Video Games and Violence: I’ve heard this argument before

Whenever I see an article like Schreier’s (2013) ‘From Halo to Hot Sauce: What 25 Years of Violent Video Game Research Looks Like’ it immediately draws my attention. I know just exactly what the article is going to discuss – Do video games make you violent?. I’m one to immediately go to the defence of video games because I am definitely one who disregards this notion that it’s all video games fault for the violent thoughts or actions of small minority. Schreier (2013) states that it’s a debate that has been going on for over 25 years and there is no signs of it stopping and it is just exactly that a debate, with no justifiable answer. Although I’m going to give you opinion on the situation anyway and with that there is no better example to use than Grand Theft Auto (GTA).

The GTA series has always been acknowledged for its violent gameplay. The argument raised by gamers though is that just like any other art form such as a film, television show or book, GTA V is there to tell a story. It possesses a R18+ rating because its intended audience are mature enough to recognize that it is in fact a game and not real life. However when scenes such as the torture scene in GTA V arise, it creates a reaction from the media in that this game presents a potential harm to a child and society due to incorrect interpretations. However an argument can be raised in that, has the media not recognized that torture scenes are present in other texts and more specifically films? Are the torture scenes in movies such as Zero Dark Thirty, Reservoir Dogs, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Casino Royal any different? Or even in the PG rated film Shrek; where a young audience witnesses Lord Farquaad interrogating the Ginger Bread Man. Despite the example of Shrek, the questions which need to be asked are that, would a parent allow their child below 17 to watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre or other horror films such as Saw? Or would a parent allow their child to watch Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad? The answer would most probably be no, so then why is it any different with violent video games such as GTA V?

Watch GTA V torture scene here…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97_43ajj5Mo

There seems to be a misunderstanding between video games and the media. Focusing on the case of the 18 and under gamers, if the media believes that parents need to raise concerns about GTA V, then why are they buying it for their children in the first place? A child cannot purchase it due to the its rating, so shouldn’t the blame then fall on parents for purchasing it for their child?

We must understand that video games are graphical art. They push the boundaries to evolve just like a player would in the game itself. GTA V success is unrivalled by any other video game title and therefore the boundaries that are pushed by GTA V must be to what gamers want in their gaming experience. GTA V, like any other entertainment source is there to engage, entertain and tell a story therefore captivating its audience, and just like a film or television show it’s not real life. Video games are just that, a game; played in an imaginary world with fictional characters aimed to captivate and not motivate “prostitution, torture and murder” (Morris 2014).

So how can we justify that video games are at fault for small minority who seem to step outside the boundaries? I don’t believe it’s the video games industry’s fault. Maybe we should start looking at the individual rather than making video games the scapegoat?

References

Morris, J 2014, ‘Anyone claiming Grand Theft Auto 5 is just violence for violence’s sake hasn’t played it’, The Guardian, 1 January, viewed 29/3/2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/31/grand-theft-auto-5-torture-violence-video-games

Schreier, J 2013, ‘From Halo To Hot Sauce: What 25 Years of Violent Video Game Research Looks Like’, Kotaku, 17 January, viewed 24/3/2015, http://kotaku.com/5976733/do-video-games-make-you-violent-an-in-depth-look-at-everything-we-know-today

Johnny might be worried for good reason.

In this week’s topics we are looking the views of cyberspace and its inhabitants during the 1980s to the 2000s and beyond. In these topics the relevance of a technological world and its constant alteration on the world we live in is discussed.

Looking at William Gibson’s ‘Johnny Mnemonic’ (1988), Gibson stresses in his story the idea of identity. Gibson does this through a portrayal of Johnny’s pride in the fact that he is technical. However despite this at second thought Gibson (1988) makes note that Johnny becomes disappointed with himself as a result that his ‘technophilic self’ life has become altered. This has come through a change, brought about by a very real technological existence in his life. Johnny notices that there has been a change in his life away from the interaction with people but rather with the ‘technics’ of life.

“And it came to me that I had no idea at all of what was really happening, or of what was supposed to happen. And that was the nature of my game, because I’d spent most of my life as a blind receptacle to be filled with other people’s knowledge and then drained, spouting synthetic languages I’d never understand. A very technical boy”. (Gibson 1988)

While Johnny stresses his concerns, Tomas (2000) in ‘The Technophilc Body’ draws on Gibson’s (1988) story in Johnny Mnemonic to make note that this fictional world Johnny worries about now has a very real contemporary existence. To Tomas (2000) the ‘technophilic body’ is quickly becoming apparent as he confirms that “given recent advances in information technology, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology, these changes will encompass the human body and its sensorial architecture”.

After reading all this, the question lies in what are the threats which are posed into the future as the ‘technophilic body’ expands further? As we will undoubtedly see an expansion in the amount of digital devices and their capabilities, these will go on to even further encompass the already existing ‘technophilic body’ which we pertain. If Johnny was worried in 1988 and Tomas in 2000 stated that we should “expect to see ongoing changes which will produce new domains of domination, contestation and resistance”, you can only wonder what does the ‘technophilic body’ pose for society and the individual beyond this decade.

References

Gibson, W. 1984 “Johnny Mnemonic.”  Burning Chrome.

Tomas, D. 2000, “The Technophilic Body: On Technicity in William Gibson’s Cyborg Culture.” The Cybercultures Reader.  Ed. David Bell and Barbara Kennedy.  London: Routledge.  175-89.