the lost and the damned and ethics
by Orion Elenzil · in General Game Discussion · 05/04/2009 (11:05 am) · 75 replies
moved from a blog post.
as mike perry has pointed out, these discussions tend towards flame-wars and i'll admit that my post is itself a bit inflammatory, so i'll just uh remind everyone to try to keep their head above the emotional waters here.
------------------------------
just a quick note on The Lost and the Damned.
i live in San Francisco's Mission district, which last year suffered several motorcycle-gang related murders. just amongst my circle of friends (which let me assure you contains not a single gang member nor probably anyone who even knows a gang member) one friend had a brutal killing in the apartment just below her, and one witnessed a dead body shot across from a popular local bar, both gang-related incidences. as i recall there was a rash of six or so related killings around that time, and at times word was actually "out on the street" along the lines of "avoid the mission tonight; shit's going down". (in that particular case, shit did not in fact go down, but you get an idea for how the community had been affected)
then just a few months ago rockstar games releases TLATD, and up go the huge posters advertising this game. so now, in the mission district in san francisco, you can stand on a corner where a dude was literally gunned down in gang violence just a few months before and look across the street to the huge posters at the bottom of this post.
these and other large posters appeared next to grocery stores, outside bars, on busy streets, on quiet streets, all throughout this neighborhood which is full of young people, old people, families, children, and computer programmers.
now i know this is a very unpopular stance amongst gamers,
but seriously, wtf ? here we have a case where the exact violence which rocked a community one month is commodified and presented as a cool new "rockstar" game the next. the gaming community loves to take the stance that glorifying violence doesn't lead to a societal increase in actual violence, but i call bullshit.
.jpg)
.jpg)
as mike perry has pointed out, these discussions tend towards flame-wars and i'll admit that my post is itself a bit inflammatory, so i'll just uh remind everyone to try to keep their head above the emotional waters here.
------------------------------
just a quick note on The Lost and the Damned.
i live in San Francisco's Mission district, which last year suffered several motorcycle-gang related murders. just amongst my circle of friends (which let me assure you contains not a single gang member nor probably anyone who even knows a gang member) one friend had a brutal killing in the apartment just below her, and one witnessed a dead body shot across from a popular local bar, both gang-related incidences. as i recall there was a rash of six or so related killings around that time, and at times word was actually "out on the street" along the lines of "avoid the mission tonight; shit's going down". (in that particular case, shit did not in fact go down, but you get an idea for how the community had been affected)
then just a few months ago rockstar games releases TLATD, and up go the huge posters advertising this game. so now, in the mission district in san francisco, you can stand on a corner where a dude was literally gunned down in gang violence just a few months before and look across the street to the huge posters at the bottom of this post.
these and other large posters appeared next to grocery stores, outside bars, on busy streets, on quiet streets, all throughout this neighborhood which is full of young people, old people, families, children, and computer programmers.
now i know this is a very unpopular stance amongst gamers,
but seriously, wtf ? here we have a case where the exact violence which rocked a community one month is commodified and presented as a cool new "rockstar" game the next. the gaming community loves to take the stance that glorifying violence doesn't lead to a societal increase in actual violence, but i call bullshit.
About the author
#22
Well done Mich for suggesting the move!
05/04/2009 (4:46 pm)
The advert - distasteful in the exteme, but that is the marketing cronies (sp?), ... seriously edited ... but keep a good humour guys!Well done Mich for suggesting the move!
#23
My knowledge is nearly 10 years old, but from experience. Google would probably have better upto date info. Also seek 'Random Acts of Art' (if they are still around), as public domain artwork follow the same rules, and is an exclusion to traditionally graffiti (depending fully on where it is located).
05/04/2009 (4:52 pm)
Traditionally graffiti is painted on = more permanent. Public domain advertising is restricted to non permanent structures. Can not place public domain advertising on; building walls/doors/windows (without permission), utility poles, bus/train/trolley/subway, trees/monuments/artwork. My knowledge is nearly 10 years old, but from experience. Google would probably have better upto date info. Also seek 'Random Acts of Art' (if they are still around), as public domain artwork follow the same rules, and is an exclusion to traditionally graffiti (depending fully on where it is located).
#24
> actual violence, but i call bullshit.
I completely disagree with you. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that supports your conclusion that violent media contributes to violent behavior. There have been various studies over the past few years that have gone both ways, but we cannot confuse anecdotal evidence and correlation studies as scientific evidence. Correlation does not equal causation.
05/04/2009 (4:57 pm)
> the gaming community loves to take the stance that glorifying violence doesn't lead to a societal increase in > actual violence, but i call bullshit.
I completely disagree with you. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that supports your conclusion that violent media contributes to violent behavior. There have been various studies over the past few years that have gone both ways, but we cannot confuse anecdotal evidence and correlation studies as scientific evidence. Correlation does not equal causation.
#25
> Public domain advertising is restricted to non permanent structures.
what about painting (graffitti) on non-permanent structures ?
05/04/2009 (4:58 pm)
thanks for the info Caylo.> Public domain advertising is restricted to non permanent structures.
what about painting (graffitti) on non-permanent structures ?
#26
I just did a few Google's and did not find any definitive information, so it may be a subject you would need to address when faced by a judge or cop (hehe wee fun!)...
If i came across them Rock Star ads, i would plaster big smiley faces over the originals, and put flowers in place of weapons (also cover details what make it an effective advert), but that is just the hippie in me....
05/04/2009 (5:07 pm)
If it is clearly art and not mistakable as typical graffiti, it may pass. It is not uncommon for the building owner to smear paint over adverts. I just did a few Google's and did not find any definitive information, so it may be a subject you would need to address when faced by a judge or cop (hehe wee fun!)...
If i came across them Rock Star ads, i would plaster big smiley faces over the originals, and put flowers in place of weapons (also cover details what make it an effective advert), but that is just the hippie in me....
#27
> I completely disagree with you
and i with you. <3 <3 !
note that this stuff is pretty difficult to study,
which is why i'm employing a degree of my common sense,
which i think it's pretty clear is different than the bulk of the gaming community's on this topic.
re doing a study like this,
you need to get the gaming behaviour data:
* did bobby play violent games as a kid ?
* how violent were they ?
* how much did he play them ?
* how much adult mediation did he have ?
* etc
then you need to track bobby for say a decade and ask questions like:
* has bobby been to jail ?
* has bobby been convicted of a violent crime ?
* does bobby hit his wife/children ?
* is bobby dead ?
* etc
then, as you point out, correlation != causation, so you need to also to eliminate and/or account for all the extraneous variation in bobby1 from bobby2.
eg, to get answers the same "how is bobby now" questions for someone who is just like bobby in every way (economic status, family life, education, etc, etc) except for the early playing of violent video games.
and then, to be statistically significant, you have to have this data for at least several hundred bobbies.
it's a pretty tall statistical order,
and i imagine/hope well-funded and well-planned studies along those lines are in the works now, but of course there's going to be lots of noise in the early studies. hence the common sense and the controversy.
(also i'm guessing that by "not a shred" you meant "not a preponderance" since clearly "various studies over the past few years which have gone both ways" don't quite equate to "not a shred")
05/04/2009 (5:14 pm)
aaron -> I completely disagree with you
and i with you. <3 <3 !
note that this stuff is pretty difficult to study,
which is why i'm employing a degree of my common sense,
which i think it's pretty clear is different than the bulk of the gaming community's on this topic.
re doing a study like this,
you need to get the gaming behaviour data:
* did bobby play violent games as a kid ?
* how violent were they ?
* how much did he play them ?
* how much adult mediation did he have ?
* etc
then you need to track bobby for say a decade and ask questions like:
* has bobby been to jail ?
* has bobby been convicted of a violent crime ?
* does bobby hit his wife/children ?
* is bobby dead ?
* etc
then, as you point out, correlation != causation, so you need to also to eliminate and/or account for all the extraneous variation in bobby1 from bobby2.
eg, to get answers the same "how is bobby now" questions for someone who is just like bobby in every way (economic status, family life, education, etc, etc) except for the early playing of violent video games.
and then, to be statistically significant, you have to have this data for at least several hundred bobbies.
it's a pretty tall statistical order,
and i imagine/hope well-funded and well-planned studies along those lines are in the works now, but of course there's going to be lots of noise in the early studies. hence the common sense and the controversy.
(also i'm guessing that by "not a shred" you meant "not a preponderance" since clearly "various studies over the past few years which have gone both ways" don't quite equate to "not a shred")
#28
Jonathan Blow exposes this point very well: we could not know the effects of modern games in society until 100, or 200 years. Thats why we should start acting with responsability now.
Acting with responsabilty though, can mean a lot of things, so here it is my definition: any game made with love, and personalized dedication, cant possisbly be harmful. In oposition, games made just to be sell in masses, games made to get people captive on their pcs with cheap psicological tricks, should be carefully payed attention to.
05/04/2009 (5:22 pm)
On doing studies on the effects, there is also some deep things to consider.Jonathan Blow exposes this point very well: we could not know the effects of modern games in society until 100, or 200 years. Thats why we should start acting with responsability now.
Acting with responsabilty though, can mean a lot of things, so here it is my definition: any game made with love, and personalized dedication, cant possisbly be harmful. In oposition, games made just to be sell in masses, games made to get people captive on their pcs with cheap psicological tricks, should be carefully payed attention to.
#29
All you *really* need to do is compare sales of violent video games with violent crime rates. If violent crime increased, then you would have a starting point to track trends with demographics of game sales.
Since these games sell by the millions, and we currently have the lowest rate of violent crimes per capita since 1973, there really isn't any starting point for the argument that these games lead to an increase in violence.
05/04/2009 (5:34 pm)
Quote:
you need to get the gaming behaviour data:
* did bobby play violent games as a kid ?
* how violent were they ?
* how much did he play them ?
* how much adult mediation did he have ?
* etc
then you need to track bobby for say a decade and ask questions like:
* has bobby been to jail ?
* has bobby been convicted of a violent crime ?
* does bobby hit his wife/children ?
* is bobby dead ?
* etc
All you *really* need to do is compare sales of violent video games with violent crime rates. If violent crime increased, then you would have a starting point to track trends with demographics of game sales.
Since these games sell by the millions, and we currently have the lowest rate of violent crimes per capita since 1973, there really isn't any starting point for the argument that these games lead to an increase in violence.
#31
Gerald, there we go:
Edit, forgot the graph:
And yet again, it is oversimplistic!
We cannot embrace the double morale of the mass media [FOX Corp.] to consider the situation, nor the ultra hypocrite stand of this parent'c clubs [specially moms] with so much time to waste in association meetings and not quality time with their childs.
However, we cannot avoid the drama of kids so psicologically addicted to games [most usually online] to the point of turn agressive to themselves and other human beeings.
This however, from a mature viewpoint, is not enterelly due to the game itself, but the modern social environment.
So whats my point? Take OUR PART with a little *more* of responsabilty, and more care than expected.
05/04/2009 (5:50 pm)
Quote:All you *really* need to do is compare sales of violent video games with violent crime rates. If violent crime increased, then you would have a starting point to track trends with demographics of game sales.
Gerald, there we go:
Edit, forgot the graph:
And yet again, it is oversimplistic!
We cannot embrace the double morale of the mass media [FOX Corp.] to consider the situation, nor the ultra hypocrite stand of this parent'c clubs [specially moms] with so much time to waste in association meetings and not quality time with their childs.
However, we cannot avoid the drama of kids so psicologically addicted to games [most usually online] to the point of turn agressive to themselves and other human beeings.
This however, from a mature viewpoint, is not enterelly due to the game itself, but the modern social environment.
So whats my point? Take OUR PART with a little *more* of responsabilty, and more care than expected.
#32
05/04/2009 (5:57 pm)
Postal! Lolage ...
#33
let me illustrate where my 'common sense' alarms are going off.
to recap: in my community, we recently had a rash of biker-gang-related killings. a couple months later, another title in the wildly popular GTA series is released by rockstar games: TLATD, a video game featuring bike-gang-related violence, and is conspicuously marketed it in this same community.
as a kid, what's the message i'm going to get here ?
05/04/2009 (6:00 pm)
gerald, apologies for my previous snarky reply.let me illustrate where my 'common sense' alarms are going off.
to recap: in my community, we recently had a rash of biker-gang-related killings. a couple months later, another title in the wildly popular GTA series is released by rockstar games: TLATD, a video game featuring bike-gang-related violence, and is conspicuously marketed it in this same community.
as a kid, what's the message i'm going to get here ?
#34
05/04/2009 (6:08 pm)
Be a parent. Don't let someone elses half-assed brain raise your kid through a game...let's raise our own children with our own half-assed brains through real life, manners and vegetables. 
#35
Or maybe "art imitates life". The violent biker activity happened before the game, right?
Back to the poster issue. Orion, read through this: http://www.gamepolitics.com/search/node/poster
Particularly, look at the stories that cover posters that were successfully removed just by speaking up: Toronto, South Florida, Chicago. Also notice that Take 2 sued the city of Chicago for removing their ads from the transit system.
It only takes a few outraged voices to get an ad removed. That is more than doable, and honestly if the community is unhappy with an ad or poster I think they have the right to request it being taken down.
05/04/2009 (6:12 pm)
Quote:as a kid, what's the message i'm going to get here ?Hopefully a responsible figure at some point told that kid that violence is wrong, and crime results in penalties.
Or maybe "art imitates life". The violent biker activity happened before the game, right?
Back to the poster issue. Orion, read through this: http://www.gamepolitics.com/search/node/poster
Particularly, look at the stories that cover posters that were successfully removed just by speaking up: Toronto, South Florida, Chicago. Also notice that Take 2 sued the city of Chicago for removing their ads from the transit system.
It only takes a few outraged voices to get an ad removed. That is more than doable, and honestly if the community is unhappy with an ad or poster I think they have the right to request it being taken down.
#36
So the idea is simple: remove violence from games. I don't care if you have to play solitaire the rest of your life because you can't enjoy the fun of playing a decent and human value respectful game and look each day for shooting 'stuff';
I also disagree with hiding this post in the forums. It's a serious matter and in 10 years you will be sorry for not doing anything about violence in games. I honestly hope I am 100% wrong.
05/04/2009 (6:13 pm)
The game company clearly cashed in from a tragic area of life and it's just sick to be contemporary with such mind~twisted individuals. And it's not 'game company' really: there are a couple of guys up there making these decisions and they oughta be pulled out in the light and forced to remove the so called game off the shelves; Games don't kill people as guns don't kill people. Abominably sick profit seekers are killing people, indirectly, with promoting violence. Heck, since when gaming has to defend titles with EXPLICIT violence? I disagree with any developer defending the 'games don't kill' position. Because they do. So the idea is simple: remove violence from games. I don't care if you have to play solitaire the rest of your life because you can't enjoy the fun of playing a decent and human value respectful game and look each day for shooting 'stuff';
I also disagree with hiding this post in the forums. It's a serious matter and in 10 years you will be sorry for not doing anything about violence in games. I honestly hope I am 100% wrong.
#37
distastefull yes - but as a citizen there are things you can do:
- Contact Local officials and report the situation
- If you alone can't be heard collect some signatures from the neibourghood. Officials are still politicians and need votes.
- Use the media. Call some radio show or TV channel and report it. They all love a little controversy anyway. The media works both ways.
2 - About the game influencing violence
I've played the most violent games i could get my hands on growing up and anyone who knows me knows i am the most peacefull guy out there.
And maybe i am that way because i let off steam shooting some zombies, aliens, creatures from hell, or soldiers from an enemy army.
It really takes a lot to piss me off and even then i usually don't act on it. Just leave who ever pissed me off talking to themselfs.
So no, in my experience games do not influence violence in someone.
However, if a person has a tendency to be violent for whatever reason, then that person might use something from a game as a way to release that violence - inspiration if you will.
But that can't be blamed on a game. That person would still do the act of violence without the game. Just would most likelly be different.
05/04/2009 (6:18 pm)
1 - About the postersdistastefull yes - but as a citizen there are things you can do:
- Contact Local officials and report the situation
- If you alone can't be heard collect some signatures from the neibourghood. Officials are still politicians and need votes.
- Use the media. Call some radio show or TV channel and report it. They all love a little controversy anyway. The media works both ways.
2 - About the game influencing violence
I've played the most violent games i could get my hands on growing up and anyone who knows me knows i am the most peacefull guy out there.
And maybe i am that way because i let off steam shooting some zombies, aliens, creatures from hell, or soldiers from an enemy army.
It really takes a lot to piss me off and even then i usually don't act on it. Just leave who ever pissed me off talking to themselfs.
So no, in my experience games do not influence violence in someone.
However, if a person has a tendency to be violent for whatever reason, then that person might use something from a game as a way to release that violence - inspiration if you will.
But that can't be blamed on a game. That person would still do the act of violence without the game. Just would most likelly be different.
#38
Absolutely not. I think you know me better than that. My track record with moderating the forums has been very fair. I made the decision to do this because our blog space is dedicated to development, not game politics.
The reason I suggested GamePolitics is because these kinds of issues are discussed constantly on that site. It is a great place to get reference information, precedents, and rally support...if you use logic.
@Apparatus - I think you are too far into the extreme on this. Using your logic, I can blame a lot of things for violence. However, it does boil down to the fact that it takes a human to kill another human. A video game does not pick up the gun, and anyone who tries to claim a "game kills people" is not helping one side or the other.
If you guys are calling my judgment into question, should I turn the tables and ask about your involvement in FPS (first person shooter)kits and demos with guns? Would that be fair? Nope. Neither way is.
When sexual assault was at a high in my home town, I did not join the rally to shut down adult video stores. I organized women's self defense and rape prevention classes. I get that using the Internet to vent in a forum can be healthy, because everyone needs an outlet.
However, if you want something changed get on the phone, walk out the door, and do something about it. Rally the community.
On that note, Orion, check out the links I posted. They will help you get the ads removed.
05/04/2009 (6:22 pm)
Oh...and I hate to derail this, but I never responded to Novack and since Apparatus decided to bring it up.Quote:Was that a suggestion of not introducing this topics in this community?
Absolutely not. I think you know me better than that. My track record with moderating the forums has been very fair. I made the decision to do this because our blog space is dedicated to development, not game politics.
The reason I suggested GamePolitics is because these kinds of issues are discussed constantly on that site. It is a great place to get reference information, precedents, and rally support...if you use logic.
@Apparatus - I think you are too far into the extreme on this. Using your logic, I can blame a lot of things for violence. However, it does boil down to the fact that it takes a human to kill another human. A video game does not pick up the gun, and anyone who tries to claim a "game kills people" is not helping one side or the other.
If you guys are calling my judgment into question, should I turn the tables and ask about your involvement in FPS (first person shooter)kits and demos with guns? Would that be fair? Nope. Neither way is.
When sexual assault was at a high in my home town, I did not join the rally to shut down adult video stores. I organized women's self defense and rape prevention classes. I get that using the Internet to vent in a forum can be healthy, because everyone needs an outlet.
However, if you want something changed get on the phone, walk out the door, and do something about it. Rally the community.
On that note, Orion, check out the links I posted. They will help you get the ads removed.
#39
This looks like any game company statement I've ever heard in defending their violent games. It's that nowadays violent games are part of our life and we are just used to it. No. It's this way because they were made to be so. The marketing grinding machine just pushed this because it's mindless and it doesn't require a higher level of education (as opposed to let's say, freaking sudoku);
It's an education issue. As long as the person is educated away from violence and in good life conditions, those tendencies won't simply be there. Even at 18, the age here you can vote, you don't know squat about any of these things, all you care about is having fun, not thinking about every step you make, is it good, or bad, or rational or any of that old man shit.
Collecting signatures won't help; stop being yourself tolerant with this kind of entertainment and stop lying to yourself that as long as you don't shoot people is ok to have games where you do shoot people.
05/04/2009 (6:31 pm)
"But that can't be blamed on a game. That person would still do the act of violence without the game. Just would most likelly be different."This looks like any game company statement I've ever heard in defending their violent games. It's that nowadays violent games are part of our life and we are just used to it. No. It's this way because they were made to be so. The marketing grinding machine just pushed this because it's mindless and it doesn't require a higher level of education (as opposed to let's say, freaking sudoku);
It's an education issue. As long as the person is educated away from violence and in good life conditions, those tendencies won't simply be there. Even at 18, the age here you can vote, you don't know squat about any of these things, all you care about is having fun, not thinking about every step you make, is it good, or bad, or rational or any of that old man shit.
Collecting signatures won't help; stop being yourself tolerant with this kind of entertainment and stop lying to yourself that as long as you don't shoot people is ok to have games where you do shoot people.
#40
- Normal, moral person rents game and presses buttons
- Violent person loads a gun and takes a life
Where is the crossover?
05/04/2009 (6:38 pm)
@Apparatus - That's just it: entertainment. People choose their entertainment for their own reasons: fun, escapism, time consumption, exercise, and so on. Making a decision to play a game has absolutely nothing to do with making the decision to fire a shotgun at someone in a neighborhood. Please, where is the correlation?- Normal, moral person rents game and presses buttons
- Violent person loads a gun and takes a life
Where is the crossover?
Associate Orion Elenzil
Real Life Plus
that's not really how it works in large cities.
i don't think there's any permits involved in wheat-paste posters.
i'm actually pretty interested in the legal standing of wheat-paste posters. it seems to me they should have the same legal standing as traditional graffiti, but they seem to be exempt.
ie, i believe the way it works is an advertiser pays an agency to paste up the ads in a given area, and that agency simply finds 'temporary surfaces' and puts them up. no permission involved. just like graffiti. sounds like caylo may know a bit more on the score here.