fair case to be made for why regulating which opinions are illegal to express is a slippery slope.

The "fire in a crowded theater" thing is already covered, but it's irrelevant because the post you quoted was about art rather than public speech.

 

[Lime]

Hate speech (in the absence of threats, inciting people to violence, etc.) isn't illegal here, and there aren't any immediate plans to change that. It's a pretty huge topic to cover, but I think there's a fair case to be made for why regulating which opinions are illegal to express is a slippery slope.

The "fire in a crowded theater" thing is already covered, but it's irrelevant because the post you quoted was about art rather than public speech.

The slippery slope argument (if unjustified) doesn't hold any merit when stating that one restriction on speech would result in further unjustified restrictions on speech:

It is possible that some limits on speech might, over time, lead to further restrictions—but they might not. And if they do, those limitations might also be justified. The advocate of the slippery-slope has to demonstrate how a restriction here and now will lead to some further (unjustified) restriction in the future. The usual slippery-slope claim is not that the proposed restriction will lead to minor adjustments in the future, but that a small change now will have drastic and tyrannical consequences. The causal mechanisms for how this must necessarily happen are usually unspecified.

Alternatively, another objection to the slippery slope argument is the following:

Before we do this, however, the reader might wish to disagree with the above claims and warn of the dangers of the “slippery slope.” Those who support the slippery slope argument claim that the consequence of limiting speech is the inevitable slide into censorship and tyranny. Such arguments assume that we can be on or off the slope. In fact, no such choice exists: we are necessarily on the slope whether we like it or not, and the task is always to decide how far up or down we choose to go, not whether we should step off the slope altogether. It is worth noting that the slippery slope argument can be used to make the opposite point; one could argue with equal force that we should not allow any removal of government interventions because once we do we are on the slippery slope to anarchy, the state of nature, and a life that Hobbes described in Leviathan as “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” (1968, 186).

EDIT: And the fire in a crowded theatre is an example used to highlight how speech can have harmful consequences. If any statement, artistic or not, harms people (let's say a KKK member made an extremely racist and hurtful art piece for public exhibition and/or consumption), then that should speak to your moral intuition that such a statement should not be condoned and avoided.

 

[KalBalboa]

Why have a discussion when he can just read the reports the government themselves already commissioned and determined that make-believe had no ties to real crimes? Why pay for the reports if you're just going to ignore them? Oh right, publicity. Or he could just use his brain and notice that Canada, the UK etc etc all play the same games as we do and they don't have gun violence issues. At that point you ask yourself, "Hmmmm what's different between us and Canada? What could it be?"

Oh, I definitely agree that we need to change a lot in terms of gun control in this country, don't get me wrong. It's cultural too, for sure- I agree. I just think it's noteworthy that most politicians would flat out blame video games rather than asking for the ESA's input, giving them a chance to give their perspective.

Biden and this concerted effort involving gun laws and control seem to be trying to bring everything and anything to the table in a pretty comprehensive manor.

 

[djshauny]

They have to put the blame on something dont they

Movies have been doing this for years but i see nothing being done about it lol

I personally blame it on the parents.

 

[Cake Boss]

As a politician hes just covering all the basis. I see nothing wrong with a little conversation, at least this way the industry will get their say in this matter instead of being portrayed negatively though the media, someone has to stand up and say ' Blaming games is a cop-out'. The industry need to have a backbone in this and stand up for itself instead of taking all this shit in, is anyone at Activision at these meetings?

 

[1st Course]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLMIb-oNoRM

posted yet?

 

[Riposte]

Good, reasonable and reflective posts. I couldn't agree more.

There is something I find distasteful about you only recognizing posts you agree with as such, lol.

Refusing to acknowledge the gratuitous hyperviolence in many, many mass-marketed games? What the fuck.

Again, I struggle to call violence in games a problem (and again, I mean aside from a matter of specific taste). The line "gratuitous violence" is usually unchallenged in these discussions, but I find it to be too moralistic. Putting aside violence, what makes anything gratuitous in a videogame? When is something uncalled for? Probably the moment when it takes away from the experience (i.e. makes it less entertaining). So if people like the level of violence or gore in games right now (which varies more then some seem to imply. e.g. how "bullets" meet "skulls" in games are not all Sniper v 2 or w/e that game is called), why in god's name should people be forced to acknowledge that as uncalled for? It is called for because it is entertaining, the reason that game is being played in the first place.

Another thing that bugs me? Putting hyper before a word when the word without it will clearly do. Hyperviolence? How about just violence? It is pretty hyperbolic considering nothing a videogame can do to someone can even begin to compare to what we would just call violence in everyday life (e.g. domestic violence).

 

[Kagari]

As much as we like to dismiss things, there are some issues right now.

Violent, M-rated games are being targeted and marketed at children, and that has to stop.
I am also surprised at how many parents here on GAF let their very young children play violent games and even play online.

If we can't regulate our own industry, others will want to step in.

Yeah, it really surprised me when I used to work retail. Most parents wouldn't care about the violence, but the minute you mentioned sexual themes they got all concerned. This is a terrible stigma that needs to be changed. The amount of pre-teen kids playing stuff like Call of Duty and other violent games is really staggering to me... If I had kids, they certainly wouldn't be playing things like that until they were older.

 

[mr2xxx]

I'd rather the government focus on fixing the lack of social mobility,discrimination and financial imbalance in America. We improve that and gun violence will dramatically decrease. Instead we try to put a band aid on the problem when surgery is what is required.

 

[Delicious Waffles]

It boggles my mind how this had anything to do with video games...

Exactly.

My thoughts have always been that it's up to the retailers to not sell violet games to kids that're underage and, if parents are buying the games for their kids, they know what's in these games. If they still want to buy the game, fine, as long as they know what's in it and they're comfortable with it. It's also the parent's responsibility to, you know, say no to their kids every once in a while if they feel a particular game is over the line. Don't buy it and, once you see what's in it, cause an uproar demanding these games cease to exist. They're not for your little 10 year old.

 

[Lime]

There is something I find distasteful about you only recognizing posts you agree with as such, lol.

Of course I will recognize quality contributions to the thread, and not the posts that are unreflective, knee-jerk reactions aiming at circling the wagons whenever their favourite medium is being criticized.

Again, I struggle to call violence in games a problem (and again, I mean aside from a matter of specific taste).

What type of problem are you struggling to assign to games? Effects? Homogenization? There are different types of problem associated with the violence in games debate. Be specific.

The line "gratuitous violence" is usually unchallenged in these discussions, but I find it to be too moralistic.

That claim doesn't make sense and you aren't explaining why you find it unchallenged or why you find it to be "too moralistic", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Putting aside violence, what makes anything gratuitous in a videogame? When is something uncalled for? Probably the moment when it takes away from the experience (i.e. makes it less entertaining).

When something significant in a moral sense is presented without any justified context or treatment. See the Splinter Cell: Blacklist torture and execution scene as an example of gratuitous violence.

Another thing that bugs me? Putting hyper before a word when the word without it will clearly do. Hyperviolence? How about just violence? It is pretty hyperbolic considering nothing a videogame can do to someone can even begin to compare to what we would just call violence in everyday life (e.g. domestic violence)

Hyper is used to characterize the degree of violence depicted. It is used to differentiate between the amount and quality of presented violence. E.g. violence in Tomb Raider: Anniversary might be more subdued, while Manhunt's depiction of violence is much more explicit.

 

[lazorexplosion]

I always giggle when people analogize speech they want to see regulated to "shouting fire in a crowded theater" - the phrase was originally an analogy in a legal opinion defending the government's ability to censor critics of the draft during world war 1 under the sedition act, ie be really fucking censorious.

The ruling was later overturned and the opinion and analogy disowned by the very judge who coined it who later came to the opinion that it was too restrictive. This also means that shouting fire in a crowded theater is actually allowable speech.

 

[Lime]

I always giggle when people analogize speech they want to see regulated to "shouting fire in a crowded theater" - the phrase was originally an analogy in a legal opinion defending the government's ability to censor critics of the draft during world war 1 under the sedition act, ie really fucking censorious.

The ruling was later overturned and the opinion and analogy disowned by the very judge who coined it who later came to the opinion that it was too restrictive which also means that shouting fire in a crowded theater is actually allowable speech.

Regardless of its historical context and Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s intention with it, the example is used to highlight how speech can have harmful consequences.

 

[lazorexplosion]

Regardless of its historical context and Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s intention with it, the example is used to highlight how speech can have harmful consequences.

Yeah, like how criticizing mandatory enlistment during wartime can have harmful consequences. And yet the government has absolutely no business censoring it. Because allowing government to censor speech that might have harmful consequences is really censorious.

 

[soldat7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLMIb-oNoRM

posted yet?

Riccitiello shoulda wore his Dead Space helmet...

 

[Lime]

Yeah, like how criticizing mandatory enlistment during wartime can have harmful consequences. And yet the government has absolutely no business censoring it. Because allowing government to censor speech that might have harmful consequences is really censorious.

Or how "whoever publicly or with the intent to propagate in a wider circle makes a statement or other communication by which a group of persons is threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to fine or imprisonment up to 2 years". Yet this "censorious" censorship is justified, wouldn't you say?