Beware the ultra-violent Pac-Man [update 1]

by Ross Miller { Aug 22nd 2006 at 7:55PM }

Aaron Stanton of About.com has written a horrid piece trying to defame a poor woman. In July 2006, Dr. Kimberly Thompson testified before the U.S. House of Representatives against the ESRB rating system. Dr. Thompson had conducted a study in 2001 where she found ample amounts of violence in games rated E for Everybody. Stanton's harsh attacks highlight what he says is flawed research that is misinforming lawmakers of the United States of America.

Stanton (or "Mr. Muckraker") provides the following examples of inaccuracy from Thompson's findings:

Super Mario Bros. (41.3% violent)
Galaga / Galaxian (100% violent)
Pac-Man (61.7% violent)

The study was conducted by playing selected games over a 90 minute session and recording the time violence occurred on screen. For example, in a 90-minutes play session of Super Mario Bros., 37 minutes contained acts of violence such as Goomba asphyxiation, Koopa stripping (both theft and humiliation), and various acts of arson. That doesn't even begin to note the rampant pro-drug messages the game portrays.

So shame on you, Mr. Stanton, for attacking a poor, defenseless Harvard professor. It's people like Dr. Thompson that need to be telling our legislators how addicting and sinful the gaming industry can be.

And now, a public service announcement.

[update 1: In a correspondence with Dr. Thompson, we learned some more information regarding the issue. For example, her testimony was actually in July (not June) and the U.S. House of Representatives (not the Senate). We have clarified, and hopefully tomorrow have a full reaction post from Dr. Thompson.]

Related From Joystiq

Eidos Life President Livingstone speaks out against mainstream media's game coverage
18 days ago
App store, and games, coming to ... Kindle
19 days ago
Pencil in your own price for Crayon Physics Deluxe
29 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

gombard @ Aug 22nd 2006 8:06PM

I wonder if she's related to another Thompson we know.. hmm...

Scott @ Aug 22nd 2006 8:07PM

Rofl. I remember that episode, i watched it like a week ago. FUTURAMA FTW!!!

-the_mole- @ Aug 22nd 2006 8:08PM

yeah. i remember seeing this on jon stuart.

cringer8 @ Aug 22nd 2006 8:12PM

"What if...that thing I just said?" Priceless.

Dr.Swiss @ Aug 22nd 2006 8:17PM

Hookers for a quarter??

NOW THAT'S A TALE OF INTEREST!

CdUbS @ Aug 22nd 2006 8:24PM

that is hilarious. i know mario is the reason i experimented with hallucinogens. i think more socially wholesome videogames like where you can do exciting things like go grocery shopping, or washing the car, maybe even walking the dog (only on the sidewalk) are in order for the new millenium. but i do like how in fear you can use that one gun to staple somebody's head to wall and they dangle by it. i've only done that once in real life ... and i felt guilty about it

vidGuy @ Aug 22nd 2006 8:28PM

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US... ah, glad they got that one in there.

I think the Futurama clip really saved this comment section from getting all political.

Guest @ Aug 22nd 2006 8:32PM

Are you...SERIOUS...
Pac-man...VIOLENT???
Wake up people! Get back to work and watch these videos!

Raz 4 life @ Aug 22nd 2006 8:39PM

I read it! I can't un-read it!

pelon @ Aug 28th 2006 1:34PM

Next thing you know, we will lash out at barbie nintendo games for making me have a hard-onduring gameplay. sign of the apacalypse is here.

Guest @ Aug 22nd 2006 8:50PM

9...What was your first clue?
Mine was the Bob Ross game.

Lionel @ Aug 22nd 2006 8:51PM

I have the Super Mario hooked on mushrooms shirt.

Alkaiser @ Aug 22nd 2006 8:53PM

"You watched, you can't UN-WATCH IT!"

elle @ Aug 22nd 2006 9:47PM

Yeah, she sounds totally unreasonable. Completely off the handle.

Come on, guys. This is a journalism problem, not a research problem. She's not saying violence is bad, she's just saying to be aware of it and _use it to talk to your kids about violence, and about the boundaries between fantasy and reality._

She doesn't talk about addiction, she doesn't talk about sin. Her research was "the first _quantitative_ look at the content of an entire classification of video games." Not qualitative, which is the emotional card that Jack Thompson jumps at. She just counted how many times it happens.

If it weren't for Harvard's PR jackoffs making a release aimed at getting into jackoff newspapers and TV news shows — and jackoff blogs, apparently — there wouldn't be something to bitch about.

http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/mainFrame/news/faqs3.html

Why should parents be concerned about violence in video games?
Parents should be concerned about violence in all contexts, not just in video games, but also in films, books, television, music, and the world around us. We are highlighting an important opportunity for parents to use video games to talk with their children about violence and other important content.

Is all violence and depiction of other noted content in these games bad?
That is a question for all of us. Our study finds that many E-rated video games contain a significant amount of violence. Once parents are aware of the violence, they can talk to their children about this question.

Dman @ Aug 22nd 2006 10:02PM

I like ammbasador mario. The meatballs of war? And video games cannot get you homeless. No one belives in arcades anymore. we now have handhelds and rechargers to take it anywhere with us. For me im not a game-oholic, i mostly just stay home and study for my big math test at home. And if video games are really hurting are enviroment they should bann video games for 3 years the max.

GhaleonQ @ Aug 22nd 2006 10:46PM

She's visited Dartmouth, and I must say that her arguments regarding emulation of video games and violence seemed just as weak then (though she didn't use this study in the speech) as they do now. It's rather hard to disagree with her recommendations, though.

Dr.Swiss @ Aug 22nd 2006 10:52PM

"And video games cannot get you homeless. No one belives in arcades anymore. we now have handhelds and rechargers to take it anywhere with us. For me im not a game-oholic, i mostly just stay home and study for my big math test at home. And if video games are really hurting are enviroment they should bann video games for 3 years the max."

I hope this was a joke post, Dman, or else we'll "bann" you from hurting the environment with your big math tests from home. For 3 years the max.

foamcup @ Aug 22nd 2006 10:54PM

Dman, quit studying math and start studying some English.

Cowlix @ Aug 22nd 2006 11:04PM

"It's Saturday night, I have no date, a 2-liter botttle of Shasta and my all-Rush mix tape. Let's rock"

Man, I can relate to that so much it's scary...

I'm gonna have Tom Sawyer stuck in my head all night now.

Moogle @ Aug 22nd 2006 11:07PM

Damn, that just reminded me of something I forgot today...

*heads off to do laundry*

See, TV's good for something!

Aaron @ Aug 22nd 2006 11:28PM

This crap is just funny. I also heard centipede is rated around 76% (I can't remember the exact number) So if this stuff checks out that means the mature rated games with huge environments would come drastically down in violence. I really hope no lawyer takes these "studies" seriously.

illspirit @ Aug 23rd 2006 12:03AM

Elle, actually, the study really is as bad as TFA makes it out to be. The whole underlying premise in this (and its sibling) study was that the ESRB are publishing misleading ratings. The other study in the set was even worse. For example, it claimed there was hidden/undocumented drug abuse in Metal Gear (tranquilizer darts?) and nudity in GTA:Vice City (people in freakin' bathing suits...).

And, no, this isn't just a problem because blogs and the media picked it up or whatever. She was the star witness for the government at a Congressional hearing into whether they should basically dismantle the ESRB and let the goverment decide what we can play. And this pile of disinformation was used as "unbiased" proof that the ESRB is irreparably broken.

'Tis at least in part because of this study that Representitive Cliff Stearns has introduced HR 5912. Should it pass (and if it somehow survives a court challenge), this bill would effectively freeze the entire industry for years. If not neuter it altogether a la the Comics Code in 1954.

Alkaiser @ Aug 23rd 2006 2:05AM

Elle: Nice try with the "Don't shoot the well-intentioned, non-biased messenger!" bit. Only problem is that you and your comrades in this study have made it patently obvious that this is an out and out heavy-handed critique of video games and not of violence in all children's media, which is how you attempt to paint your study in your post.

Why was this study not targeting children's television? Kids under 5 don't play many video games, as they lack the coordination to do so, and in my experience will only engage in the act if they are trying to bond with a sibling or parent. They ARE, however, perfectly content sitting there and watching the same episode of the same TV program for weeks on end.

So, have your first study target potentially violent imagery in a medium that kids won't get to until they've already been exposed to potentially violent imagery for a good 3-4 years already, if you're supposed to just be concerned about violence in general?

Secondly, you provide no control for comparison. I guarantee you that the G.I. Joe TV movie from 1987 would be given the equivlant of the ESRB's "E" rating, and that the show would contain more violence than any game in your list, save possibly Nuclear Strike. But no such control is found. You only try to shock pseudo-concerned parents with your "average of 30% violent!" numbers.

Then your page gets all sorts of crazy here:

"We also did not count as violence any intentional acts of physical force that represented normal play in a sports game (e.g., tacking (sic) in football or checking in hockey), because the intention of the player is technically to stop the other player without causing injury."

What about getting hit by a pitch in baseball? That's not stopping anyone, but it's a normal play in baseball. What about fighting in hockey? It's also a normal occurance.

Did you count shooting the mushrooms in Centipede as violence? Is violence against vegetation and fungi in your mind, an act of violence? What twisted set of values are your trying to pawn off onto the world when you'll turn a blind-eye towards an 175 pound man hurtling around the ice at speeds of up to 20 mph and slamming into the blindside of an unaware opponent and label it good clean fun, but at the same time you feel justified in labelling a yellow pie-shaped thing "eating" ghosts that don't die a violent act?

You either address all violence in all media or you address none. Any attempt to single out one form is easily seen as trying to prostitute yourselves for a ride on the grant money gravy train, and everyone here can see it for exactly what it is.

Thomas Crymes @ Aug 23rd 2006 8:45AM

The problem with this sort of thing is that no one associates chomping ghosts with violence. The only time violence is violence is when it really starts to feel real or mimics stuff in real life. Galaga is no more violent than Frogger, I don't care what a "study" shows.

Why is there no room for common sense in academia?

jbc @ Aug 23rd 2006 9:54AM

i agree with her message of parents understanding what their children play, but propaganda tactics like the kidrisk site and her studies are a little extreme. i think perhaps her studies definition of violence should also be re-thought, i think throughout history it's evident that human beings are naturally violent in all societies, but chomping imaginary ghost creatures is not really violent compared to say, enslaving a race of people for trade, trying to wipe out a race of people via concentration camps or using a passenger jet full of people to take out a skyscaper. if she would use a little common sense and realign her sights a little on what "violent" is then these percentages would be much lower. in the end parents just really need to talk to their kids more and make sure they are well informed as to what's real and just make believe.

herman_munsters_stunt_double @ Aug 23rd 2006 10:15AM

I'm sorry, but if ANYONE truly believes Pac-Man to be a violent game, then they are in dire need of a funny jacket that does up backwards and a dozen rolls of rubber wallpaper.

Almost as mind-crushing as this morning's announcement in the UK that scientists believe cows have regional accents...pillocks.

elle @ Aug 23rd 2006 4:59PM

Yeah, tl;dr. Go back to Geometry Wars.

Alkaiser:
"Only problem is that you and your comrades in this study ... which is how you attempt to paint your study in your post ... (you're, your, you, etc.)"

I've never participated in a study on video games in my life. This Joystiq article wasn't the first I'd heard of it, but I didn't participate. Why are you saying I did?

"So, have your first study target potentially violent imagery in a medium that kids won't get to until they've already been exposed to potentially violent imagery for a good 3-4 years already, if you're supposed to just be concerned about violence in general?"

http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/mainFrame/news/faqs1.html
Violence in G-Rated Animated Films, by Fumie Yokota and Kimberly M. Thompson, JAMA 283(20):2716-2720 (May 23, 2000)

http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/mainFrame/news/faqs2.html
Depiction of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Substances in G-Rated Animated Feature Films, by Kimberly M. Thompson and Fumie Yokota, Pediatrics 107(6):1369-74 (June 5, 2001)

Both were published before the E for Everyone games study.

"What about getting hit by a pitch in baseball? That's not stopping anyone, but it's a normal play in baseball."

No, it's not. It's penalized, much as punching or fighting someone after a play. That fits the example of a sports act that Thompson's study counted as an act of violence.

"What twisted set of values are your trying to pawn off onto the world when you'll turn a blind-eye towards an 175 pound man hurtling around the ice at speeds of up to 20 mph and slamming into the blindside of an unaware opponent and label it good clean fun"

If he's penalized for it because it's against the rules of the game, it's counted. Read the study. I can guarantee a 20-mph blindside check in hockey is going to get penalized.

NHL rule 44 a.:
"A minor or major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be imposed on any player who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards.

(NOTE) Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious "icing" or "off-side" play which results in that player being knocked into the boards is "boarding" and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as "charging"."

"You either address all violence in all media or you address none."

Within the KidsRisk project, she's covered video games, films, and rating systems across several media. She's addressed violence, drug use and gambling in films rated as being acceptable for young audiences. She's researched the application of risk assessment methods in several fields - stuff like children eating dirt, teething, chemicals used in dry cleaning, genetic testing to determine cancer risks. Video games aren't her focus - risk assessment is. The study was to gather quantative data on risk assessment to expose flaws in the ESRB ratings _to help improve them and make them more valuable to parents_, not to make judgements on what violence in video games mean.

When you say, "Nice try with the "Don't shoot the well-intentioned, non-biased messenger!" bit," you missed my point - I'm saying shoot the well-intentioned messengers of the Harvard PR department and the blogs who picked up on the release for reporting her quantative study as a qualitative assessment.

Besides that - calm down, Alkaiser. I know you don't have 9 stars for accusing someone who's read a Web site about a researcher of being that researcher.

illspirit, about her senate hearing testimony:
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1322&wit_id=3850

Nothing in her testimony says she believes the government should take over media ratings - she speaks about film, TV and video games in her testimony. At most, she says government incentives would help convince the industry to standardize ratings - I disagree with that much, but so be it. Her point is that she's trying to show the media industries that definitions of things like violence can be standardized, which would be _progress_ - not the end-all answer, but progress towards a better media rating system.

Thompson didn't tell Stearns to put a gun to the ESRB's head like 5912 does - especially not to the games industry in particular, as in her testimony she saved her sharpest criticism for TV and film, and more specificially the ways they are marketed over they ways they are rated.

Don't put Stearns' indiscretion on her head just because she wants the industries to shape up its rating systems to make it easier on parents - not the government - to monitor their kids' media habits.