The Political Game: The Bully bash
Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:
Is the Bully controversy overdone?
When was the last time a video game got the attention of British Prime Minister Tony Blair? Name another game title which spawned multiple protest marches, or got tagged as a "Columbine simulator?"
You can't, because it never happened. Not until Bully came along.
Calling the game a "Columbine simulator," of course, is pure, unadulterated nonsense. It's just a slogan, designed to be memorable and help drive an anti-game agenda, much like "Hello, Moto" was created to pitch you a mobile phone.
But setting aside the game-hate coming out of Miami for just a moment, let's focus on the rest of the world. Frankly, no one should be surprised by the negative reactions to Bully among non-gamers. There are several factors at play here.
It was a no-brainer that educators and parents were going to despise this game. Bullying prevention is a big, big issue in education circles these days – as it should be. Bully victims – and who hasn't been one at some point? – tend to suffer from self-esteem issues, depression and the like. Childhood bullies are much likelier to grow up to be abusive adults and come into contact with the criminal justice system. And they could wind up being your nasty, overbearing boss someday. Maybe one already is.
All of that has nothing to do with the video game controversy, of course, but this simple fact does: advocates will always advocate. It's what they do. The AARP lobbies for senior citizens; the NRA speaks for gun owners; and teachers and guidance counselors watch out for kids. If educators get a whiff of something that smells like it may harm children, they're going to scream first, ask questions later. Is it knee-jerk? It can be, but it's done in good faith. We don't have to like it; it's just the way it is.
Rockstar's reputation, however, is throwing gasoline on this fire. The company enjoys major cred with gamers and none at all with parents and teachers. The latter groups were never fond of the GTA series to begin with. Hot Coffee and the corporate dissembling that accompanied it put the final nail in that particular coffin. Thus, the people most concerned with bullying issues are among the least likely to place any trust in the intentions of Bully's developer. The company's standard tight-lipped policy didn't help. For many months an impression that gamers played the role of a bully went unchecked. We now know that protagonist Jimmy Hopkins is actually a good guy, but that's because you and I devoured all of the previews and watched all of the trailers.
Shed no tears for Rockstar, however. They took a corporate decision to make a game around a bullying theme. They've built a pretty lucrative business on edgy games designs and pushing the content envelope. They did the calculus beforehand. They knew this kind of heat would be coming.
Frankly, though, the legal action that took place in Miami last week is more than a little scary. How is it possible for a multi-year creative endeavor to be ordered delivered into the hands of a non-gaming county judge to see what he thinks? How many federal courts have already ruled that video games are protected speech? How can any video game, much less a bloodless, T-rated one, be a public nuisance? Can anyone with an activist agenda, in any town, walk into court, file some papers and force a game developer to defend their creation? Could Gears of War be someone's idea of a public nuisance? Need For Speed: Carbon? Twilight Princess? Where does it end?
Is a book protected speech? Of course. Could a book lay out a plan for hatred or mayhem? Yes. Can you buy Mein Kampf in Florida? The Anarchist Cookbook? Osama Bin Laden's Messages to the World?
The answers are -- of course -- yes, yes and yes. We may not like those books; most of us would find them repugnant.
But we've got a little thing in this country called free speech. Works pretty well. Let's not mess with it.
Dennis McCauley is Editor of GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at dennis@GamePolitics.com.
Is the Bully controversy overdone?When was the last time a video game got the attention of British Prime Minister Tony Blair? Name another game title which spawned multiple protest marches, or got tagged as a "Columbine simulator?"
You can't, because it never happened. Not until Bully came along.
Calling the game a "Columbine simulator," of course, is pure, unadulterated nonsense. It's just a slogan, designed to be memorable and help drive an anti-game agenda, much like "Hello, Moto" was created to pitch you a mobile phone.
But setting aside the game-hate coming out of Miami for just a moment, let's focus on the rest of the world. Frankly, no one should be surprised by the negative reactions to Bully among non-gamers. There are several factors at play here.
It was a no-brainer that educators and parents were going to despise this game. Bullying prevention is a big, big issue in education circles these days – as it should be. Bully victims – and who hasn't been one at some point? – tend to suffer from self-esteem issues, depression and the like. Childhood bullies are much likelier to grow up to be abusive adults and come into contact with the criminal justice system. And they could wind up being your nasty, overbearing boss someday. Maybe one already is.
All of that has nothing to do with the video game controversy, of course, but this simple fact does: advocates will always advocate. It's what they do. The AARP lobbies for senior citizens; the NRA speaks for gun owners; and teachers and guidance counselors watch out for kids. If educators get a whiff of something that smells like it may harm children, they're going to scream first, ask questions later. Is it knee-jerk? It can be, but it's done in good faith. We don't have to like it; it's just the way it is.
Rockstar's reputation, however, is throwing gasoline on this fire. The company enjoys major cred with gamers and none at all with parents and teachers. The latter groups were never fond of the GTA series to begin with. Hot Coffee and the corporate dissembling that accompanied it put the final nail in that particular coffin. Thus, the people most concerned with bullying issues are among the least likely to place any trust in the intentions of Bully's developer. The company's standard tight-lipped policy didn't help. For many months an impression that gamers played the role of a bully went unchecked. We now know that protagonist Jimmy Hopkins is actually a good guy, but that's because you and I devoured all of the previews and watched all of the trailers.
Shed no tears for Rockstar, however. They took a corporate decision to make a game around a bullying theme. They've built a pretty lucrative business on edgy games designs and pushing the content envelope. They did the calculus beforehand. They knew this kind of heat would be coming.
Frankly, though, the legal action that took place in Miami last week is more than a little scary. How is it possible for a multi-year creative endeavor to be ordered delivered into the hands of a non-gaming county judge to see what he thinks? How many federal courts have already ruled that video games are protected speech? How can any video game, much less a bloodless, T-rated one, be a public nuisance? Can anyone with an activist agenda, in any town, walk into court, file some papers and force a game developer to defend their creation? Could Gears of War be someone's idea of a public nuisance? Need For Speed: Carbon? Twilight Princess? Where does it end?
Is a book protected speech? Of course. Could a book lay out a plan for hatred or mayhem? Yes. Can you buy Mein Kampf in Florida? The Anarchist Cookbook? Osama Bin Laden's Messages to the World?
The answers are -- of course -- yes, yes and yes. We may not like those books; most of us would find them repugnant.
But we've got a little thing in this country called free speech. Works pretty well. Let's not mess with it.
Dennis McCauley is Editor of GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at dennis@GamePolitics.com.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
NATO_Duke @ Oct 20th 2006 1:06PM
Wasn't the Columbine simulator actually called a Columbine simulator in the media after that recent school shooting where the guy had played it?
The legal action by Thompson is bs, as always. Shame that it would be allowed to go that far. People try to use the courts to get past the 1st amendment way too often on this issue.
chuck @ Oct 20th 2006 1:14PM
Yes its overdone, I'm sick of seeing this stupid box art on your front page. Quit reporting on it.
FuzzyPickles @ Oct 20th 2006 1:18PM
What ever happened with that proposal that wacko made, totally unaware that developers throw their likenesses on kill-able players all the time? Hell, David Doak even attached his real name to the character.
Aden Nak @ Oct 20th 2006 1:31PM
A lot of people have argued, and rightfully so, that with all of the other crises facing both our government and the UK's government, that regulating a video game shouldn't even be on the table. And that's precisely why they are. In the UK, it's bad enough politically. But in America, between the war and the economy, between seniors getting their first real taste of the "donut hole" in medicare, between congressional scandals and the ever-looming mid-term elections. . . a lot of politicians DON'T want politics in the news.
They want a scapegoat. An flash point of misdirected outrage. They want to stand up to "something". And the entertainment media has always been a favorite whipping boy, whether it was comic books, rock and roll, the movie industry or rap. You name it. If you're on the wrong side of an important issue, it's much easier to change the topic to a new issue than to explain what you're doing on that wrong side. And if you can include knee-jerk reactionary sound bites like "protecting our children" into your made up crisis, all the better.
That's politics. Not government. . . just politics.
Martin @ Oct 20th 2006 1:31PM
PS3 is a public nuisance. I am going to court right now to file papers. (that way I get to play it before it is released!!!)
Ahms @ Oct 20th 2006 1:40PM
"Is a book protected speech? Of course. Could a book lay out a plan for hatred or mayhem? Yes. Can you buy Mein Kampf in Florida? The Anarchist Cookbook? Osama Bin Laden's Messages to the World?"
Would you let a kid read those? Are they created to entertain them?
No. That's why they're different from games. You know why educators/parents go after games? Because they have the perception that games are *marketed* to kids directly to buy and enjoy, or at the very least, the kid inside us. And alot of them are; games have grown from being a childhood pastime into something everyone can enjoy regardless of age
That however hasn't been realized by the general population yet as a whole, and the stereotype of games being "just for kids" is still there. When you go then and make a game named "Bully", what do you expect to happen?
"Bully" is an interesting game, and it looks fun. Even with a little "T" on it though, it's not going to beat current perceptions on gaming anytime soon, that evil, wrongdoing gamer designers are trying to tell our innocent kids corrupt messages :)
Obviously it's ultimatley up to parents to govern what their kids do and become less naive about the gaming industry. Expecting them to know all that *we* know as gamers about an industry they probably give less of a crap about, though, is naive on our part as well
Instead of crying about this on a blog that only gamers will see and finding "I AGREE!" across the board, why not make an effort to go inform those same parents about what this game really is where they roam? Like their PTA meeting? :P
dvddesign @ Oct 20th 2006 1:48PM
I'm hoping that Miami thing garnered enough press outside of the gaming media for a lot of other people to get to see what a sniveling lying crybaby Jack is.
Anyone who'd not only pitch a fit like he did, write a rude insulting vindictive letter to the presiding judge, AND be a working professional attourney, deserves what he got.
He can dodge behind the arguement of protecting children for as long as he wants, but there's some parents out there who DO know their kids, and trust them to be able to process the themes and ideas of a T rated game. My parents trusted me well enough to handle extremely violent games like Castlevania, Nightmare on Elm Street, Battletoads, Double Dragon, Operation: Wolf, Duck Hunt, and the like when I was a child. I haven't killed anyone, harmed anyone, or threatened anyone. Where's the evidence to support that these games "trained" me for anything? I couldn't properly fire an Uzi from playing a game alone. I don't know what the range, firing force, ammunition type, et all of those weapons are. Don't know where to find one or how to buy one. Yet the columbine kids did and they used them. Cause they played Doom? I never learned much about shotguns from Doom other than a double barrel was way more fun than a single barrel.
Look at the statistics of these games sales. Look at the number of actual violent people who were accused of being so because of these games. Shouldn't there be a nation of young snipers out there? There's not, though, is there? Probably has something to do with that it's not JUST video games that's the problem.
Say you get the video game problem under control and it goes away, Jack. What do you blame then when some kid puts a bullet in the head of another? Go back to rap music?
I just keep getting this mental image that the cover of Bully needs to have your face on it.
Scooby Doo @ Oct 20th 2006 1:53PM
Dennis,
Are you really asking whether or not this goes against the 1931 ruling regarding injunctions before publication?
When you ask:
"Can anyone with an activist agenda, in any town, walk into court, file some papers and force a game developer to defend their creation?"
I have to assume that's a rhetorical question. In this country of frivolous lawsuits, almost anyone can bring up an injunction or civil case if you've got the money and the time. A good/seedy lawyer seems to be able to bring almost any case to trial, even the stupid ones. I question the judge in this instance, but not exactly the legal system. It appears he is ignoring the 70-year-old Supreme Court ruling.
As for the game itself, strangely, I understand why it would get this kind of press coverage and why it's getting the title, 'Columbine Simulator'. It's the premise of the game, not the delivery. The game is about taking revenge on those bullies who victimized you, which just so happens to be the MO for the Columbine shooting and several others in this country.
As gamers, we know this is as ridiculous as J.T. trying to say that a wooden sling-shot is somehow dangerous. However to those who don't know much about games, it would certainly be a cause for alarm, no matter how unfounded.
Personally, I think the request for an injunction is ludicrous in this instance. The judge should not have set his own precedent, but all we can really try and stop are challenges that occur before publication. Once it hits the streets, any Tom, Dick or Harry can request a preliminary hearing and twist truths to bring it to trial, that just seems to be the American way. With TakeTwo's naughty-boy attitude, one can only hope they are putting legal budgets to defend themselves when they make games which might become targets for these kinds of radical idiots...I mean...'activists'.
Eggman @ Oct 20th 2006 1:53PM
Rockstar just played its cards really well... they got insane amounts of publicity (by purposefully not saying what the game was actually about) for nothing. All the critics are slapping themselves in the face now anyway with its given TEEN rating. Most people would've just passed this title over for nothing without all this negative hype anyway...
Well played rockstar, well played.
crono141 @ Oct 20th 2006 1:56PM
Video games in America are in the same boat as Anime. Video Games are for kids, Cartoons are for kids. At least, that is the popular perception.
So if there's an animated film that comes out that ISN"T for kids, parents will get pissed off, same as with video games.
Its definitely not the medias problem, but the perception by "grown-up" america that certain forms of media: cartoons, video games, etc; are just for kids, and thus are safe for kids. So when an example comes along that goes against this misconception, parents feel betrayed and angry, because a medium that has been historically safe for kids (and thus not requiring you to check up on it to be sure) is suddenly no longer safe.
A classic example (of anime): When working in a rental store, a friend of mine had a customer with a little boy come up to the counter. She was renting a "grown-up" movie, and she let little timmy pick out a cartoon.
It took about 5 or 10 minutes of explaining to the woman that the "cartoon" wasn't a "cartoon" but a softcore hentai, and that it wasn't suitable for the kid. Now if the woman had just looked at the damn box, instead of just assuming since it was a "cartoon" it was ok for children, this wouldn't have even happened.
If parents would just get actively involved in what their kids are playing, instead of letting the media babysit, there wouldn't be any problems.
Scooby Doo @ Oct 20th 2006 1:56PM
Sorry, meant RockStar's attitufde in the final sentence.
Sam Goldman @ Oct 20th 2006 2:13PM
The PR guys at Rockstar must be throwing keg parties every day, and I don't blame them. What people like Jack Thompson continually fail to understand is what Rockstar instinctively knows: There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Jabrwock @ Oct 20th 2006 2:19PM
"Is a book protected speech? Of course. Could a book lay out a plan for hatred or mayhem? Yes. Can you buy Mein Kampf in Florida? The Anarchist Cookbook? Osama Bin Laden's Messages to the World? The answers are -- of course -- yes, yes and yes. We may not like those books; most of us would find them repugnant."
If only there were a way to link video game bans with book bans, then you could use Nazi references... Going too far? Absolutely. But then again, if "Columbine Simulator" can be thrown around as a soundbyte, perhaps we need a soundbyte that invokes equally shocking imagery...
Jabrwock @ Oct 20th 2006 2:27PM
@ Crono141
"So if there's an animated film that comes out that ISN'T for kids, parents will get pissed off, same as with video games."
When talking to parents about why some games/cartoons aren't for kids, I bring up the examples of Fritz the Cat or Wizards. Some are old enough to remember such films.
Tyetheczar @ Oct 20th 2006 3:15PM
The only way for all of us to get our counter-message across to the mainstream public and all the conservatives(which I revile as much as Jack Thompson loathes gamers.) that we play violent games yet still stand up to society's social standards. We need to go over and tell those politicians and critics and "experts" straight in the face(or just e-mail them and pray that it's not seen as spam by their "filters". Lousy Conservatives) and say it's an urban legend [that games cause violence]. And we are the proof.
crono141 @ Oct 20th 2006 3:16PM
Jabrwock, I unfortunatly, am not old enough to remember such films. I have no idea what you're talking about.
I do remember Heavy Metal though (the original), but I didn't get to see it until many years after release.
crono141 @ Oct 20th 2006 3:50PM
Tyetheczar,
You make it sound like only liberals play video games, and all conservatives are out to get us... but Hillary Clinton is one of gamings enemies. She's one of the most liberal people in congress (though she tries hard to look like a moderate).
Get a clue, jackhole, Videogames aren't about right vs left, its more about young vs old. Right now, old people (who's exposure to video games include such epic titles as "pong" and "Pac-man") are in charge of congress. In 10 to 20 years, VG will be vindicated, and some other social ill will be blamed for murderous children in school.
Jabrwock @ Oct 20th 2006 3:52PM
@crono141
Heavy Metal is a good example too. Check Wikipedia for the other two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_the_Cat_%28film%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Lives_of_Fritz_the_Cat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizards_%28film%29
Both were heavy commentaries on society. Wizards was about the struggle between "magic" and "technology", and how propaganda is the ultimate tool in war. And Fritz was about sexual liberation, corrupt governments, and general 70's revolutionary type discussion by bohemians and poets as they try to discover cosmic truths while chasing girls. Fritz had the distinction of being the first American animated feature film to be rated "X". It also grossed #2 behind "The Godfather".
Arbuz Chokaro @ Oct 20th 2006 5:00PM
I had once walked into a gaming store, where a mother was buying her son some rated M game.
The man at the counter politely said "Ma'am, this game is rated M for mature, are you sure you want it for your son?" To which the mother replied simply by asking her own son;
"I dunno, do you want this?" He nodded shyly, and she bought it.
Now lets rewind and see whoes fault it is this 8 year old child is playing a rated M game.
A) The Gaming Industry, because they didn't install tracking chips in their games yet.
B) The kid, for using his mind control powers on his mother.
C) The guy at the counter for even selling it, he should have shot that woman and taken the game.
D) The kid's mother
I hope the choice is obvious. Parents need to start understanding that violent games indulge violent behaviour. Stop buying your kids these things, and there would be no problems. Columbine wouldn't have happened if the parents didn't let their kids BUY guns... violent video games... Violent music... etc.
Jake @ Oct 20th 2006 6:01PM
Come on mature Americans and Brittish people... How many children died trying to cross the road because they were exposed to Frogger?
... ...
Thats what I thought, now grow up and raise your children instead of planting them in front of the idiot tube so their first words become Nike or Sponge Bob.
Flipside @ Oct 21st 2006 10:47AM
I say ban Hungry Hippos, it interactively encourages obesity in our youth.....
Don't laugh, it makes just as much sense as the opinions of these censors.
finaleve @ Oct 21st 2006 1:11PM
Soon we are going to ban the childish game, Cops and Robbers, all because it taught our kids to run away from cops...
...
Okay, now that thats out of the way..
I have gotten around 47% of the game. Now, the idea of the game is pretty simple. A bully Bullying the other bullies. A lot of bullying to go around. So its easy for non-gamers to see that as a problem. But the just going around picking on people gets boring REAL quick, and you think "lets crap on this and return it".
That's not the point of the game though. Play a few missions, and you notice that you are bullying the other bullies to stop them from bullying others.
If something like that existed, we wouldn't have much problems with bullying anymore, if not the existance of Bullying
John @ Oct 22nd 2006 1:51PM
im willing to bet all the money i have that the people complaining about it havnt even played it, if you watch the commercial, it even seems to have good moral values, to have the main character to look like he could be a bully, standing up for those that looks like nerds, seems like a great game.
Sharpie @ Oct 29th 2006 8:59AM
Arbuz, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A. You're mad at violent video games, and one of your responses is: "The guy at the counter for even selling it, he should have SHOT that woman and taken the game". That's not contradictory. B. Of course you shouldn't let kids have guns, stupid, but comparing that with music and games? If you are going to go against what everyone is saying, at least make sure you don't sound stupid. Oh, and kids don't have mind powers.