HNRS 353

The issue of writing and re-writing history appears to have always been a point of interest.  On one hand, there is a saying that we must learn from our past as not to repeat it in the future. However, as we well know, a lot of the history that has been taught to us since elementary school is subject to bias and error.  Is it even accurate anymore to say “historically correct”? For example, we all thought the story of Rosa Parks was historically correct until we later found out that the real Rosa Parks was a pregnant teenager whose story was replaced in an attempt to keep stereotypes and controversy from ruining the bravery of her actions. Simulation games such as JFK reloaded help better understand or explain different point of views of those who are involved in the writing or questioning of history. Sure, it is disrespectful to Kennedy’s family to have a loved one’s murder be seen as a game, but at the same time, people are able to see for themselves and make a judgment if they believe in the Warren Commission’s’ “Magic bullet” theory. As previously stated, games are useful learning tools.  After all, police re-enact and simulate crimes all the time in order to expose the guilty which is pretty much the same thing you do in JFK reloaded. With these docu-games, people get to experiment with different outcomes of events which, in the case of Kennedy’s murder, were a major part of the building of this nation’s history. Reading the article makes me wonder: what brings people to create these docu-games? Do users really need to “live out” and experience to identify with others from that specific historical setting like in the 9-11 game? If so, what is the significance of doing so?

In his article Reality Play on so called “documentary games” or games that retell real life events through a game format, author Joost Raessens tackles the debate of whether these games can truly represent real life.  His conclusion is that Documentary games: “… do not represent the historical reality objectively, but they are more than just subjective impressions of the artists involved.”  He agrees that they cannot be called documentaries in the technical sense but they have more to add because they allow the player to interact with and take on the roles of a character in the story.

As I examined and played some of the games like JFK reloaded and Columbine RPG i couldn’t help but wonder if the main cause of the public outcry against them was because the player had to take on the role of a morally reputable character.  It reminded me of the guilty feelings evoked when I played the IF Baron and realized that I played the character of the child abusing father.

Do you think that the critics would have been as harsh against these games if the topic had been mother teresa or playing JFK rather then assassinating him?

The critics talk about why it doesn’t count as a documentary because it assumes a certain point of view but i wonder if part of their vehemence comes from the uncomfortable feelings resulting from playing a “villain”.

In Simon Penny’s article “Representation, Enaction, and the Ethics of Simulation”, he writes about how interactive entertainment has caused violence to increase, especially with younger kids who play these games. These games, he states, which are also used for simulation training, create body training from “repetitive physical actions”. These actions are, in the games he mention, about violence: killing and shooting. When kids play these games, they are performing rapid and reflexive movements, which causes them to repeat these movements unconsciously. When the kids are then placed in situations that reflect the game, these same movements are then used since they have been “trained” to do so.

There is one example that Penny states that I believe is proof that video games can cause violence in kids. He writes about adolescent shootings. The shooter’s goal is to kill a certain person, but when they have killed that person, they keep on killing others that are in front of them until a limiting factor appears. This behavior is mirrored in violent video games; the player is supposed to kill any character that comes in their path. By repeating these actions, the adolescents then take that behavior into the real world and perform the same actions unconsciously.

I believe that violent video games do not cause all adolescent violence, but I do believe it has a part in some instances. I also think that the games in which a representation of a weapon is used as a controller (instead of just pressing buttons) has a bigger influence in violence coming from video games. Do you think it has any amount of influencing violent behavior in people? Is it just a cause for kids, or for adults also?

Although he declined to talk about it, Galloway made reference to the “Columbine theory” in his chapter on Social  Realism. He defined it quite simply: games plus gore equals psychotic behavior. This topic is also addressed by Simon Penny in his article on representation and simulation. Specifically, he states that “it is hard to escape the conclusion that an interactive artwork might encourage misogynistic violence or that first person shooters actively contribute to an increase in gun violence among kids”. He argues that interactive representation of violence—say, a first person shooter game—trains players to mimic movements such as shooting without even thinking. Moreover, continuing with the first person shooter example, it makes players quite accurate when firing real guns. Accuracy aside, I still don’t think that such players are more inclined to act violently in real life just because they shoot people over and over again in a game. For those who have shot or attacked people in real life, I think the bigger issue that needs to be addressed is what prompted them to do so. They might have known how to use a gun from playing a game, but the game itself did not make them run out and shoot people. More likely than not, I bet they were teased or bullied, which pushed them over the edge and caused them to lash out.

So, I ask you all this: do you think that certain types of video games (i.e. first person shooters) increase the likelihood of violent behavior in players? Furthermore, to tie in Joost Raessens’ discussion of “documentary computer games”, do you think those types games that re-create historical events, such as JFK Reloaded, further give players ideas on how to hurt people in real life? In other words, players could translate the simulation of JFK’s assassination into a real-life assassination attempt.

Simon Penny seems to articulate that games, as simulations, train users in skills that would be helpful to violence. Raessens also mentions the connection between simulation and reality before dropping to to go to his main point of documentary games. Do games really cause people to do violence?

That is the most pressing question every mother seems to have about video games. Penny does not suggest that games cause violence, merely create the necessary skill set. I think the best defense of video games comes from the defense of carrying arms, namely that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Similarly, games don’t make people do anything, people do it themselves. I think being trained in how to use a gun doesn’t mean you are going to shoot someone any more than using a simulated game will make you more willing to hurt other people.

Tying into this, I think there is a certain procedural rhetoric in most games that encourages the formulation of certain skill sets and thought processes. For instance, in the game Kan Zuan Penny mentions, the only action is to hurt the woman. This is clearly a strong statement meant to evoke an emotionally response from the user, but it is the communication of the creator(s) to the users. This isn’t mind control, people can decide for themselves how to use the skills they gain from games.

If anything, people are too quick to try to assign a cause for a person’s behavior. People are capable of independent thought and of realizing that this is just a game. What do you think about the ethics of interactive games where you commit violence?

I remember playing metroid prime and swearing my robot was a man because the suit had the broad shoulder look going on. The metriod prime/girl topic brings me to think about how we judge a character by the way they dress, act, and appear on screen. It reminds me of the gender/sex debate about how women and men are both confined mainly by their physical attributes. In metriod prime, the robot suit had the sort of shape and coloring you would expect a man to wear (bulky with broader shoulders, the suit being red and mustard). I find it the case for most video games that when the gender is seemingly ambiguous we tend to, by default, assume that the player is a male.

For example, in Zelda the Ocarina of Time there is the sage Sheik.  The suit is the same as the case for metroid prime in that the suit is broad-shouldered with muscular legs and the small portion of the face you can see has bangs you would expect from a man. You only find out towards the end of the game that Sheik is actually princess Zelda in disguise. This brings me back to  the male gaze that the Lara Croft author describes: the way in which the female appearance is directed towards men by adopting the masculine standard of female appearance that emphasizes physical attributes and sexuality. This quote from Fred Davis perfectly describes what I mean by female appearance being directed towards men: “our culture’s images of women in paintings, films, television and still pornography tell us more about the male imagination than about the reality of women.” I would imagine that in the case of both metroid prime and Zelda their use of male to female physiques try to reveal the dichotomy between male and female expectations of characters in traditional games, whereas Tomb Raider’s Lara Croft reinforces Davis’ above statement.