I originally posted this blog as part of Chalk Talk last year but since the issue of game violence is currently hotter than ever following the tragedy in Connecticut, I thought it would be relevant to recall my thoughts on violent imagery. The focus of this blog is the wider objective they carry which is so often overlooked by those who see them simply as 'murder simulators' as Jack Thompson once called them.

I watched the latest trailer for the game Lucius today. It's a game that's being dubbed by several users in the trailer's comments section right here on GameSpot as an example of violent imagery being taken too far. These are comments I havent heard from actual gamers since the release of those that became known for their particularly violent content from the Grand Theft Auto games to Postal. Several users left comments objecting to the portrayal of a child committing acts of violence and whose sole purpose in the game is to murder members of his household and how they would never play such a game. It got me thinking back to a lot of the films I studied while in university and how they relate to the attitudes of certain users towards computer games.

Establishing Context

Context is always the first thing people should consider before labelling any art form violent or obscene. In this case, the child in question is actually under the influence of the devil and is being coerced into performing violent acts. So, the game appears to be making a statement about anti-satanism - a kind of rejection of the perceived corruption of the very soul defined by analysts of sadist literature centuries ago. But that's just one way of reading it and it may not even be that complicated. Perhaps the very point of the game is to provoke reactions like those users on the comments board. There are some films and games whose message is nothing more complicated than to generate an emotional response. French cinema has been doing this for a long time with its extreme horror genre which includes seemingly pointless violence in films like Martyrs but when looked at closer, reveals a startlingly powerful message - in Martyrs' case it was the theory that violence can be a window into the afterlife. Theories like this vary between critics and psychologists but most agree that screen violence's primary power is the response it generates from the audience. If it truly is the aim of Lucius to repulse its audience, can that not be seen as a positive thing? If it succeeds in creating that emotion, it serves to highlight human response as being what society would judge it should be. And if it does not, perhaps the merely indicates our own indifference towards such acts of violence. I remember sitting through a screening of Irreversible's infamous rape scene and feeling well and truly sick afterwards. But with that came a sense of relief that I was reacting to it the way a well adjusted person should. So, it can argued that violence is merely entertainment's way of reminding us who and what we are and is not intended to corrupt or have any malevolent goal. In either case, whether you appreciate the game for its ability to affect or believe it to be pure evil, I think games like Lucius often tells us far more about ourselves than about the industry, its content or the people who made it. On a more practical note, there is still the basic argument is that this is not the first game to have a child as the perpetrator of violence. Bully is one while the resemblance some enemies in Dead Space 2 have to infants is another. Then there are the countless examples in film from The Exorcist to Eden Lake and I think it would be unfair to single out this one example without considering the others and how they fit into the whole spectrum of screen violence and its effects.

Several users objected to the depiction of an innocent child driven to committ the murder of his own household.

But of course, the game isn't even out yet, so my message to those who have already judged the game in the negative is that if you're looking for a moral or point to the images within this game that's more tangible than the theories I've noted above in order to justify its content, you'll have to wait until it's released because right now you're merely judging a book by its cover. Perhaps this game is trying to be a metaphor for mental illness or parental neglect and the results of that. From the look of the screenshots and interviews it seems to be the latter. If so, I'd say it has a very meaningful and relevant place in modern culture.

'Copy Cat' Crimes

To discuss examples of real world violence that may or may not have been copy cat crimes of images seen in video games, I wrote a short paper on screen violence while studying media. I used the Columbine school shootings as an example of how computer games are often flimsy scapegoats for acts of violence that are both shocking and sudden. As soon as it became known that the shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had been playing Doom, the blame was immediately put upon it despite the fact that they were both the victims of bullying and homosexual taunts. Both were also suffering from psychosis and depression. And yet so many ignored all of this and decided to blame a computer game. But in academia, you have to remain objective so I argued that if Doom was indeed a factor in the shooting, it was likely the catalyst rather than the cause. It may have been only the final shove in a situation that had been building for many years until Klebold and Harris were no longer able to suppress themselves. Like all atrocities, the Columbine shooting was obviously not committed by individuals who were of sound mind. Doom has a very large audience world wide and 99% do not committ real world violence. The same applies to all violent acts as they are all attributable to permanent or momentary loses of rational thought and judgement depending on their severity.

Character Complexities

There is always the argument that games are constantly evolving and it becomes especially relevant when discussing computer game characters that are sometimes perceived as mindless psychopaths. I dont believe that labels such as 'murder simulators' as Jack Thompson described the Grand Theft Auto franchise can still be applied to modern computer games. Games have shifted from simplistic distractions and past times to complex narrative focused entertainment. For example, while GTAIII focused on an anonymous and emotionless character running amok around a city causing as much mayhem as possible, Grand Theft Auto IV's Niko Bellic was given an entire history, psychology, personality and purpose. Moral issues were raised in the game as Bellic's reasons for committing acts of violence were to protect family members and were the product of a past that he was regretful of. He frequently expresses remorse for killing people in the game and his demeanor is that of someone who wants to escape a life of crime, not be sucked deeper into it as Claude did in GTAIII since his only goal was to climb the criminal ladder. So, if anything, GTAIV actually promotes a positive message about the destructive effect crime and violence has on the human psyche which is illustrated in Niko Bellic.

Grand Theft Auto IV's Niko Bellic is far from the mindless, voiceless thug of the violent games of old.

Ultimately, I suppose the difficult issue facing games and those who revile them now is that as they evolve, questions that were raised by crimes such as Columbine and the imagery of titles like Lucius are only going to become harder to answer as they enter the grey area between the violence of gameplay and the morality of story. If Grand Theft Auto IV is any evidence, the number of issues, variables and problems that those examining real-life violence face is rapidly increasing.