I think I should move someplace where kids don't play videogames

[farla]

So I caught a passing reference to Bioshock involving weird little kids. Being always interested in weird little kids, I then sought out the various interesting videos of the game.

I pay only passing interest in games, so I'm quite impressed by how designers are better and better able to render people, environments, and how to kill people with things in your environment. Apparently the AI isn't too smart. I did not notice because I was distracted by the fact every enemy in the game has dialogue. They talk to themselves and when they see you their dialogue changes to reflect that. So stuff happens like a guy lighting himself on fire and running at you screaming "Don't go! I just want to talk! I just want to talk to someone!" Or a insane mother talking to an empty baby carriage. It also changes when you attack them. And the movements of the people are very well done. They obviously spent a great deal of time rendering how a body collapses after you beat their head in with a wrench.

No, really. It's really impressive. They put a lot of time into things like body language and movement. The little kids are especially well done. They skip around, talk happily to their companion, scream when they see someone coming for them, run in fear from you, cry when you brutally murder their cyborg protectors in front of them, and scramble backwards sobbing in terror as you approach to kill them. They did a very good job on that. I was impressed.

It makes for a very good movie. Movie, in which there is a distinction between what is taking place on the screen and events you are causing yourself. People who actually play the game are future serial killers, however, and should have some sort of warning brand etched onto their foreheads to identify them. Seriously, the kind of people who do this are not well.

Comments

[farla.livejournal.com]

Well, when I say "fine" I mean in the sense of "on the absolute edge of what's tolerable". (The first video, the trailer, would be an example of going over that edge) I don't believe watching the video of the game is certain to cause sociopathy.

And when – and if – we do figure that out, how are we going to enforce it without major censorship?

I used to worry about this. But right now? Yes, censorship, PLEASE. Major, overbearing, crushing censorship. The idea censorship is automatically bad is because it's traditionally used to by governments to suppress opposition. Somehow that was expanded to cover graphic depictions of murder under the assumption it wasn't actually hurting someone. As soon as there is evidence it does have demonstrable harm, this should stop applying. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater - you shouldn't produce games that involve realistic depictions of violence against people. It'll affect a lot of games, yes. But that's because there are a lot of games being made like this these days.

I'm sure I've got as many sadistic impulses as Third Video Guy.

I think a better way of looking at it is we all have sadistic impulses, regardless. The key here is that people like Third Video Guy no longer pick up on the cues that are supposed to restrain those. You hit someone, they cry out, you stop. In Bioshock, when people cry out, you're supposed to take that as a positive sign and hit harder.

[ember-reignited.livejournal.com]

Well, when I say "fine" I mean in the sense of "on the absolute edge of what's tolerable". (The first video, the trailer, would be an example of going over that edge)

But how do you know?

And what about acting in movies like that? What about directing them? Surely that's as active as playing a game. I suppose you could argue that not as many people are involved in production as in consumption, but would you argue that the people who are get twisted?

I don't believe watching the video of the game is certain to cause sociopathy.
Meaning you do think that playing the game is "certain" to? That it's impossible to just take it as a game – maybe a game where you get to do things that the beast buried beneath all the humanity always wanted to do, but that you know would be deplorable in real life – and not have that spill out into the way you treat actual people? That seems like way too general of a statement to be true.

Yes, censorship, PLEASE.

But what about equal levels of violence in movies and on TV? What about all of the questions of magnitude I brought up in my last post? Who gets to draw that line, and how do we make sure that it stays where it's initially drawn and doesn't start moving backwards? That's always the problem with censorship.

I think a better way of looking at it is we all have sadistic impulses, regardless.

That's more or less what I meant. I apologize if I started coming off a bit crazy toward the end there. I do that sometimes, especially late at night.

[farla.livejournal.com]

But how do you know?

I find that for all the unique snowflake stuff you hear, people tend to have similar baselines. If I find the level of violence in something disturbing, it's not a big jump to say that, in general, people should find it disturbing. And this seems to check out when I test it - people will react similarly to me most of the time, and when they don't, they are always people who watch horror movies and play violent games(always is not an exaggeration here, which is why I'm so confident of this). Similarly, from experience I know that repeated viewings make me stop reacting, but if I then show it to non-horror viewers, they will react.

And what about acting in movies like that? What about directing them?

Succintly - sucks to be you, then. There are actually trivia on a lot of the gorier movies about an actress fainting during filming, or there being child abuse complaints because of what the kids were exposed to. It depends, of course, on if the scene looked authetic, or looked authentic from one camera angle, so it's impossible to say absolutely.

Meaning you do think that playing the game is "certain" to?

Yep. Up for debate is how much it takes before you actually become sociopathic, but playing the game moves you in that direction, while it's at least possible that just watching it might not.

Who gets to draw that line, and how do we make sure that it stays where it's initially drawn and doesn't start moving backwards?

I think movement is healthy in this case. We don't have all the answers, but we're learning more over time. Start at the point where it seems certain there is harm, and at least ban that. Maybe there's other stuff that's also damaging, but at least you've removed a chunk, and we can always revise things later. I think that starting with what's certain and changing is better than trying to get it right from the start, and risking locking in a too restrictive/not restrictive enough line, even if it does leave open the possibility that later change might go in a direction I/we/you don't want.