Gaming Miscellany #2
I know Nick posted about the Banhunt debate in the past but, after some lengthy internet discussion about this, I want to condense my own thoughts about it into something approaching a a complete summation.
Manhunt Axed? Haha. Ha. HaThe Story So Far!
The original Manhunt was released (developed by Rockstar, published by Take Two) in November 2003. The protagonist was a Death Row inmate called James Earl Cash. His execution is faked and he is brought to Carcer City, where a mysterious figure known only as The Director sets him up as the star of his snuff films. As the star, Cash basically kills everything in his path in brutal, unpleasant ways.
In 2004, the game was linked to the murder of Stefan Pakeerah by his friend Warren Leblanc. Giselle Pakeerah, the victim's mother, claimed that Leblanc had been 'obsessed' with the game after the former pleaded guilty in court.
During the subsequent media circus, the game was removed from sale by some vendors, such as the UK and international branches of GAME and Dixons, leading to "significantly increased" demand both from retailers and on Internet auction sites. The police denied any such link between the game and the murder, citing drug-related robbery as the motive. The presiding judge also placed sole responsibility with Leblanc in his summing up after sentencing him to life.
The release of Manhunt 2 was scheduled for October this year.Manhunt 2 saw a significant departure from the premise of the first game. As Daniel Lamb, a researcher turned guinea pig for "The Pickman Project" you have been sent to the Dixmore Asylum for the Criminally Insane. During a freakish lightning storm, the security system shuts down (how inexplicable!) and you attempt your escape. I assume such an escape will involve lots and lots of violent killing.
"Didn't get into Army of Two either, eh?"Oh, and the second player character, is a psychotic fellow inmate who seems to be trained as a government agent, making him extra-proficient at all sorts of wild and wacky murder.
Yet, when this Fun-for-all-the-Family videogame was submitted to the BBFC for classification in June it was rejected, making it illegal to sell Manhunt 2 anywhere in the UK. So banning it, essentially. Its the first videogame to be banned in the UK since Carmeggedon in 1997.
Rockstar made cuts and changes to the game and resubmitted it, only for it to be banned once again. It seems unlikely that, among all the changes, they simply changed the colour of the blood. Here's what David Cooke, director of the BBFC had to say:
"We recognise that the distributor has made changes to the game, but we do not consider that these go far enough to address our concerns about the original version.
"The impact of the revisions on the bleakness and callousness of tone, or the essential nature of the gameplay, is clearly insufficient.
"There has been a reduction in the visual detail in some of the 'execution kills', but in others they retain their original visceral and casually sadistic nature."
Beyond this point, Rockstar and Take 2 have a right to appeal the BBFC's decision and it seems likely they will fight it every step of the way.And, you know what, I think it could be better for gaming if the game stays banned.
"What madness!" You cry. "Haven't you read any Orwell? Next there'll ban any violent thoughts! How can you possibly agree with the THOUGHT POLICE?!"
Well....
Practically every game I own simulates killing in some way. Killing demons, killing Nazis, killing criminals, killing children infested with parasites, killing prostitutes, killing aliens, killing dozens of civilians who just happened to stray in front of my wildly careering car. I chortle as I smash in someone's head with a bus shelter or smack them upside the head with a lamp post. I laugh wildly as rag doll physics sends blood and bodies spraying all over the shop. God! What fun!
Rockstar's Editing Process
Everything about Manhunt 2 seems to be a rather horribly logical extreme of the dirty, gritty, blood-soaked, kill-a-thon style of games on the market. Its the distilled essence of a million other games, compressed down into one blood-soaked slice of gaming pulp.
This isn't one game they're banning. Its practically every game I own.
And maybe they're right. Maybe I shouldn't enjoy killing things so much. Maybe I shouldn't spend so, so much of my time doing it. Maybe any of us who think they're right and that maybe Manhunt 2 is not the best ever idea for a game should seriously examine everything else we spend our time on.
I mean, in American History X, I thought Ed Norton curb-stomping a black criminal was one of the most sickening things I'd seen in a film. Now, in Gears of War, I do it ten times a day. What does that say about me?
I think its all too easy to decide that any censorship is bad and simply, endlessly reiterate that argument until the end of time. I think that's what a lot of gamers do - pigeon holing anyone who has problems with violent games as just another Daily Mail reading cretin and dismissing them. Look for any discussion of this issue on the internet, amongst people who love gaming, and all you'll see is, "FUCK THE DAILY MAIL READING FAGGOTS!" or whatever.
"I read the Guardian!"Yet, personally, I can perfectly understand why someone outside gaming could have a real issue with the fact millions of people now grow up playing games that make warfare and killing glamorous. So what if its virtual? If murder is abhorrent, surely going around virtually murdering people and deriving enjoyment from that is, if not equally abhorrent, not exactly wonderful for the (for want of a better word) soul?
My point about American History X is, in that film, Ed Norton's character stamping the burglar's head into the curb is the low point of his descent into the white supremacist subculture. The rest of the film is about him trying to get away from that act and all that it represents. It is not in the film to get everyone to cringe or, worse, clap their hands together with enjoyment.
Largely, games don't do this. They don't have a single act of violence in the second act to which you have been working inevitably towards and from which you then have to recover. They take films and, in the main, strip away the characters and story and moral debate. They distill it down to that cringing, terrible moment and then assign a button to it and get you to do it 100 times.
You don't kill one person and agonise over it. You kill two hundred people, reload, and kill a hundred more. It has no repercussion, moral, intellectual or emotional, for the player. Its just solely entertainment.
And though I do not believe that gaming turns us all into violent killing machines, I do believe there is a significant difference between watching and doing. I think the feeling I get when I pull off a head-shot in TF2 is very tangibly different to watching someone cap someone else in, say, a Michael Bay action picture.
And that's the other distinction. Films about death and killing and war come in a variety of tones. Yet, in games that deal with such subjects, everything is ramped up to a Michael Bay pace and approach. Its all about stylish kills, skill shots and M-M-M-M-Monster Kills. Omaha Beach is turned into a roller coaster. Dropping a nuke is made into a thrilling, last-second-of-the-game spectacle.
Put it this way, at times, it feels like people within the industry define Mature Content in games as, basically, more blood, more swearing and maybe some unrealistic boob-age*.
The closest you could be getting to the cover art for quite some time.Despite the fact I play violent games (and enjoy them) I do feel the occasional moral, pacifistic pang at some games. I'd like it if people within the industry actually had a sensible debate about this, rather than just slag off the BBFC - which is the instant (and extremely tedious) knee-jerk reaction.
Surely we all have a responsibility to pro-actively help the situation by improving the image of the games industry?
An image that, if we're honest, is doing none of us any favours.
Surely major game companies like Rockstar have that responsibility too, rather than just designing and releasing (or trying to, anyway) a game which is just going to kick this endlessly cyclic debate into motion once again?
The trouble is I think even committed gamers have a limit. They have a line drawn in the sand, somewhere, where they'd deem the content of a game as unacceptable.
Imagine a paedophile game, for example. Do people honestly think that this should be released and that its theoretical commercial failure would be validation for the industry? And if people do think that such a game would be too much or too far, if they do have that line drawn in the sand, why argue with a decision made by a Board put into place to protect the average consumer?
Whatever our opinions can't we form them into a coherent debate and voice them in a serious, mannered way rather than just turning caps lock on and berating everything who doesn't like violent games as a Daily Mail-reading, alarmist Nazi?
*Of course, sometimes, instead, there's Bioshock.
-----------
Jachap would never have bought it anyway.
5 comments:
The paedophile point's an interesting one, but one that's subject to qualification. Films like The Woodsman and L.I.E. handle the topic and are lauded for painting a multi-faceted picture of the condition.
Likewise, if an adventure game or somesuch were to handle the topic maturely, it'd be considered a work of art, if not exactly an entertaining one. It's just the 'press A to offer sweets' notion that's sickening.
I pretty much agree with what you say there, Jachap. I play violent games and enjoy them - one of the only non-violent games I've played recently, other than Peggle, is Valve's Portal, which is notable in that the protagonist is pretty much entirely benign despite using the traditional first-person shooter viewpoint.
And, like you, I've also had pangs or moments of feeling sickened in games by the violent acts I've carried out. One that sticks in my mind is at the very start of Half-Life 2, the first time you get a firearm and are confronted with an enemy on a staircase. I blasted at him, shot him in the head, he slumped over and the wall behind him got plastered in a horrific amount of gore.
I was shocked. It really felt like I'd done something heinous. But it didn't stop me doing the same thing again moments later. Similarly, in Stalker, discovering an enemy who I'd shot to be still alive but lying on the ground and bleeding to death while clutching his stomach made me feel very sorry indeed for him, even though he'd been shooting at me seconds before.
And of course the Hitman games, which really do embody the morally-reprehensible-violence-which-still -manages-to-entertain thing.
It's a thorny issue. And personally I've no desire to play Manhunt 2 as it is a little too close to being a murder simulator with no other object. I wouldn't play it for much the same reason I wouldn't watch the Saw films.
So maybe I'm just a wuss.
Nick: I don't know how it could work in terms of game play but I concede that perhaps a mature take of the subject via games could be possible. I'm reminded of that free-to-download that went around a couple of years back - you can play as anyone from anywhere, a whole life in a few minutes. Mainly its a comparison tool, with you playing a child in Uganda and having to spend every day hunting for water etc, compared directly to, say, being a middle-class American and going to college, university, marrying etc.
I remember specifically that the most promising (in terms of position in life and natural talent) chap I "lived the life of" committed suicide - to my own complete surprise - at 42. It really stuck with me. The sense of loss and stuff... and there wasn't even a graphical interface to speak of.
In the same way, surely, in the end, there's the possibility of a well-made intelligent take on the subject but... my point is really that games haven't even dealt with murder in any kind of sophisticated examination.
And there are, too, plenty of films which do. The idea of a game that deals with pedophilia in the same way as games deal with killing... its truly disgusting. So why are we so passe about shooting people in the head?
Andrew - your point is amazingly pertinent. I've read interviews with Valve which have discussed that very moment.
The game transpires to make you feel weak and helpless up to that point, to anger you by the actions (some inferred, some not so much) of the Combine. Their fascist oppression of the significantly more humanised (and, indeed, human) civilian population of City 17 is designed to make you thirsty for revenge. It's all leading up to that moment where you pick up that crowbar and, in true Hollywood style, snarl, "Its payback time," under your breath.
Then smack. Then you get a gun. And... yes, the blood is all over the place.
Sometimes in games, its not the graphics that shock me. Its my own feelings about the things I do that - on re-examination, are a little... well, I don't want to say disturbing... but should I really be so happy I just shot someone's face right off? Should I be laughing about it? Even if its virtual... isn't that a bit sick?
That's the difference between Saw and gaming. Even in Hostel, which is all about gore as entertainment, its the evil sadistic baddies doing it. And whatever character a player of a computer game inhabits - they're the hero. They're the star. In the original Manhunt... quite literally.
Another moment I'm reminded of is in the first KOTOR where the outcome of a quest was so bad and y actions (unwittingly) so reprehensible, I re-loaded and played it again. It was the bit on the Jedi planet where you can get the female Jedi to join your party. You might know what I mean.
Again, though, that was about the character I was aspiring to be and the feelings my actions created. Yet, as a different character, in a different game, I kill hordes of people with no moral compunction.
Does the games industry ever discuss this? Do the major players in the industry even think they have any moral responsibility?
Maybe we are wusses but maybe, just maybe, there's something to our misgivings.
That's a related issue, yeah - in games like KotOR, I can almost never take any paths except the good or at-a-push-neutral paths. Being evil takes a conscious effort and so on.
But in other games, say, Dungeon Keeper, or similar, I'll gleefully be a total bastard. And in most FPS games I'll cheerfully mow down the enemy with nary a moral compass in sight.
I'd say this continues to be all about context. Like I said in my original Manhunt piece, violence has its place in media. The most graphic of slasher flicks are allowed to be released, but are derided and labelled for their content, usually with good reason.
In the same way, extremely violent games have their place in the market, but shouldn't be the only ones that are paid attention to. It's slightly shocking that a game as lauded for its emotion and plot as Half-Life 2 should contain so much violence, but as Jachap says, so much of the passive build-up is geared towards convincing you of the righteousness of your actions later on.
I totally agree that fewer games should be about killing. As a devotee of adventure games of the old school temperament, I'm much more compelled by games with a mood, a story and characters. Few games, Half-Life 2, Deus Ex and its ilk being the obvious exceptions, manage to couple the industry-standard action tropes with any degree of humanity.
Usually they have to hide behind a veneer of irony or humour or intentional provocation to justify the actual meat of the gameplay. Hitman's a good example. Your character carries out cold-blooded murder, but it's just business. You only react as much as your character does. In the same way, Half-Life showed you normal life and then horrible brutality to simulate Gordon Freeman's experience.
This is why my only-ever dream videogame design project was geared exactly toward that - presenting a game in the first-person wherein it is possible to commit murder, but which would then present grave consequences. Making it as viscerally grim and as irretrievable an action as in real life, and in general trying to discourage the player from doing it as carefully as possible. Bioshock's methods of stopping you killing the Little Sisters convinced me this can be done, and I await a game that attempts something similar. Human experience in the first person needn't only tell a story through violence, but that doesn't necessarily need to condemn all the great games that have done so far.
Post a Comment