May 08
Driving Around in My Automobile
My baby beside me at the wheel. *riff*
Baby you can drive my car -
Ok, I could clearly go on for a while. Anyway, I don’t know if you caught yesterday’s post, but it was about Glenn Beck attacking the video game industry, and specifically Grand Theft Auto IV.
Mark from Me And My Drum yesterday posted a hell of a comment (thanks again) and got me thinking about the problem of realism in games.
It All Started…
With part of Mark’s comment…
Honestly, what’s the entertainment value in mowing down innocent bystanders or killing law officials? The answer: the value is zero. It only serves to “train” or desensitize our kids to morals, to decency, to the difference between right and wrong.
My head was a mess trying to figure out what to say in response to EVERYTHING he said, but immediately I started thinking about his comment about driving in GTA IV. And I thought about it like this..
Driving in Video Games 101
Forget about GTA for a minute, and lets think about video gamedom in general where you can drive cars. If anyone older than 5 picked up a game where you could drive, they would first and foremost expect that they would be able to drive which to me means being able to direct the car where you wanted it to go, much like a real one. If we stop right here and ask, “What if we weren’t allowed to direct a car where we wanted to go?” I think our initial reaction would be, “This sucks”. And I generally agree with that statement because if you can’t actually drive the car, you’re basically taking the interactivity out the game which is what video games are anyway (otherwise see: movie).
So if we at the most fundamental level agree that if a game has drivable cars we should be able to drive them, that immediately brings about the possibility of questionable behaviours. For instance, nothing would stop us from performing basic traffic faux pas including blowing stop signs, and drifting onto the wrong side of the road. But what’s the alternative? I think it’s getting into a car and letting the game decide where we are going and how we get there again removing the interactivity and turning this product into more of a film than anything. Continuing,
Most game environments are not empty. They’re usually filled with something. Either trees, items, powerups, people, enemies or whatever. And if we again agree that we should at least be able to drive our cars, we obviously have the real possibility of colliding with something. I think the only way to change that would be to have gamers either a) not be able to drive or b) drive in empty Langolier eaten worlds.
Driving in Populated Worlds 101
So let’s assume at this point we want gamers to be able to drive cars in populated worlds. As said before, there’s a real possibility that gamers will display “questionable” behaviours and for this example let’s say that I’m referring to driving on the wrong side of a road. What can happen if one does this? Well in a populated world, you can obviously crash into oncoming traffic. This would obviously be bad. So does this mean that games that allow us to drive are training us to be bad drivers because we are allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road?
Well because I’ve never heard anyone bring up this argument, I think the answer would be a resounding “no”. Which is pretty interesting because if you hit somebody going the wrong way in traffic, there’s a real chance they could end up dead. Much like as if you saw a person in front of you in a game and you mowed HIM over. So what’s the real difference between these two scenarios? I say nothing.
Does Grand Theft Auto IV Celebrate Violence?
Certainly the argument in regards to Grand Theft Auto IV anyway is that the game celebrates anarchy and violence. You should remember though that when you do these types of things in GTA IV, you’re slapped with stars indicating that you’ve created crimes and that the police are on to you which given any amount of time you observe as the cops try to take your a$$ to jail. And again – I know the argument coming : “The ’star system’ in GTA IV may make the police try to take you down, but it’s still glamorizing these horrendous acts.”
Well what if the game was called “Click It or Ticket” and was made by the Department of Transportation to show you the consequences of dangerous driving and associated behaviours? The game would still be realistic because you’d have to be able to drive cars, the police would still come after you, and you’d still be facing points in the game where you’d have to decide what you want to do… Stop at stop lights? Run from the police? Stay in your lane at 35 mph… My bet is that if the driving portion, JUST the driving portion of GTA IV was made by the government, given a new title, marketed in a different way, but STILL had the EXACT same driving gameplay – You wouldn’t hear the complaints that it is teaching its players to be killers.
The Problem with Freedom and Realism in Video Games
The problem is that it’s a double edged sword. The gamer community wants to be able to do everything it can in video games but then with that opportunity, you immediately introduce the possibility to perform acts we would consider taboo in the real world. And unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you view the subject, if you’re allowed to drive a car in a video game, you’re inevitably allowed to make some questionable decisions in regards to how you drive it. Personally, I just hope in years to come we don’t see in game police forces upholding real world laws that carry real life consequences.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:53 am
This is a very hard one. I have not read yesterday’s post yet…. am in a little bit of a rush but…
My little brother was about 7 when GTA san Andreas was released. It appealed to his age group more than any other one before, featuring bling, hop hop, the hood! and the whole MTV Gangsta feel.
So of course he wanted it and his friends has talked about it at school.
My dad being the cautious caring parent he is…. (that was harsh, just pointing out that he is like many parents). Just picked up the game and purchased it without even looking at it’s age or anything.
So… my little bro took it home and began to play it in the comfort of his own room without parents watching over.
I visited and went to play PS2 like I often did. He was playing GTA San Andreas, which shocked me a little but I was intrigued as I still had not played it. We played for a while and then he said…. let me show you something:
He went next to a prostitute got her into the car… the car wobbled around and he laughed, thinking that they were having a fight. When she left the car he got out and went and beat the crap out of her, taking his money back.
He found this incredibly amusing and to some degree so did I, mainly because he did not understand what happened in the car!
Anyway…. my brother is not the kid who will carry this act out in real life and recognizes it was a game but none the less, he should not have been able to get his hands on the game at such a stupidly young age.
Ater telling my father and to much protest from the bro, the game was taken away from him. Personally I loved the game and actually purchased a PS2 (for $20 from a friend!, I had to fix it as it was broken) solely for the game.
Wrestling was another one of his faves, this has no age rating and you can beat up literally anyone too!
I think these games need to be marketed away from kids, cartoon covers are a bad start, although they look great.
Boring covers and features in adult magazines would be the future. Pay to advertize in FHM and the like.
Also parents need to take charge of what their kids are playing.
I don’t believe in completely blocking bad stuff out of kids heads…. they need to see the reality of this world but their are more appropriate ways to do that.
Phew, gotta rush.I’m glad you are back bush….. oh be great if you could check out my new animal blog and if you have a pet then please do submit to Bloggers Pets. I’m sure I remember a dog or something of yours?
May 13th, 2008 at 10:17 am
GTA is a violent game. Always has been. Was on the PS1, is on the PS3.
I think I made this point before but really there are just more options. I’ll say 20 years ago any game you bought your kid would have been fine. I think around the console resurrection and the video game market boom a real audience was found. Most of this audience were kids.
Sense then these kid’s have grown up with video games. Nintendo has stayed behind to target kids, while the Playstation was really a system that was geared towards the first “real audience.”
Now there are a slew of games that are geared towards 20 somethings. As long as parents realize how the market has expanded they can check the games to make sure they are safe for their kids. I wouldn’t really expect anyone under, I dunno, 14? to play GTA.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:37 am
I’ve been contemplating this some more. (Don’t worry, I won’t go off on a rant!
)
If it’s not already apparent, I haven’t played nor do I intend to play GTA or its ilk. When you mentioned that there’s a star system used to denote when you’ve committed a crime, well, I kind of find that amusing because I think it would only encourage the gamer to see how many they get while trying to keep away from the cops. Catch me if you can! LOL
But you’re right on the money, Bush, in that this game does glamorize so much of what’s wrong in society today. But after all, it’s just a game, right? That’s what the gaming industry wants us to focus on. Because if we’re stupid enough to act something out like having a romp in a car with a prostitute then beat her up and take our cash back, then it’s our problem, not the game’s, right? Hmm, sounds familiar when you apply it to the gun industry. Guns don’t shoot people; people shoot people.
Okay, I’ll end here. Hope I kept my promise by not ranting.
Great topic for discussion, buddy!
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
@Forest – Hey man, thanks for the thoughtful reply here and I agree that marketing should be driven away from the ppl the product isn’t appropriate for. But if we’re going to be honest, the company makers know who’s playing their games and that includes underage kids. I think it’d go far for game retailers to actually more strictly enforce game ratings but I guess until we start having busts on these things like cigarettes, no one will care. *shrugs*
@NootTastic – I guess the problem is as Will Smith said, “Parents just don’t understand”
@Mark – It’s funny that you bring up guns because while I don’t have a problem with the right to bear arms, I’m def not a gun fan. I guess for me I NEVER hear any arguments about movies, just all about games. And I really believe that’s because 1) people don’t view games as art and 2) too many kids have easy access to games they shouldn’t.
And you didn’t rant so don’t worry (not that there would’ve been a problem if you did) (#);D
June 10th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
My kid like safari hunting games…
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Bush, this was like, totally thought-provoking.
However, being old-school, I don’t agree with the whole realism argument. Perhaps my simulation bias is showing, but I believe a game should have limits on free movement in order to funnel the gameplay toward a determinative conclusion.
Of course, my position has its downside: Myst. LOL
I’m not even going to get started on the parental issues…
Cheers,
Mitch
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:47 am
@Mitch – Good thoughts. It’s funny that we suddenly have to think of all these really odd issues as technology advances… Free roaming in video games, Privacy in regards to genetic testing… Who knew?