A Spoonful of Blood Makes the Medicine Go Down

Teenage girls on volleyball teams always boast how many kills they have (basically when you hit the ball over the net for a point by spiking it). Great article!

Great article Michael, though your opening anecdote thoroughly depressed me ;).

I contributed to the ReMission game from Hopelab - fairly violent 3rd person shooter. But the violence is directed against cancer cells and bacteria, and the game is proven to help kids with cancer stick to their treatment regiments - so it makes for a good example when people tell me they wish they could ban violent videogames. And for the record, I think the violence in ReMission is part of what makes the "take your chemo drugs" message stick with them.

Violence has been in human nature since the beginning. Repression of said violence is more dangerous than release of said violence through a virtual environment. Study what happens when you force someone into a completely non-violent environment and keep it that way for a prolonged period of time >.<. (MegasXLR episode 107 "Breakout" ends with a prisoner being put in a completely no violent teletubyish video game, which is perceived as the worst possible torture). Well great article, I think I like that it has no distinct conclusion beside "more info needed".

Yet another article that, at least at a cursory glance, conflates aggression with violence and "violence" (as a term used by aggression researchers) with graphically explicit violent content.



Aggression refers to any behavior that exhibits a malicious *intent* to cause harm; aggression is not the causation of such harm. Physical aggression is measured along a mild-to-violent severity continuum. Where researchers are concerned, "violence" refers to an intensity of physical aggression, a malicious *intent* to cause physical harm. "Violence" does *not* refer to graphically explicit content that the general public perceives as violent, or injurious and destructive, action.

I think violence is just part of the Hedonistic Escapism (HE) that games are modeled around, and only mirror the repressed desires of its participants and makers. There is a philosophical given that nature is inherently good and non-murderous but that simply does not reflect the history of life on this planet. Nature is inherently evil, and casually good, and humans by extension the same.

I don't think violence is inseparable from games, and I don't the content of this article does much to support such a claim.



I agree that most successful narrative-based games today involve excessive violence (as in far greater amounts than typical reality), but that isn't to say that means it is an inseparable part of what makes interactive entertainment media engaging.



I do think that over the top violence is a very pure and overt way of expressing conflict (the key to meaningful plot); but this is likely due in large part to the fact that games make up a storytelling medium that is dependent upon 1st-person identification of the player with the primary character, and most cinematic and narrative techniques garnered from literature and cinema aren't appropriate to encourage this type of identification. Until a narrative model is developed which does specifically encourage this identification, overt stimulation of basic urges serves as a stopgap technique of securing player interest.



Hopefully once writers and level designers start to design game narratives around unique models that actually fit a 1st person narrative perspective, more diverse plot elements can be utilized to create engaging, entertaining games.

Violence and agression are primal human behaviours, context of the instance is extremely important. Chopping a guys head off is never going to be an especially noble act, the gore and violence of a film like Saw or Hostel seem to seek little justification in what they'll show. I think as long as its seen by the appropriate audience it'll be seen for what it is, either as a shocking punctuation to a narrative point or purpose or for titillation and somewhat adolescent amusement.



I like a but of blood as much as the next man, and when i was younger i saw things i wasnt meant to see (18 rated films and violent games), but i think this issue is a subjective one, i think any effect of these games would be different from person to person. The thing that annoys me more, albeit somewhat hypocritically, is the ease at which younger children can get materials simply not suitable for them, as if a parents interpratation of the word game leads to "it's only a game, how bad could it be?!?!"



very interesting article

Sigh - another article about video game violence where those interviewed get all smug and think they're clever by asserting that black is white, up is down, etc etc. To compare the implied, abstract violence of chess or the structured, sanitized violence of American football to the imagery of one character ripping another character's head out of his body with his spine still attached (Mortal Kombat), is a stretch.



This article actually highlights part of the problem without realizing it, invoking Gaspar Noe's "Irreversible" and Denis Cooper's "Frisk" as examples of equally graphically violent content in other media. Well here's the point, exactly: i have never HEARD of Gaspar Noe's "Irreversible" or Denis Cooper's "Frisk", and i doubt that i'm alone in that. "Irreversible" is not an example of a top-selling, mainstream DVD. "Frisk" is not on the New York Times' Best Sellers List.



But Grand Theft Auto, Fallout 3, the Halo franchise, the Doom franchise, many WWII-themed games ... these are all games that contain graphic or excessive violence, and they are the best-selling and most popular offerings in our medium. The games industry doesn't "invite" this controversy - it rightly *deserves* it. Players are voting with their dollars, and the industry is quick to supply every sick whim players can dream up. It's not a healthy relationship by any means.



And to Greasley, the creator of Edmund, and anyone else who would follow suit: depicting a despicable act in game form does not make you clever or an auteur. It does not instantly elevate your game to "art". If i created a game wherein an eight-year-old boy stroked off into his mother's shattered skull, and then carved out his own testes and replaced them with her lifeless gouged-out eyeballs, i wouldn't be "opening up a debate about morality in video games". i'd be masturbating.



Depicting a shocking act without insight or commentary isn't artful - it's mindless. And i strongly object to rewarding creeps like Greasley for it.

Ultimately, violence boils down to a win-lose. And if the loser is a computer, the win is something less than non-virtual. While this enhances sales, it's something less than satisfactory.

Ryan: You certainly make a valid point about the differing markets for Irreversible and most video games. Though I think my original point stands: more remains to be done with creative and thematically honest uses of violence in games. It's okay to make games for a smaller audience. Isn't that the point of opening up the channels of distribution and offering a wider array of platforms for which to develop? Also, I'd argue that mindlessness is a quality shared by an audience as much as a work's creator. I don't think you can have listened to Greasley speak about his game with an open mind and come away thinking he was mindless.



Morgan: I confess I had not been aware of the distinction you point out, happy to have learned about it from you! Still I'm not sure how understanding the difference between the two affects anything in the article. Isn't the intent of the great majority of video game aggression at the most violent extreme? Aren't intent and outcome directly connected in games, where so many mitigating factors that affect real world violence are filtered out or ignored entirely?

Michael: I blogged about the distinction and then some in a featured post at: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MorganRamsay/20091006/979/Sex_and_Violence_in_Vid
eo_Games.php (If the link is stripped out, click my name above this comment to find my article "Sex and Violence in Video Games".) My article should answer your other questions. In brief, however:



"I'm not sure how understanding the difference between the two affects anything in the article."



Research is "sometimes ridiculed by media industries and social commentators, mainly because they do not understand or accept the scientific definition of aggression. When asked to rate how violent various media are, most adults focus on how *graphic* the depictions are, rather than on several other relevant dimensions, such as whether the behaviors exhibit intentional harm (the definition of aggression), the potential for serious injury (the definition of violence), or the frequency of aggression and violence. This nonscientific focus on graphicness leads people to believe (incorrectly) that cartoons are somehow less violent than adult crime shows. More importantly, there is evidence that even cartoonish violence can have the same types of effects as more realistic or graphic violence". (Source: Gentile, D., Saleem, M., & Anderson, C. (2007). Public Policy and the Effects of Media Violence on Children. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1(1), 15-61.)



"Isn't the intent of the great majority of video game aggression at the most violent extreme?"



Based on my readings, no, most feelings of aggression induced by video-game play are not violent. Violent aggression is more frequently observed of children and adolescents who are predisposed to injurious, destructive, or criminal acts as a result of broken homes, poverty, abuse, and other conditions or experiences that have had a profound negative impact on their personal welfare.



"Aren't intent and outcome directly connected in games, where so many mitigating factors that affect real world violence are filtered out or ignored entirely?"



I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking whether there is a causal link between aggression induced by video-game play and violent acts, then no, even Olson in your article asserts that there is no such relationship.



Also: "Another huge blind spot in our understanding of games is that most research has been focused on children. According to the ESA, the average age of a game player is 35."



While the average age is around 35, there are more adults overall than children, which skews the figure older; this statistic does not mean that most players are in their 30s. Nearly all American youth are exposed to video games. That and political realities explain why much of the research has rightly focused on children and adolescents.

I agree, most studies that I am aware of can't link responses to game aggression to violent extremes, but the behavior in the virtual environment can definitely be said to be violent. That was the intent of the statement. When I have a controller in-hand, and approach a barrel or a pedestrian, my intent in-game is generally quite destructive and the tools for interaction are usually at the more violent end of the spectrum. It never translates to real life behavior, but that should be obvious to anyone at this point. The real debate is about the suggestive impact of exposure, not the literally instructive impact of games. This is partly what I thought was so wonderful about Army of Two: it has a man-hug button. It's not a central mechanic, but it is a relief from the constraints that most games put on players, funneling towards violent outcomes.



Also, I agree with you that we've passed through to a time when games are a near universal experience among children, but the statement stands, I think. We have precious little data about adult play patterns and behavior and it remains a serious omission, especially as the thematic territory of many games become more controversial. With games like RapeLay and Edmund, having data about children's and pre-teen play experiences simply isn't sufficient..

I watched movies I shouldn't, played violent video games I shouldn't, and thought some thoughts I shouldn't have as a teenager... but, here I am an adult who knows violence is wrong. How is this? Perhaps there isn't a direct correlation, but an indirect one. If someone is introduced to violence as the solution (Islamic terrorist for example), it is taken differently then violence portayed justly (was movies/video games). In my opinion, the culture surrounding the violent forms of entertainment are to blame, not the violence themselves. Much to the point of 'a gun never fired itself', a 'videogame never turned someone violent'. It might have justified it in their mind, but it wasn't the cause.

As a gamer for quite some time,I can say there is actually too much violence in games.

The main problem here is that there too many Action games that gets all the hype,and not many Adventure games or other less violent genres .

I mean with all due respect to gears of war and god of war if you compare it to films genre wise it's like a movie of Steven Sigel winning the Oscar.

Where is all the innovation? instead of adding more gore polygons add more dimensions to the game.

And i don't mean games like mario and other kid friendly games,they are at the other end of the spectrum.

I mean AAA adult game with less gore and violence and the other low common denominator (e la women with too many details in a particular place),and more innovation and game play enhancements.



As a game designer who is just in the beginning stages I can say that there is alot that could be done with games and it seems no big company dares to do it.

It does starting to look like Hollywood movie industry when there are a few who dictates how things go, and the small or better movies who do not feature high paid actors and directors don't get as much appreciation outside the small circle of professionals .

Not to mention the "problem" with old games and old movies that seemed to be dismissed only because they are old.

The western culture(aka. us) has sadly got into the mind set that only new and full of fireworks is better than old and without fireworks.

It's like changing your pet each year with a new one because it's too old,it's kinda odd.



I guess all the car manufactures(who brings a new model each year) and movie/games sequels are counting on that actually...

Pointless debate. Violence in video games is not real, its just like pictures in a book. The depiction of violence in games is lower in tone than the depiction of violence in movies or books or the news (internet videos) or television or sports. The interactive component is what turns games into the bogeyman compared to the other art forms. The same parents who let their kids watch SAW are horrified when they watch them play a shooter. I guess so long as its mindless passive entertainment, its ok. But if it requires them to participate, its somehow going to warp them into sociopaths.



This reminds me of the Dungeons & Dragons teaches satan worship debate of the 80's, or Metal music is hiding messages in the lyrics.

So basically no bottom up approach can prove anything.



But what if we went top down?



How much violence in our society in the 1970's?

How much video games played then?



How much violence in today's society?

How much video games played now?



I don't even need to look at the numbers to tell you that, despite (violent) video games becoming a major cultural force over the past 40 years, the violence rate in the real world hasn't followed the gaming curve at all. I wouldn't be surprised if it had dropped during that time actually.



If you followed the Jack Thompson thesis, half of us should be dead by now, killed by their video game playing offspring. Thank god, he's a lying son of a bitch.



This debate is just about old people not understanding the culture of the younger.

I'd like to point out a couple things. Before I do, I'll point out that I follow a very broad variety of games from both Eastern and Western markets, and have for decades.



Top selling games vary with culture. Franchises like Mortal Kombat and Doom have done very poorly (hardly making a blip, actually) in regions such as Japan and East Asian in general. Meanwhile, the view of what constitutes anything (violence, sexual, etc) varies with culture, too.



Japanese adventure games succeed in doing exactly what is pointed out as something that the market needs: creating immersion of character and events. Of course, these games have generally been ignored in the Western markets, but that doesn't stop them from being important elements of the gaming industry if we are going to address gaming as a whole without ethnocentric attitudes.



Morgan offers some interesting points about research, semantics, etc. However, I'd also add that studies that attempt to analyze violence and aggression (or sex, or anything else) run afoul of the same problem I already mentioned. Namely, ethnocentric attitudes, contrived definitions, and results that tend to lack any meaning when taken out of a very contrived and controlled environment and placed into real world settings that are infinitely diverse and chaotic. Just as one example of this, consider how many works from Disney, live action and animated, contain large amounts of violence and aggression, and have ever since the earliest Disney films. The same is true for newspapers and other media formats, both factual reporting and entertainment, even live action theatre and vaudeville. If we really wanted to consider the impact on people in daily life, all we have to do is compare real life cultures. Japan has many works that contain elements that are considered violent or sexual in other cultures, sometimes both (and sometimes at the same time). However, Japan has one of the lowest rates of crime in the world. Other factors must be at work that are not related to the specific content. This must be the case even if the same content seems to be a source of crime in other cultures because it is not so in its native culture. In other words, attempting to focus on one cultural element such as content in media is irrelevant because reality is far more complex. Also, if there is an argument that the majority of game players are young children, I would say that there is no evidence of such a claim. At the very least, most game hardware and software is purchased by adults, not children, and if the choice is made to buy products that are for very young kids, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy, not an indication of the actual gamer market. It's an artificial restriction and would be similar to having only books such as Peanuts available for reading (not that there's anything wrong with Peanuts, mind you... I'm speaking of the restriction/censorship issue being self-inflicted, not the quality of what is available).



As far as certain "popular" titles in Western markets, particularly America, I think people should put things in perspective. Titles that get a lot of press in game media such as God of War are not anywhere near top sellers compared to many other general audience titles. You can see this on NPD charts, but those do not even tell the entire story of the global market, or even the entire market for one region (for example, they don't include used game sales or donwload figures). It's also worth noting that quantity is not equal to quality; just because something sells a large volume doesn't mean it has any quality to it. McDonald's is a very successful fast food chain, but I doubt that anyone would argue that the food there is of high quality.



During the decades that I have studied electronic gaming, I have tried to check markets in different areas. For example, it was interesting for me to see how the top ten at a big etailer like Amazon varied between North America and Japan. While WoW may be in the top ten for PC software in North America on Amazon, Ragnarok Online in #1 for PC software in Japan and WoW doesn't even appear in the top ten list. That's just an example, but others include the commonplace appearance of adventure games, including otome (maiden) games and bishoujo renai (pretty young girl matchmaking) games that focus on romance.



Finally, as far as the origins of our modern society are concerned, I think people should do a bit of research before going with the largely misleading information that has been presented for many years. A very good start would be Riane Eisler's "The Chalice and the Blade" and Carolyn Merchant's "The Death of Nature" but there are many other works that offer excellent information about the origins of modern society (hint: it doesn't come from hunting, but rather from egalitarian gathering cultures). Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth" is also an excellent source. Many people may be aware that George Lucas was mentored by Campbell, and much of the basis for Lucas' "Star Wars" is based on what he learned from Campbell.

I believe a lot of game related aggression comes more from the button press than the actual on-screen action. I think back to sports games for example: I remember in NHL 03 or NFL Blitz 2001 (I say Blitz over Madden because of the simplicity of the controls) back when I played these games I had a pattern. In NHL 10 one-timers in front of the net were really satisfying, in particular getting that shot off and knowing things were going my way. In this case, as probably in most any case, the visual, aural, and emotional results were very satisfying but it was that rhythm to getting those goals that I strived for it was a rush in some sense. And Blitz was another great example because I remember hitting the tackle button and the satisfaction I got when coming through with the hit. It was a simple rhythm to run and tackle. Throwing the ball involved reading coverage, which took away from that rhythm, as did avoiding defenders while running. Kicking involved focus as well. Madden never gave me that vibe when I hit the ball carrier because there were more variables in the way: linemen, blocking receivers, etc.. In Blitz you could hit the receiver for pass interference and there'd hardly ever be blockers in your way past the line of scrimmage.



Disrupting that rhythm was very unsatisfying. Look at kids, let them play a game they enjoy and they get into a rhythm and once they stop playing they're cranky. The more equal the opponent is the less susceptible I feel a person is to developing a rhythm, because the competition is equal and you're always trying to outsmart one another (unless you're the button masher type).



So, again, the rhythm is like a drug or a trance. That's what I'd argue is potentially dangerous. Games like WoW complicate the issue further because now not only are you developing a rhythm you're doing it with a massive community who's developing one with you.. When everything flows so smoothly it's frustrating to come back to reality.

sorry for the typo when I said NHL 10, I meant NHL 03

At this point, I'm more interested in how a flow affects a player's aggressiveness. Does playing Doom in a flow state make a player more aggressive? What if the player is in a bored state? (I would say that it is pretty conclusive that a frustrated state will make players more aggressive - anyone remember throwing a game controller or hearing about someone who has?)

well, what about paganism, drug/potion use or even coin collecting? while they may not be elements present in all games. they certainly occure with great freqency and there doesnt seem to be any study to see if there is increased usage in videogame players.



prehaps all these fantasy games are to blame for the rising abuse of perscrition drugs as people try to 'power-level' through difficult exereinces or 'buff-up' for particulary hard events. thre are anecdotal stories of our impressionable youth taking things like caffine to ritalin to do bettery /stay awake on tests.



and how many games feature pagan or non-judeo chritian elements or lack religion in general? prehaps this accounts for people turning away from faith? (wait, peopel are turning away from faith right , i have no idea)



All you have to do is turn on the TV to see a myraid of adds selling gold coins. they even have to limit the number per caller. what has super mario brothers done to our society?



unless there are correlations to things other than violence that are also in videogames I don't really think there can be a strong argument. You don't see MKultra using video games to make the next manchurian canidate (or do you?).



oh and there isn't a lot of sex in videogames, is that why americans are having less children? we need to get sex into videogames to save america (think of the children).



P.S. oh and where the hell are all the rayguns I see in videogames? whould we have tons of those by now? sorry I haven't had a non-sequitur in a while...

Western markets and our culture is to blame...



Really? Isn't just always fashionable to say how fantastic Japan is. That's always a fashionable thing to do.



Hey... Seen Ju-On? Did it create a creepy atmosphere like... say.. Poltergeist without any real violence or death?... No?... How about that.



The Street Fighter franchise... Is that a hit in Japan?... It is!... How about that!... What happens in that game?... You beat the crap out of the other person until they fall down, right?...



Oh wait.. It's just a knockout... It's not bad... Right?... But, what about Samurai Shodown?... SNK did very well with that one in Japan, didn't they?... Seems to me that opponents died regularly.



Stop the eastern philosophy bit. Stop telling me how noble Japan is.



I'm tired of it.



And, I don't need to hear what you read on Wikipedia about Japan either. For instance, Space Megaforce isn't named Super Aleste. You aren't Japanese. And, it wouldn't be that fantastic if you were.

so what are you trying to say with your opening anecdote? I just get the impression you and your 'friend' were assholes as 10 year olds hahah.

I have commented previously on these matters. The idea that a deadbeat politician like Joe Liberman, whose blood thirst real world game has American soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afganistan, is concerned about games that kids play is obnoxious. Hey Joe, why not hold hearings on Shakespeare, you jackass ignoramus! Game on gamers!

@ Tommy Hanusa--



Well said; people need to just give it a rest or turn the microscope back on themselves and all other potential sources for all thats wrong in the world today.. Videogames catch all the flak for this kind of thing primarily because its still the youngest entertainment medium; still in its infancy and finding a place in society. Politicians and talking heads need to stop using violence in videogames as a soapbox and speaking point (yeah im looking at you, Hillary.)

Aaron, are you refering to me with your posting? If you are, you should be aware that I am speaking as a scholar and researcher, not as someone refering to Wikipedia (which I do not recommend at all, by the way). If not, everyone can take what I say below as simply clarification of points that may have been misunderstood.



My point was that Japan is simply an example of differences in perception due to culture. You offer examples of fighting games but fail to recognize the simple fact that gratuitously violent successes like Mortal Kombat fail miserably in Japan because the perceptions of what is "violent" differ with culture. Full contact combat where health is indicative of ability to continue fighting is completely different than combat where killing someone with "fatality moves" pretty much clearly shows what happens (and very graphically, too). I play both, but you see, that's why I understand the difference in perception... I've seen it for decades.



Horror in Japanese culture is also portrayed quite differently in many ways than the typical horror film from America, for example. That's why so many Hollywood studies started looking to Japanese horror for ideas. The American market was bored with typical American ideas. It's also why Japanese franchises such as Silent Hill and Zero (Fatal Frame) have proven so successful around the world.



Japan has plenty of problems, but Japan also tends to actually depict many of her problems in her entertainment media, even media targeted for young children. Meanwhile, the same media is taken to other markets that feel a neeed to "protect" kids by hiding the problems rather than facing them and dealing with them, or by attempting to prevent people from having access to such media altogether (censorship no matter how you look at it). Yes, Japan does similar things albeit in different ways... BUT you have to analyze the reasons for their behavior compared to a country such as America. Remember that America claims to offer her standards as desirable for everyone in the world, the leader, the best, etc. Reality of American life and culture do not reflect those claims for many people, however, because individuals are diverse.



In any event, I do not recall offering any sort of "Eastern philosophy bit" nor claiming that Japan is inherently "fantastic." The big difference is that America sets herself up as the best, the leader, etc while ignoring or at least lowering the validity of other cultures, philosophies, etc. This is not equality, nor is it genuine understanding and acceptance of diverse views about life. In any country, there is diversity, and that includes people in America who, for whatever reason(s), prefer Japanese art, entertainment, storytelling techniques, etc over various examples from their native country and culture of birth (even if they happen to enjoy some examples from there, too).



Michael's article claims, "Violence is oxygen to the modern video game" and then asserts, "The adrenal gland is the G-spot of the video game player." No, neither of those statements is accurate by any means. Such claims are only true for certain games and certain players in certain markets, while other elements are far more important for other games and other players in other markets. In addition, even in a market where violence is common in video games, there are many players who do not and will not play games with such content because that's not what they prefer in their entertainment (especially gratutitous violence, a common factor in many Western action-based games).



For myself, I play games with violent content, sexual content, comedic content, moving orchestral scores, or simply cute stuff.



Oh, and if anyone wishes to address sexuality and sexual content in games, particularly if there are any attempts to claim that games are somehow inherently misogynistic or against girls and women in any way, I'd suggest that such approaches first take on the prevalence of yaoi and shounen ai material in Japanese and East Asian entertainment as being very unrealistic depicitions of male-male relationships (not to mention physical body representations), the fact that the vast majority of participants in the creation of such entertainment (not just yaoi and shounen ai but all of types) are women regardless of the content or target market, and the fact that we have had open, public conventions for yaoi and shounen ai material but no equivalent public conventions or discourse on bishoujo and yuri works (sexually explicit or otherwise). It's rather self-defeating to bring up a topic from only one perspective when the actual content covers all material, after all.

Violence is BALANCED by NON violence as a MEANS in realife. If Virtuality continues to take the easy way out, and mainly offer VIOLENCE (as and Film did) we will ONLY get a realife culture. though more virtualized than ever, that is more violent and more characterized by the zero sum of game design primarily offered by this "new" media industry.



Same boss, Old Boss, and of course the BIG IDEA at GAMASUTRA is to KILL the BOSS at every LEVEL.



No rocket scientists beign interviewed on G4 tv.... none were interviewed at Mtv 30 years ago either.



maybe a few can still think about it.

but thinking requires less dogma, and dogma drives collectivism, and there ya go.



loop, repeat, crash.;)

@Dave

You're right, my response is aimed at a larger group than you.



My point stands; Japanese culture is romanticized among young males. In fact, among the same young males that many video games target. And, like Twain with a female character, Japanese culture ends up on a pedestal.



I'm not buying it.



Want science? Try to see if there is any research that ties young males to the kind of situations that these video games present... You'll find mountains of concrete evidence. (That's right; real evidence and research that supports something in this thread. Amazing.)



I don't care where boys are born or in the minor differences in how violent confrontation is perceived. Every regular grown man remembers the macabre world of youth. That place where we face our fears an problems--and destroy them with our bare hands. That's the part of us that video games touch--if ever so lightly. Because, it's still the real world problems and rites of passage that test us. Games provide an outlet--entertainment and distraction from the really scary things waiting out there.



And, that's universal.



Furthermore, Mortal Kombat was a victim of thin gameplay, poor localization, and the press in Japan. Killer Instinct was plenty brutal and sold very well with Nintendo's name and marketing behind it.



I don't believe (for one second) that middle aged men were playing Samurai Shodown and Killer Instinct in Japan. Just didn't happen.



It was the boys. The same boys that make up the core of the violent game audience anywhere on the planet.

Dave: You're absolutely right to point out that this article is targeted at only one grouping of mostly male-centric games. It ignores huge swatches of the games industry, ones that are almost always ignored. Compare the amount of coverage that Uncharted 2 has gotten this year against what The Sims 3 has gotten. I think it's disproportionally in favor of Naughty Dog's game, but the latter will outsell the former by a wide margin and do it by reaching people who wouldn't care two bits about game writing.



This a massive problem in writing about the industry, no one has bridged the niche culture of aggressively oriented games with the wider trends of an industry that now, quite credibly, reaches mainstream consumers. To me, looking at what the creative implication of participating in and validating this particularly repetitive kind of gameplay is an interesting way at trying to deflate the absurd sense of "importance" we attach to stuff like BioShock and Uncharted 2 and Halo and GTA IV, while not even trying to square the circle between these tentpole experiences and games that are driven more by constructive elements, expression, communication, and community building.



It's just that it's much tougher to write about violence in Farmville or Bejeweled. I'm not opposed to it, but I figured violent games have quite a lot of well-established traditions by now that they can be addressed as their own sub-genre.



Anyway, thanks for the comments, I enjoyed reading them!

Man, if they'd only put as much effort into allowing players to create as much they do destroy, we'd be making real progress.



Although, you can give a player a blank piece of land and tell them to build whatever their heart desires, but if the other components of the game isn't appealing to them, it's just kinda lost. It needs to be done on a grand scale.



There are ways, but it seems as folks ain't or don't wanna go that route. Or maybe they just ain't figured it out yet, or they want to go the easy bet.



I dunno, but it's getting friggin' boring.

Hey John, have you played Little Big Planet or Spore? Those both prominently feature building and creation over destruction. I'm not sure about the sales, but I think I heard they were disappointing.

I think we've all agreed that the general question is impossible to answer and probably meaningless, so here are some more specific ones.



A) Is there a small proportions of the world for whom exposure to these games increases real life aggression and violence?



B) Is there a corresponding part of the population for whom exposure decreases real life aggression and violence?



C) If the net result of the above is negative, is it worth doing anything about it?



My guess would be that (A) there are frustrated teens for whom FPSs are sufficiently empowering (and more empowering than a gun or karate club) that they might decide to go through with a destructive plan that they would have been too scared to attempt otherwise, but the group is very small, and (B) may well be dwarfed by the number of would-be real-life thugs and bullies who can now take out their aggression within games instead (or at least stay off the streets and the drink because of them), so (C) the net result is neutral or positive.

[quote]And that's why people in general continue to brush off games as toys for immature children and power simulators for weak males.



This is the reason I personally don't like violent games. By playing them I feel they insult me: "come and get all the boobs and power you cant get in real life". And whether that's true or not, I don't like being insulted.

[/quote]



I happen to like that game genre besides others, and not because I'm a weak child, but because I enjoy them for other reasons not stated here. And there are a lot of people who do.

I play Call Of Duty, do I want to go murder poor people in the middle east? No. Do I want to be a voluptuous redhaired woman who drinks blood and has superhuman strength and can walk in daylight? Hell yeah!