Resistance is futile?
by Phil Carlisle · 06/11/2007 (9:57 am) · 46 comments
Sorry for the bad pun, but I thought this might be semi interesting.
There was recently a lot of bruhaha about Sony's apparent use of imagery from Manchester Cathedral in the game "Resistance: Fall of Man". Basically, the Bishop of that particular parish decided he didnt like the idea and prompty went to the press (rather than talk to Sony direct).
Rev Nigel McCulloch
The upshot is a lot of soundbytes and a media frenzy about the whole thing, sparking up the old "violence in videogames" debate again.
Manchester Cathedral
Anyway, long story short, because its Manchester (near Bolton where I live and teach), I ended up getting a call from BBC Radio Manchester to go on a program this morning to debate the issue.
Much as I dont like defending Sony (partly because I dont think they need defending and partly because they are huge already and this publicity is taking publicity away from real hard issues), it fell on me to try and represent the gamers viewpoint in all this.
Resistance: Fall of Man
The big problem with the bishops arguments are that they mix two or three very different issues up. One is the ownership of IP involved with the game recreation of a public building. That (to my mind) is one for the courts and not in the media. The second point he makes, is that it is insensitive to use a Church in a violent game. Again, this is probably more of a personal moral judgement. The final point he makes is that violent games inevitably lead to violence.
Now reading up on the psychological studies, you'd be forgiven for being a bit confused. Most all of the "pro" studies are put out by one person (Prof Anderson of Iowa state), there being a number of different "con" studies out there like one in australia, where they found that playing any videogame, including violent ones, seems to calm people who are hyperactive and has an overall minimal effect on people who are normally active. Only those who are predisposed to a certain behavior seem to be negatively affected.
My big problem with a lot of these studies is that they use the term "aggression" but dont exactly define what it is. It seems like there is still a long way to go in terms of studying the overall effect of violence in videogames, but we can pretty much be clear that there is no support for a direct causal link (for instance saying that everyone who plays videogames then becomes violent).
Anyway, the most depressing thing about this whole episode, is how easily the media slipped into the "church blasts videogames" role and didnt actually do much of a balanced rational job on the story. I guess its just easier for people who are not gamers to accept it presented this way.
My own take on it, is that if these people commenting were themselves gamers and they then said they were concerned, I'd be far more likely to listen. Given the irrational fear that prevails within a certain generation (i.e. my age or older) about videogames, well, hopefully this kind of debate will become null and void as the older generations expire and the younger generations accept the media for what it is, both good and bad.
You can listen to my comments on the BBC Radio Manchester site I think.
www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/
There was recently a lot of bruhaha about Sony's apparent use of imagery from Manchester Cathedral in the game "Resistance: Fall of Man". Basically, the Bishop of that particular parish decided he didnt like the idea and prompty went to the press (rather than talk to Sony direct).
Rev Nigel McCullochThe upshot is a lot of soundbytes and a media frenzy about the whole thing, sparking up the old "violence in videogames" debate again.
Manchester CathedralAnyway, long story short, because its Manchester (near Bolton where I live and teach), I ended up getting a call from BBC Radio Manchester to go on a program this morning to debate the issue.
Much as I dont like defending Sony (partly because I dont think they need defending and partly because they are huge already and this publicity is taking publicity away from real hard issues), it fell on me to try and represent the gamers viewpoint in all this.
Resistance: Fall of ManThe big problem with the bishops arguments are that they mix two or three very different issues up. One is the ownership of IP involved with the game recreation of a public building. That (to my mind) is one for the courts and not in the media. The second point he makes, is that it is insensitive to use a Church in a violent game. Again, this is probably more of a personal moral judgement. The final point he makes is that violent games inevitably lead to violence.
Now reading up on the psychological studies, you'd be forgiven for being a bit confused. Most all of the "pro" studies are put out by one person (Prof Anderson of Iowa state), there being a number of different "con" studies out there like one in australia, where they found that playing any videogame, including violent ones, seems to calm people who are hyperactive and has an overall minimal effect on people who are normally active. Only those who are predisposed to a certain behavior seem to be negatively affected.
My big problem with a lot of these studies is that they use the term "aggression" but dont exactly define what it is. It seems like there is still a long way to go in terms of studying the overall effect of violence in videogames, but we can pretty much be clear that there is no support for a direct causal link (for instance saying that everyone who plays videogames then becomes violent).
Anyway, the most depressing thing about this whole episode, is how easily the media slipped into the "church blasts videogames" role and didnt actually do much of a balanced rational job on the story. I guess its just easier for people who are not gamers to accept it presented this way.
My own take on it, is that if these people commenting were themselves gamers and they then said they were concerned, I'd be far more likely to listen. Given the irrational fear that prevails within a certain generation (i.e. my age or older) about videogames, well, hopefully this kind of debate will become null and void as the older generations expire and the younger generations accept the media for what it is, both good and bad.
You can listen to my comments on the BBC Radio Manchester site I think.
www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/
About the author
#2
One note I might need clarified is this: Are they trying to say they are upset that a specific church was used? Or that A church was used?
The second holds the least amount of water since there have been violent depictions, events, and scenes within churches in all medians of entertainment.
Even if the first depiction, a specific church, was the problem, I think the timing and complaint of church officials is not only weak, but highly childish considering exact locations have been used numerous times in other games and movies.
It's been said before, and it can be said again: Books were evil. Then came music (jazz and rock'n'roll), then that was evil and harmful to children. Then came TV, which was the evil and harmful. Then came movies, then came computers, then came the Internet, and now it's video games.
Currently, the popular trend of fossils, lawyers, and politicians is to grab attention by platforming as crusaders trying to protect the children and better the world. I can't wait to see what my generation, a generation of gamers and game developers, will be trying to ban when we come to power =)
06/11/2007 (10:16 am)
Great blog and even better comments Phil. Game politics news usually doesn't reach the GG blog section, so it's nice to hear a point made by other community members about topics I'm reading up on.One note I might need clarified is this: Are they trying to say they are upset that a specific church was used? Or that A church was used?
The second holds the least amount of water since there have been violent depictions, events, and scenes within churches in all medians of entertainment.
Even if the first depiction, a specific church, was the problem, I think the timing and complaint of church officials is not only weak, but highly childish considering exact locations have been used numerous times in other games and movies.
It's been said before, and it can be said again: Books were evil. Then came music (jazz and rock'n'roll), then that was evil and harmful to children. Then came TV, which was the evil and harmful. Then came movies, then came computers, then came the Internet, and now it's video games.
Currently, the popular trend of fossils, lawyers, and politicians is to grab attention by platforming as crusaders trying to protect the children and better the world. I can't wait to see what my generation, a generation of gamers and game developers, will be trying to ban when we come to power =)
#3
(I had an other witty comment at hand but editing my post 3 times kinda wore of the "funny" factor)
06/11/2007 (10:18 am)
Oops sorry couldnt help my self. I think I might actually agree with you this time.(I had an other witty comment at hand but editing my post 3 times kinda wore of the "funny" factor)
#4
1) The game somehow promoted violence
2) That the city has high gun crime and that this videogame somehow promoted that too
3) That the game was insensitive BECAUSE this specific church was linked with victims of gun crime
The big issue really is that this is basically a rant and somehow it achieves national press (and no doubt international press once the rabid anti gaming lobbyists get hold of it).
Pascal: You are a pumpkin.
06/11/2007 (10:58 am)
Michael: the biggest problem was with the use of the specific church I think. But it was muddied with the argument that:1) The game somehow promoted violence
2) That the city has high gun crime and that this videogame somehow promoted that too
3) That the game was insensitive BECAUSE this specific church was linked with victims of gun crime
The big issue really is that this is basically a rant and somehow it achieves national press (and no doubt international press once the rabid anti gaming lobbyists get hold of it).
Pascal: You are a pumpkin.
#5
I don't think that that will ever change. Finding a positive outlet is the search, and though we do need to be careful about what we take in and allow ourselves to process; simply placing the blame on one source or another will only cause it manifest itself in another.
Certainly not a complete thought, but.. fuel for the fyra!
06/11/2007 (11:35 am)
yeah, I find it interesting that you point out "aggression" since you can see aggression everywhere. The problem I suppose, is how it manifests itself. The news will cast clips of violence in the middle east, and that can manifest itself through hate and broad ethnic assumptions. Working with youth, most of whom are tickled to death with video games, I find that aggression, anger, restless energy (or whatever you want to call it) is common and a product of something entirely different. Our society is de-man-ifying youth all over the place. There's a part of the human (specifically male) psyche that needs an outlet, some positive way to manifest itself. Games have the potential to do this on a small scale and make it "fun" rather than simply hateful or malicious; but I certainly wouldn't make the argument that games are the answer at all, or even that all games are good. The problem, as I see it, is desensitization in one respect or another. Whether we get a thrill from a dead body, or it simply doesn't bother us, there's always the possibility that minds are being molded to think in certain patterns. We see this across the board. Games, movies, news, you name it. We're violent people. The mentality: "I'm losing, I need to win, I win by destroying my opponent" does not come from games, but it is so successful in games because it is a part of our nature.I don't think that that will ever change. Finding a positive outlet is the search, and though we do need to be careful about what we take in and allow ourselves to process; simply placing the blame on one source or another will only cause it manifest itself in another.
Certainly not a complete thought, but.. fuel for the fyra!
#6
Good blog though, as always.
These studies that get published on controversial topics are very often laced with vested interests anyway. Lobby groups pay half-baked researchers with dodgy credentials to tell them what they want to hear. I'm not saying the ones you're referring to fit within that (not having read them), but.. there you have it.
Enjoy the summer!, not too many students around I hope ;-)
06/11/2007 (12:20 pm)
Ah Phil- when I saw the blog title I thought you had thrown in the towel on air ace and decided to submit to the lure of the twiddly-gimmickly-2D puzzley genre ;-)Good blog though, as always.
These studies that get published on controversial topics are very often laced with vested interests anyway. Lobby groups pay half-baked researchers with dodgy credentials to tell them what they want to hear. I'm not saying the ones you're referring to fit within that (not having read them), but.. there you have it.
Enjoy the summer!, not too many students around I hope ;-)
#7
With all due respect, why are you discussing this on a GG forum? This is completely your opinion and I really could care less what you think about this issue. These issues are a common discussion and will be for years to come. Bottom line is we most likely don't know the whole story of either side and never will. Please post something that relates to you making a game so we can all learn from your experiences and not your opinion of a hotly debated issue in the gaming industry. If you want to have such opinions and voice them, then get your own personal blog and blog all you want about it there.. just not here where I have to read them (or aleast part of them).
Thanks!
Dana Dill
06/11/2007 (12:41 pm)
Phil,With all due respect, why are you discussing this on a GG forum? This is completely your opinion and I really could care less what you think about this issue. These issues are a common discussion and will be for years to come. Bottom line is we most likely don't know the whole story of either side and never will. Please post something that relates to you making a game so we can all learn from your experiences and not your opinion of a hotly debated issue in the gaming industry. If you want to have such opinions and voice them, then get your own personal blog and blog all you want about it there.. just not here where I have to read them (or aleast part of them).
Thanks!
Dana Dill
#9
06/11/2007 (1:16 pm)
yes, you have to "start" reading the blog in order to find out what is in it. I subscribe to all the RSS feeds for GG blogs. Did you get the "(or at least part of them)" part of my response!!!???
#10
besides, most people only look at the pictures. The picture of the Reverend made me curious as to what he was getting at, so I read. :) Since we're making up new rules: Next time, post a picture in your reply, or I won't read it.
06/11/2007 (1:18 pm)
it's game related, and not your blog.besides, most people only look at the pictures. The picture of the Reverend made me curious as to what he was getting at, so I read. :) Since we're making up new rules: Next time, post a picture in your reply, or I won't read it.
#11
I've gotta say, in spite of the ADR preface, your comments don't sound very respectful.
This is an excellent topic for discussion, both in the GG developer blogs section and in the General Discussion forum. It's especially relevant since Phil is currently making a World War II themed air combat game.
I'm interested about Phil's opinion and insights on the subject because 1) he teaches game development courses at the university level, 2) he has completed multiple commercial game projects and knows a thing or two about the business and 3) he is currently creating a combat-oriented game set in a war-torn place and time in history.
As far as I can tell, Phil's post is perfectly suited for this venue since the issue at hand bears more than passing relevance to the types of game he is making.
06/11/2007 (1:24 pm)
Dana,I've gotta say, in spite of the ADR preface, your comments don't sound very respectful.
This is an excellent topic for discussion, both in the GG developer blogs section and in the General Discussion forum. It's especially relevant since Phil is currently making a World War II themed air combat game.
I'm interested about Phil's opinion and insights on the subject because 1) he teaches game development courses at the university level, 2) he has completed multiple commercial game projects and knows a thing or two about the business and 3) he is currently creating a combat-oriented game set in a war-torn place and time in history.
As far as I can tell, Phil's post is perfectly suited for this venue since the issue at hand bears more than passing relevance to the types of game he is making.
#12
I posted it because I think the garagegames community is interested in games and game issues, at least to some extent.
It just tickled me that I was asked to represent the gamers side of the debate.
But I'm not sure I agree with you that I shouldnt post this here. But if the majority think so, I'll post it elsewhere.
06/11/2007 (1:26 pm)
Erm, Dana, this *IS* a blog. Its not a "forum" as such.I posted it because I think the garagegames community is interested in games and game issues, at least to some extent.
It just tickled me that I was asked to represent the gamers side of the debate.
But I'm not sure I agree with you that I shouldnt post this here. But if the majority think so, I'll post it elsewhere.
#13
@Dana:
While Im not a fan of these types of discussions public attitudes towards games is definitely relevant to people who make games. (i.e Us!)
06/11/2007 (1:31 pm)
Personally I think of these things as sensationalism and I believe there are a number of non-gamers who realise this. Its tabloid stuff basically and it doesnt just happen to us.@Dana:
While Im not a fan of these types of discussions public attitudes towards games is definitely relevant to people who make games. (i.e Us!)
#14
I think Phil's opinions should not be expressed here. As Phil, I am just expressing my opinion. There are places to discuss these topics I just don't think they are here. If his comments were less opinionated and more informative then I might be able to stomach them more. I just found his comments offensive. There are always two sides to each coin. I have no disrespect for Phil, I just don't agree with him and really don't want to hear what his thoughts are here. Now, if he wanted to post a link to his discussions and thoughts on this subject I feel that would be fine. Again, it is just my opinion.
Dana
06/11/2007 (1:35 pm)
Thanks for your response, but I disagree. I think Phil's opinions should not be expressed here. As Phil, I am just expressing my opinion. There are places to discuss these topics I just don't think they are here. If his comments were less opinionated and more informative then I might be able to stomach them more. I just found his comments offensive. There are always two sides to each coin. I have no disrespect for Phil, I just don't agree with him and really don't want to hear what his thoughts are here. Now, if he wanted to post a link to his discussions and thoughts on this subject I feel that would be fine. Again, it is just my opinion.
Dana
#15
06/11/2007 (1:39 pm)
so if you agreed with what he was saying, rather than finding it offensive, then it would be OK for him to have posted it? :) 
#16
The only time we exert any control over what goes into a blog is when there is no substance whatsoever, the blog is a question better posted on the forums, or if the content is offensive to a large majority of our community.
This blog doesn't fall uner any of those categories.
Not only that, I find this blog to be incredibly relevant to us as game developers (where do we draw the line on violence in our own games? how do we represent ourselves to the world outside of games and gamers...both when we are right and wrong in our actions?).
Dana,
If Phil has pushed some sore point with you, you are free to discuss that rather than trying to push your opinion about video games and violence as the "bottom line" in an effort to shut Phil up. I'm not trying to jump on you in particular but Phil is a *long* standing community member who earned my respect and personal friendship long ago.
06/11/2007 (1:40 pm)
No one is forcing anyone to read all or part of the blogs on GG (it was your choice to subscribe to the RSS feed after all).The only time we exert any control over what goes into a blog is when there is no substance whatsoever, the blog is a question better posted on the forums, or if the content is offensive to a large majority of our community.
This blog doesn't fall uner any of those categories.
Not only that, I find this blog to be incredibly relevant to us as game developers (where do we draw the line on violence in our own games? how do we represent ourselves to the world outside of games and gamers...both when we are right and wrong in our actions?).
Dana,
If Phil has pushed some sore point with you, you are free to discuss that rather than trying to push your opinion about video games and violence as the "bottom line" in an effort to shut Phil up. I'm not trying to jump on you in particular but Phil is a *long* standing community member who earned my respect and personal friendship long ago.
#17
The really interesting thing was that I had been asked my opinion, which I think kind of required me to explain what my opinion was. I dont think I'm trying to get everyone to agree (I know that wont happen).
If you think that somehow I'm attacking religion in any way, please let me know if thats the case and I'll modify how I write what I do. I happen to think the bishop is misinformed and I hope I've set out why, I'm not trying to make a personal attack on him, even if I do get frustrated that this issue has a lot of press versus say the two gun killings that occurred in manchester only last night.
06/11/2007 (1:48 pm)
Actually Dana, I'm interested to see what has offended you in my comments. I try and base my opinion on fact and reading rather than pure conjecture, but I'm aware that there are other viewpoints.The really interesting thing was that I had been asked my opinion, which I think kind of required me to explain what my opinion was. I dont think I'm trying to get everyone to agree (I know that wont happen).
If you think that somehow I'm attacking religion in any way, please let me know if thats the case and I'll modify how I write what I do. I happen to think the bishop is misinformed and I hope I've set out why, I'm not trying to make a personal attack on him, even if I do get frustrated that this issue has a lot of press versus say the two gun killings that occurred in manchester only last night.
#18
Dana
06/11/2007 (2:00 pm)
Matt, I am surprised at you. I really am. I have meet you at GDC and you are a very nice person and was very helpful to me, but I think a button of yours has been pushed here. You are reading into my post(s) way to much! You are not letting me disagree with Phil. I am not trying to "shut up Phil". Good Grief Matt how could I be doing that!!!!! I said I disagreed with his comments. How is that shutting him up.Dana
#19
"so if you agreed with what he was saying, rather than finding it offensive, then it would be OK for him to have posted it? :)"
wow that is taking me out context. (refer to my previous posts)
06/11/2007 (2:05 pm)
Kenneth,"so if you agreed with what he was saying, rather than finding it offensive, then it would be OK for him to have posted it? :)"
wow that is taking me out context. (refer to my previous posts)
#20
Thanks you so much for a NON attack response!!!! (what a relief .. other take note)
I admit I overreacted a bit on this but when it comes to comments of violence and video games I get really defensive! (no kidding right). I am actually a "religious" person if you want to say that and I hear this kind of topic come up a lot in discussions around the coffee pot at church. I am always defending violence in video games as it seems many "religious" people seem to think that the root cause of todays violence is due to all the violence in video games. I get sick if hearing preachers associate video games with all the violent behavior we see around the world. The media plays right into this. They seem to agree that violence in video games is a bad thing. I defend violence in video games. I really do. Like everything else I believe there is a line that can be crossed when it comes to violence but as game makers we have to look at our audience and our "beliefs" and decide as a company how you are going to represent the violence.
I think another issue that is related to this is how parents view violence in video games. It has been my experience that parents are very uneducated when it comes to knowing what game ratings are and what their kids are playing. I actually give seminars to parents to educate them on the gaming industry and what the games are that their kids are playing. I show them what the ratings are and where they can find out more information about the games their kids are playing so they as parents can make educated decisions what they believe their kids should be playing. I never tell a parent what or what not their child should be playing, I just educate.
I know now I have given my opinion here and am setup for some bas'in but I appreciate Phil's non attack post. I apologize if I came across too harsh. I certainly was not trying to silence you.
Thanks!
06/11/2007 (2:25 pm)
Phil,Thanks you so much for a NON attack response!!!! (what a relief .. other take note)
I admit I overreacted a bit on this but when it comes to comments of violence and video games I get really defensive! (no kidding right). I am actually a "religious" person if you want to say that and I hear this kind of topic come up a lot in discussions around the coffee pot at church. I am always defending violence in video games as it seems many "religious" people seem to think that the root cause of todays violence is due to all the violence in video games. I get sick if hearing preachers associate video games with all the violent behavior we see around the world. The media plays right into this. They seem to agree that violence in video games is a bad thing. I defend violence in video games. I really do. Like everything else I believe there is a line that can be crossed when it comes to violence but as game makers we have to look at our audience and our "beliefs" and decide as a company how you are going to represent the violence.
I think another issue that is related to this is how parents view violence in video games. It has been my experience that parents are very uneducated when it comes to knowing what game ratings are and what their kids are playing. I actually give seminars to parents to educate them on the gaming industry and what the games are that their kids are playing. I show them what the ratings are and where they can find out more information about the games their kids are playing so they as parents can make educated decisions what they believe their kids should be playing. I never tell a parent what or what not their child should be playing, I just educate.
I know now I have given my opinion here and am setup for some bas'in but I appreciate Phil's non attack post. I apologize if I came across too harsh. I certainly was not trying to silence you.
Thanks!
Torque Owner Pascal Bos