Death in the Digital Age

The article by Kocurek brought up a very interesting argument that I could argue two different ways. On the one hand, to say that a specific group in a game is lesser than and equate them to monsters is a very dehumanizing and God-like way of choosing who gets to die. Kurocek hits the nail on the head when she closes her argument with this quote:

“History has provided enough examples of the efficacy of propaganda in legitimising the abuse and marginalisation of various groups of people that we should be wary in endorsing practices that bear the markers of propaganda”

By giving the game player the ability to kill off only the “wrong” type of human like or other characters in a game, it gives them the God-like type of power I mentioned earlier. No one should have that much power as to decide and kill an entire race of marginalized people, even if it is a just video game.

Now, the other side of this argument is also very compelling to me. To play devils advocate against Kurocek, videos games have been studied to an unfathomable extent. From this article published in 2015, the authors looked at the links between violent video games and risk factors on social behaviors (including violence. Ultimately they found that seeing and hearing violence at home or in their real environment resulted in a significantly higher propensity for violence in the participant group, not video game violence.

While this is just one study arguing another, this is a debate that really interests me. If there was a way to decrease violence in the real world and it was possible to do that through less violent video games, then that would be an amazing technique. The problem is that there is so much contradictory research that no one knows how to interpret it. An interesting turn in research will be with virtual reality. Will killing and violence in games become more prone to violence in real life when using a technology as advanced as vr and what are those future implications?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxcNmk7Qmw

Above is an example game for virtual reality killing games found here.

I should start off by saying that I am more than  little biased when it comes to video games and their popular perception. I have been in love with video games from the day i first picked up a Nintendo 64 controller, and that love has continued to this day (at the expense of my bank account and social life). So, whenever I read commentary or criticism like that of Kocurek, I tend to get a little defensive. Okay. With that out of the way, on to my actual post.

One question I had when reading the article was what about movies? It seems to me there is a difference in perception as to how we judge violence in movies versus violence in video games. Why is it okay for Bruce Willis or Tom Cruise to kill/injure/generally maim wave after wave of generic “bad guys” in action movies, yet it’s not okay when I do it at home on the couch? We don’t question any of that. We just assume they’re “bad guys”, because obviously they’re somehow working for the antagonist. The level of violence and bloodshed is still there, sometimes even more so, but because it’s in a movie, not a video game, it’s somehow more acceptable. Here’s a video showing Sylvester Stallone’s killcount in the fourth Rambo movie (I know, I thought they stopped at three too):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=huejDD4znaE

As you can see, bloodshed is not unique to video games. So why the focus on them? One obvious answer is the factor of player choice. Instead of being a passive audience, gamers (a term I really dislike, but that’s another discussion) make conscious, active decisions that directly affect the game world. When you play a game like Call of Duty or Halo, you quite literally make the decision as to whether or not to pull the trigger. In that regard, I can see why people might have reservations about allowing young children to play particularly violent games. Yet as Peter mentioned in his post here, is that the child’s fault? There is already a rating system in place for video games, much like the one for movies, and you can’t legally buy a “Rated M” game (the equivalent of a rated R film) without showing ID. Kids will always want to play what’s cool or new, but isn’t it the parents’ job to filter and decide what content is suitable for their children?

I stated this at the beginning of the post, but I’m obviously pretty biased here. To me, the notion that playing first-person shooter games when I was younger (or even playing them now) somehow has caused me to become more violent in real life is ludicrous. I play NBA 2k and Madden NFL, I don’t suddenly become a better athlete; I play car racing games, I don’t break 100 mph on the way to Chipotle. To me, Kocurek’s article felt like it was written specifically to scare suburban soccer moms into throwing away their children’s gaming systems. I’m exaggerating of course, but at the end of the day what Kocurek calls “the monstrous” in video games, I just call “obstacles”, or “part of the plot”. You have to create some challenge for the player to overcome in order to advance, that’s the entire point of the medium. Whether it’s demons in DOOM, natives in Lego Indiana Jones, or zombies in Red Dead Redemption, I find no difference between the “bad guys” in video games and the “bad guys” in movies. So why are we only concerned about one of them?

Kocurek’s piece thoughtfully makes the argument that on-screen violence perpetuates violent realities by playing off of our cultural anxieties, dehumanizing marginalized or “othered” groups – but her article remains fairly narrow minded. I am inclined to agree with her argument that video games and alternative blood reflect deeper and problematic fears, but after reading her piece, I’m not sure who to blame for this digital and real-world violence.

Kocurek only mentions parents once in the article, outlining Serious Sam’s five different ‘blood modes’ and stating that “The ease with which the player may move between these modes makes clear that they are included for player amusement and not as any kind of parental controls” (83). I agree with Kocurek’s statement, but what of the actual parental controls that are made available? On iPhones, which are far and away the most popular gaming device available today, there are a wide array of parental controls that can be set, including age restrictions or access to the app store at all. In that case, is it up to the parents to know these restrictions are available? Up to Apple to appropriately categorize and rate games? In terms of console devices, well, one could just not buy their children certain video games. Kocurek’s piece sounds somewhat like children have unfettered access to these violet video games, which if my childhood is any indication, is far from true. There was one day my mom found out I was playing Halo at a friends house, and I was accosted and did not return.

I would also like to see more research done in terms of the variety of video game available, for example, if arcade style video games with faux guns perpetuate violence more so than handheld devices, and if console games lie somewhere in the middle.

Ultimately, I am in the boat that parents must monitor and decide what games are appropriate for their children to play. The great thing about the digital age is that while it is brining us into a period of anxiety and unknown territory, it can only exist so long as the batteries last. Kocurek makes a strong argument against video game violence, but I don’t think it paints the whole picture.

Carly Kocurek’s argument is one centered around the continuous battle between free speech and public decency. Gratuitous violence, sex, and illegality usually drive up the demand for video games, especially for younger players. Sex sells, as the saying goes, and it doesn’t change for video games. She argues that dehumanizing violence in video games devalues the lives of in-game targets and the individuals or groups they may represent.

War propaganda, in a similar way, dehumanizes enemies under the guise of cartoons and unwavering patriotism. They make you forget that you are fighting your neighbor, but rather remind you to think of the enemy abstractly. Kocurek believes that Propaganda’s legitimizing the abuse and marginalization of various groups is present in these video games and produces similar results.

I do not often criticize free speech, however I understand the public decency angle with video games. Imagine a 14-year-old boy in middle school who goes home everyday to play the massively successful, blockbuster, genre-defining Call of Duty franchise. In 2009, the franchise released the game Modern Warfare 2, which depicted a war between Russia and the United States. Starting the game, the 14-year-old boy sees the following warning-

OK- you’re 14, you just convinced your parents to buy you this game since it is rated M for mature. You have played the last three Call of Duty games, and you can handle anything. Right? That’s absolutely what I thought at 14. The level in the game that the warning is referencing is called “No Russian” and there was unprecedented controversy when the game was released. Rather than tell you what happens…

It’s confusing trying to work out what is happening from a small clip, but this was the most “PG” graphic that I could find. Players around the country were horrified when they found themselves taking part of a terrorist attack in an airport. Seconds after the gif ends, the player begins shooting into the crowd. For the next 15 minutes, the player commits a mass-shooting without any resistance until the level is finished.

While I completely agree with Kocurek’s argument that video game violence should be less censored and dehumanized, I can speak first-hand on the psychological mark and disgust I feel looking back on that level. Public decency must come into effect somewhere along the way.

At the very least, there has to be better regulation of material like that. It’s a running joke in the gaming community that 14-year-old’s make up Call of Duty’s audience. Essentially, the studio advertises blatantly to their age group. At what point do public decency and freedom of speech collide? While I agree that video games dehumanize murder and violence, and may propagate caricatures of other cultures, there is clear psychological damage that video games inflict. It is unrealistic to ban all gratuitous violence and sex from games, so where is the middle ground?

After reading Kocurek’s paper, I was compelled to expand the point of the paper into a broader, more extensive topic. I decided to explore the role and nature of antagonists in video games. I read through papers, articles, interviews, blogs, and forums to try and find some common ground or some idea which was worth investigating. The idea that I find most troubling which seems to surface in every work I read, and that Kocurek’s paper covers is “bad guys”.

The term “bad guy” is used with kids as a shortcut when explaining that some person shouldn’t be trusted, is dangerous, or is generally just someone a child should stay away from. It’s a way of avoiding any explanation and analysis about a situation that a child is usually not capable of at their age, or lacks the experience to connect the pieces even if an explanation was provided.

So why do adults use it in English? (I say in English, because there’s no such thing in either Serbian or Greek, however my knowledge of languages does not extend beyond these three languages, so I can only speak for English) I hear adults use the term all the time, even on TV. I’m sure I recall times when journalists use it to cut to the chase. And it’s a little problematic. As adults, and capable individuals, we shouldn’t ever fall back to such a juvenile way of thinking (it’s not about the term itself, it’s about the connotation of the word and its usage). Are we not capable of understanding another person’s reasons, feelings, and circumstances? To cut to the chase, at its core it displays a lack of empathy (something that children learn to develop over time as they begin to understand their role in the world) (something adults should already have).

There is no such thing as a bad guy. No person is born evil, and no one person is purely evil. Any such belief will only further divide us and create nothing but tension, distrust, and ultimately conflict between people. There are evil acts (acts that violate the rights of others), and people are capable of them. It is still important to evaluate all situations for what they are, setting aside any absolute views and ideas that are purely subjective (bad guys).