Bully controversy gets thoughtful consideration
by Kyle Orland 
{ Aug 11th 2006 at 2:55PM }
For those of you who weren't satisfied by last night's bluster-fest of an interview on G4, the Rocky Mountain News' FreePlay blog has an interesting summary piece on the controversy surrounding Rockstar's recently resurfaced game Bully.On one side are bullying experts and school board members who think the game will lead directly to an increase in violence in schools. On the other side, industry/social critics like Clive Thompson and Alice Taylor argue that these games are simply misunderstood by a generation that didn't grow up with them.
The Rocky handles both sides with respect and thoughtfulness, and even throws in some good historical context -- after all, the classic novel Ulysses was once derided for its sexual content. Or, as Adam Sessler might put it, there was media controversy "before Pong."
[via Kotaku]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
nalgae @ Aug 11th 2006 3:15PM
Games will only be respected after a new entertainment medium arises. Society started out by blaming books, as noted in the article. But these days, no one is going to bar you from reading Mein Kampf. We then moved on to music. Elvis was apparently the devil incarnate. Movies and TV, we have just passed over. They used to be target #1 as instigators of violence, but now are taken in stride.
This era is the video game era. It will pass.
The thing is, the truth simply is that all of these mediums do have SOME effect on children. Pulling statistics out of my arse, I'd estimate that effect to only be around 5-10%. The major factor, as most intelligent people know, is parenting. Let's say 60-70%. There is also peer pressure, which steadily increases as children get older. The thing is, it's impossible to make parents good parents, and friends good friends. It's much easier to slap a law that bans games, movies, etc.
As long as there is a vocal group of people that opposes something, politicians will try to appease that group of people.
Wizrd54 @ Aug 11th 2006 3:35PM
I am a teenager and i dont go hitting people and crap after i played GTA. If playing games effect you like that then you arent mature enough to play them anyway. And when Jack Thompson said that its not the responsibility of parents i was like wtf. If your a parent you probably dont let your kids go see all the movies they want to see and things like that. Games should be the same way. We dont need the government to run everything in our lives, parents need to know what their kids are doing and if they arent mature enough for Bully in this case then they shouldnt be allowed to play it.
There are much bigger issues that should be taken care of rather than trying to stop one game from being made. And kid can go on the internet and look at porn with nothing stopping them. I think that is a much bigger problem, dont you? And things like the Hot Coffee scandal, why was that blown out of proportion. There is so much sex and violence on TV and its real people.
I doubt games really effect people outside their living room. Thompson said the whole Columbine(sic)thing happened because the kid trained on Doom. When you click a mouse that isnt the same as firing a gun, how stupid can Jack be. The kid probably had some serious mental issues.
Also why does jack only focus on R* games, not that i want him to start attacking other games, what about Daed Rising, probably the most violent game ever but because R* didnt make it he could care less. I am all for keeping kids from buying M rated games unless their parents say it is ok but that doesnt mean we should stop them from being made.
Player1 @ Aug 11th 2006 3:51PM
People go to shooting ranges and fire real guns at targets shaped like people. Does that bother JT? How about people who go hunting and fire real guns are real living animals? Do they then go on murderous shooting sprees? Those are fine and cause no problem, but pressing a button and shooting a virtual gun at a virtual character that doesn't exist is dangerous?
Clearly Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton just prey on ignorant conservative parents for votes and press.
vidGuy @ Aug 11th 2006 4:12PM
Once again Joystiq refuses to send me a confirmation email because my post is more than two paragraphs.
Mods: please replace this post with my response which is accessible at
http://haveyouexperienced.blogspot.com/2006/08/response-to-joystiq-thread-bully.html
D-6 @ Aug 11th 2006 4:20PM
OT #3, but Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Spend less time getting defensive on videogames and start checking your facts.
I think gaming gets a bad rap just because of the perception of gamers in the eyes of the general population. Gamers may be nice people, but many don't come across as critical thinkers and seem to be quite defensive or try to hard to not sound defensive. We all know games tell great stories and are more than just a waste of time, but usually on TV, the only repesentation is Sessler, guys who work at the local game store, or hyper-defensive fanboy-like indivduals.
Wheras look at the population that reads books as their pastime: People with high salaried work, university students, proffessors at higher-education instituations (Yes, I know I am generalizing). Books aren't as easy a target as in the past due to the fact that a large majority of authors, readers and such are intelligent and able to communicate their views in a concise matter (And thus can defend themselves in the face of media discussions/controversies when called upon).
Red Viking @ Aug 11th 2006 4:34PM
Well, I can see where the other side is coming from with their fears about Bully. However, one thing that I applaud Rockstar for doing is giving the player a choice between being a straight-out bully or the though cool guy who protects the other kids from the bullies. Since there's choice involved, the argument that this game will cause a rise in violence loses some of the legs it's standing on. It's a step in the right direction.
I personally think that Jack Thompson is an idiot. If he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to lose the McCarthy attitude. But, then again, it's not like the video game industry is unfairly being singled out. Some publishers have been irresponsible and games like GTA and Saint's Row, while popular, don't exactly paint a rosy picture to people who don't play video games. I think we gamers should stop being so defensive when someone calls us out. Like it or not, the politicians and parent groups are the one who have power, not us. If all we do is complain about how we’re being unfairly singled out and don’t start being more careful, they WILL do something about it, groundless accusations or not.
Player1 @ Aug 11th 2006 4:34PM
D-6,
I'm completely aware that Hillary Clinton is a democrat. That doesn't mean that only democrats can vote for her, and if she's trying to court right-wingers she'd want to appear more moderate. That was kind of my point.
Great generalizations by the way. Might want to check your facts on those.
Player1 @ Aug 11th 2006 5:23PM
D-6,
I retract my previous statement because it totally plays into your arguement about defensiveness. However, if something is being unfairly attacked, wouldn't people start to get defensive about it? It's because gamers are passionate about gaming, and know how wrong people like Jack Thompson are. We don't need a professor smoking a pipe and wearing a tweed jacket to prove it for us.
A lot of the gamers I know are high-salaried, have degrees and work in programming/technology. The people you are describing as "intelligent and able to communicate their views in a concise matter" can't even program their VCR (and still use VCRs) and need their child to do it for them. Yet they frown upon others for doing basically the same pastime as reading, but interactive and that engages more senses.
Games are a form of communication, it's just different than the written word. It's not just the fault of gamers for not being able to effectively communicate an argument verbally, or in writing, but the fault of the critics for not attempting to listen. A lot of the people that are critical of video games have never even played one. And even critics like Jack Thompson simply ignores research that contradict his arguements. He just tries to spread the word to parents who haven't ever played a game and are ignorant about it.
D-6 @ Aug 11th 2006 5:24PM
Player1, you're the perfect example of the defensive gamer who hates it when non-gamers attacking gaming. And people wonder why gamers never get respect or a fair voice when stories involving games like Bully and GTA come out. All an anti-gamer needs to do is go out into the street and find the uneducated casual gamer or the defensive hardcore gamer to prove their point that games negatively affect people (No matter how biased, non-sensical it may be).
Player1 @ Aug 11th 2006 5:37PM
Your attitude is a perfect example of the kind of attitude that allows things like racism to persist. You base your judgements on uninformed assumptions and generalizations.
Here are the options when something is attacked: Sit there and do nothing, or defend it. Why would you expect gamers to be anything but defensive?
someguy @ Aug 11th 2006 7:34PM
With all of JT's blabbering, how many cases of violence has he attributed to video games? I imagine it's under 100, and I'm being very generous. The number of cases of supposed video game related violence has to pale in comparison to violence that can be attributed to other factors such as illegal drugs, gangs, etc. So if .000001% of violence were caused by video games, why would it be such a big deal compared to other issues if JT cares so much about violence?
Can it be that when you have few victims and a game publisher that makes a lot of money, you can sue them for millions? I guess there's not much money in stopping the real problems out there.
MetaHuman @ Aug 11th 2006 9:50PM
That AotS "feature", if you can even dignify it as such, didn't go anywhere. Kevin drills JT specifically about Bully and Adam tries to brush the responsibilites and irresponsibilities of videogames onto other aspects of society.
While I don't condone Adam unwittingly uncorking a political rant (among his complaints was poor education, etc...), I believe that the fault was that the way they handled this whole exchange of thoughts.
Hell, they used the same segment format to simulate the big-time TV news magazine talking about Spider-Man revealing his identity. How much more can you get a much more serious issue, such as violence in games, with the same crap setting?
Personally, I would've had both Thompson AND Sessler ON the AotS set and conducting their dialogue face-to-face. Video does not cut it. The questions given to JT were too narrow and Adam's ranting [I thought they were more like side-stepping the issue] and counterpoints were too broad.
I also agree that while videogames DON'T cause violence, however, in a videogame such as Bully, VERY UNIQUE to videogames, you are given a chance to bully fictional characters. With the most recent development on what we know from the story, you play as the bullIED. The player may begin to relate with the character and desire to get revenge.
While the disciplined gamer won't apply ideas learned in videogames to the real world, the thought lingers there. The real world can teach things that won't likely appear in videogames. Rationalizing and managing conflicts with other people. Being diplomatic rather than so damned emotionally or politically charged, which was somewhat demonstrated by Sessler in his banter later into the segment.
Chances are things such as 'diplomacy' won't ever get into a videogame story. Where's the game if you can't conflict, right? Most games in today's market are challenged to present conflict, or in the case of milking next-gen's technological leap, making it epic. Resolution through force versus the resolution a sharing of similarities and differences.
LMAO at both JT and Adam Sessler. Because of the argument between the two they didn't actually combine ideas such as "Maybe some kids get bad grades because they are uncomfortable with their environment. Some discomforts can stem from bullies, yada yada yada". Such exchanges would be more compelling to me than the incomprehensable gibberish of two men yelling at each other about the legitimacy of stupid research. Speaking of research, let's talk about other people who do research.
You can't learn how to shoot a gun from a mainstream videogame shooter as they stand today, but you CAN learn strategies from the enemy through AI and such. Though adjusted for gameplay, there are a few developers that base theirs from all varieties of warfare. People that made Halo, Call of Duty, etc. all did. Many aspects from fighting games are learned from actual martial arts and building on them. Strongest examples include any fighting game that has some homage to Bruce Lee.
If the real world can have an impact on gameplay, is the reverse true?
That question is open-ended, but my conclusion is yes. The simple ideas of being a long-time gamer or videogames being so popular today aren't even possible if videogames don't impact you or the real world.
Does violence in videogames ALONE make people commit violence? Not really. Maybe what Sessler was trying to allude to when claiming that there were social ills outside of videogames was that the demand for games with such conflict has to exist FIRST in the consumer mind. People have the thoughts and images in their mind, quite possibly never having played a videogame in the first place. With the world's millions, if not approaching billions of gamers, simply being satisfied by companies created to make money, those feelings COULD be provoked and tempted and some misinterpretations of what a videogames is BOUND to be blurred.
I hope and almost expect that G4 will try better to serve the image and integrity of the gaming industry, including myself as a gamer, by doing more than a 7-minute segment on why certain videogames, their makers, and their gamers can or cannot circumvent legal and social responsibilities. Free speech is a god-given right, but abusing isn't. Would the same people who speak so much about Free Speech allow arm-bearers to have automatic assault weapons?
G4's documentaries such as Violence in Games from months back aren't enough. Basically recapping years' worth of news and attempts at defeating published research isn't enough. Like me about Sony, a lot of people don't give a damn about numbers.
What we NEED to know is what we can do about it when problems arise, and whether or not the industry and its consumers are willing to join forces with the non-gaming world and have an OPEN DIALOGUE on all issues concerning BOTH.
A great deal is at stake. I don't know if anyone sees it as so complex, but when I see media such as G4 idealizing itself as having a good amount of gamer credibility and authority that they acknowledge they have a giant responsibility, with all things concerned.
It can't simply be boiled down to: "Gaming sucks?!? NO! You suck, and society sucks! Leave us alone!".
It would be very anti-climatic those wanting to see an END to the issue.
Maybe the real issue is that one side says society alone cannot produce killers and that one side says gaming alone cannot produce killers. See? The foundations may be different but the sentiment is the same.
Let's build on that and stop the hating and only show disdain for those who lose sight of responsibility in certain instances. Namely, some of JT's [or the Government in general] antics and some of G4's [or certain gaming organizations in general].
[/self-righteous post]
;)
K1ller 1nst1nct @ Aug 12th 2006 11:42AM
Jack has books to write and interviews to give. Let him have his 3yrs of minor fame.
jack thompson @ Aug 13th 2006 7:30AM
Ok, here's my thoughtful response. Fasten your seatbelt, Mr. Eibeler:
-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
622 Broadway
New York, New York 10012 C/o Blank Rome
S. Robson Walton
Chairman
Wal-Mart
Bentonville, Arkansas Via Fax to 479-277-5991
Re: Bully
Dear Mr. Eibeler, Take-Two Directors, and Mr. Walton:
Take-Two has until five o’clock p.m., Eastern time, Monday, August 14, 2006, to inform me in writing that it will forthwith provide me with a copy of Bully so that I and others can analyze it to determine whether it still poses a threat of copycat violence in our schools (See Miami-Dade School Board’s unanimous Resolution), or the following will occur:
I shall file a lawsuit against your respective companies to stop the game’s October 1 release.
Regards, Jack Thompson
Copy: Ms. Vance, ESRB
David Lane @ Aug 13th 2006 10:59AM
LOL
LOL OMG LOL
Jack, you ROFFLES MY WOFFLES, buddy. Roffles.
vidGuy @ Aug 14th 2006 3:03PM
And you'll lose that just like everything else you try, Mr. Thompson.
Would you like to explain to me how you missed the things I found wrong with your Louisiana bill two months ago? On this very site I pointed out numerous flaws that precluded the blocking of the bill. See post #36 and #39 http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/16/louisiana-guv-signs-jt-penned-bill-into-law/
Then this happened http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/20/lousiana-judge-blocks-jt-penned-bill/
Also, you need to learn the elementary difference between correlation and causation.
Clay @ Sep 7th 2006 5:16PM
Every one who not only plays the game "Bully", but those who think about it for more than 15 seconds will suffer the eternal suffering of hell fires. May the demon be cast out of all of you evil-doers. A plague, nay, a pox be cast upon you sinners.
Doesn't "Hitman: Bloodmoney" rock?
quicksilverzxc @ Sep 20th 2006 2:28AM
And now Bully gets a Teen rating...
Rave away JT: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/15/bully-gets-a-t-rating-no-seriously/