Would You Shoot A Child? How Far Is Too Far?

great read!

especially liked the part about the character development. In GTA i can murder til the cows come home and not bat an eyelash, but when I play Heavy Rain or Mass Effect? I care about those characters like their my children.

I remember when I first played GTA3 (i was a bit younger back then) and part way through I was like "Huh, there are no children in this city, or school buses, or playgrounds, I wonder why that is" then it occurred to me no one wants to run over virtual children, and if they do Rockstar definitely doesn't want you to!

i think you also ruined school girl uniforms for me

He wasn't the first man in Japan to ruin a school girl uniform

Badum-tish!

If I am not mistaken, GTAIII betas and such did have child models as well as school busses, however, they were removed from the final game due to take-two's worries that the media backlash would be so great that the game would have abysmal sales numbers. I believe any game that tramples on the mores of today's society will not be produced by a major publisher for fear of losing money.

This is actually a great question and article. I can, without no hesitation, shoot many other players online in a video game, but they're mainly robots, adult humans, and alien creatures. I don't think I have ever played a game where you're shooting a child. I feel that is a taboo, Americans and other countries may not like. Remember in one of the CoD (Black Ops, I think it was) where you were at an airport shooting innocent people? Since it was a taboo, people were offended just by doing that and they had a warning whether to agree to play that mission or not.

I would say depending on how detailed the game may be determines whether I would shoot a child in a video game. If it's pixelated like in the third picture above, I would have no problem doing that. Also, it depends of in the child is evil during the game and attacking me, I would have no choice but to kill it.

I would have no qualms whatsoever about shooting a kid. I just read the title, not the article. I really hope it went on to be about video games.

What I think most people don't understand is that Super Columbine Massacre was a harsh criticism of the way we handled the events as a nation, as well as the gaming culture that had since (even at that point) become accustomed to violent games. The killings are exactly like the ones you say you can't carry out, where you learn a bit about the person, and the point is to get the player to feel disgusted, to feel troubled, to become physically affected. It presents an atrocious crime by seriously troubled individuals as just that, and you as a player decide if you can carry out the plan, if you can "win" the game. The creators put together the game using actual documents released detailing the events, and the writing is as accurate a telling as you're likely to find.

As for if I would or could play games like that, the answer is yes. I think too often we shy away from the difficult thing to talk about or face, and by doing so, we ensure that we'll never be able to have any sort of discussion on the matter, it's necessary to be exposed to it in a terrifyingly real way. Video games have the power to create empathy like no other medium, and if that power could be used properly, there could be a real shift in the way people perceive events and issues.

As a Marine vet, I was really angry when EA took away the name Taliban from the MoH reboot. I was also angry I was also mad when 7 Days in Fallujah was cancelled for being too edgy. If we can't face real issues as a community (gamers), how can we ever move past the notion that video games are playthings for children? Or that video games only portray women, rape, and violence in an immature manner?

My point, was that that was precisely the point (of the game). More recently, I really liked that Crystal Dynamics didn't do anything to change Tomb Raider after there was negative outcry about the rape scene. I think it's time games earned the M rating in a mature way - that is, by facing real issues in a very real way. If we can't do that, gaming will never attain the same status as film or traditional art, because the medium will be relegated to Duke Nukem-esque humor and killing without remorse.

This depiction of killing anything without repercussion is far worse that immoral, it's amoral.

Oh, and DoA Extreme Beach Volleyball. Misogyny goes hand-in-hand with violence when it comes to video game culture.

I could absolutely do all those things to continue a game because I am a sane (maybe) adult who knows the difference between reality and games. That being said, I would not pick up a game that made this a central or recurring part of the gameplay.

I’ve never been bothered by anything in a video game, and I don’t think that I ever will. It’s real life that is disturbing. Just this morning I read an article about the NYPD officer who was busted as part of a conspiracy to actually kidnap women to cook & eat. The article included quotes from the online correspondence between him & his co-conspirator and I was truly disturbed by them. I have seen many movies, however, with scenes of murder, cannibalism, and torture and have played many video games where I controlled characters who ate human beings without ever being bothered by either. I’ve even read books that included events identical to those they were plotting to do, and they never bothered me either. The difference for me is that one is reality and one is fiction, and no matter how good the graphics, special effects, or prose get there will always be a distinct contextual difference between the two.

People who truly equate one to the other and blame events in reality on works of fiction are those we really need to worry about for they have a similar mindset to the people committing these horrific acts.

Wow there were a lot of things in there that I had never really considered... specifically the school girl uniform... lol... In all seriousness I have experienced this in my not so recently completion of Far Cry 3 *****spoilers***** At the end of the game you are forced to make the decision whether to kill your girl friend in cold blood and become a true warrior, or say no to crazy island lady and free your friends... This was a no brainer for me, because I had begun to see my friends as friends, and saw crazy island lady as some weirdo who lived in a temple with a tattoo gun, drug water, and a bunch of other men... That scene at the end with your girl friend struggling and begging, i just couldn't bring my self to do it... She had become more than just a clump of polygons and pixels...

I don't get why people can't see the line between reality and gaming. One is REAL LIFE and the other is stroking your e-peen while sat at a computer monitor.
I am a single father raising 3 kids under 8 and would have no problem shooting a kid in the head in a video game. The simple reason being I know the difference between reality and pixels in a game. A better question would be, do you?

Out of sight; out of mind

All valid points, Heath. I've become somewhat jaded on the amount of violence that serves no purpose to the story, or gameplay. Yet, at the same time, I want those games to continue to exist simply because they should be allowed to.
No, I don't agree with them. I wouldn't play the game you describe either, yet as I said, I would want them to exist.
I don't have enough room to post a really in-depth opinion here, and I would PM you with a very long post on my thoughts on the matter, because, I do have them, if you want it.
Suffice to say, I'm both for and against that kind of game, and yes, there is a limit, but it's a limit we should be allowed to cross if we want to. It's our choice, as individuals.

Nice article Heath. Note that if you ever get a chance to play Fallout 2 on the PC you can kill homeless theiving kids at your discretion with quite the graphic end...i.e. blowing a leg off with a guazz pistol. You ask some very valid quesitons but I think many of it speaks to social norms. You can ask would you play the moletstation or child murder game, but you don't ask the question of who would make it? Much like it sickens you to read about certain situations what type of person does it take to conceptualize such a game and what type of development team does it take to produce one? You are addressing several layers of taboo matters in American culture but in other countries some may not be as taboo. In certain countries where children are utilized as a viable military force would it be as taboo to put that element into a game in those countries where it is not accepted but has become so common as to desensitze a population? Don't put rape in a video game but portray the sexual mutiliation of a female in a Darfur like setting in a game like FarCry. Is that too real? I guess it would depend on the context. You stated you expected some affirmative actions but your questions seem to beg for more complex thought and responses.

I have to admit, during the "No Russian" mission in MW2 I cackled with glee as I tried to kill as many civilians as I could. I think anyone with a normal amount of empathy for their fellow humans and a decent moral compass could compartmentalize shooting civilians for pretend and for real as unrelated things. If someone just didnt want to play such a mission for moral reasons its fine, but I think censorship is not the answer.

I would shoot a child in a video game. I wouldn't shoot a child in real life. If they game is only about shooting innocent children I would find it distasteful and not play it. If Its about zombies and there are zombie children I would probably play it.

What our goverment and military do are the only things that shock me. The things that happen in reality are more terrifying and disturbing and have a greater psychological impact on me than what I see in a virtual reality game.

To the people who would down vote this, Wake up and grow up.

Or, you know, at least state your argument about why you disagree with him.

Funny how people would always call recent games on this subject and forget the games of old and their controversies surrounding it.
Remember 1997's Postal? There's a level where you have to enter a school through the front gate and kill everyone. It was the only game i could think of where you can kill defenseless children.
What about I have no mouth and i must scream? You had to reenact a nazi death camp where, if you wanted a different ending, you need to turn on an oven. It doesn't show what happens... but the character gives a creepy narration.
And then, there's Harvester. THE game that went too far and yet was a success. It mocked violence in a way that shows humor and still questions the player controlling the protagonist. In this game, you had to kill homeless, kids, priests and even veterans.

But my take on all this violent debate, we need to realize violence can be an art. Do you think that Dali went to far when he cut open the eye of that girl? He knew it would shock, he knew people would attack him. And yet, it revolutionized the film industry in ways once thought impossible. Nowadays, you will find people studying the gore and violence in action films either criticizing the execution or giving their take on how to improve it.

So... why aren't we doing this then? Why are we cheering when there's blood on screen but feel so defensive when politician talk about just studying them? Why can't we expend the level of violence like in the days of old? (ya know... a time called ye old old 90's) Is short term leisure and frat boy cheering what violence in video game will forever be in the eyes of gamers? Can't we have our own "Un Chien Andalou" and question the theme of gore and violence?
I guess only time will tell. But i sure do miss the carnival level in 1997's Blood.

I applaud the people at 4Chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica, Annoymous and TROLLS IN GENERAL.

We need people to CHALLENGE the societal norms and push out content for the portion of consumers who want it. It's a free market thing. If we don't want it, we don't buy it or use it.

JFK Reloaded was very well made.

The Chris Dorner, Batman Rises and gun to the Head of the NRA games were silly and fun too.

I do not want to see children being shot, but i don't like placing censorship either. They "censored" CoD: MW3 for showing a family being blown up. Why? I wasn't offended. We are turning into a nation of fat idiots.

At least the Japanese continue to pump out content that completely ignores America's conservative censors. I haven't played Rapelay, but I might. I've been waiting for a school shooting game in fact - even a movie.

Elephant, directed by Gus Van Sant, might be up your alley. It's a Gus Van Sant picture, so you're getting art house and not grind house.

I think people can only be comfortable doing things like killing/ because either they represent evil or they do it out of curiosity or they do not link it with something in real life.

Ok that wasn't my complete comment, but it was an idea.

It's complex to define, but I think people just will not enjoy doing bad things in videogames to entities that they have nothing against or even like, because that would mean they would enjoy doing those things in real life. Of course, there's a lot of sick people in this world.

I couldn't disagree more.

If games are truly art, I think they can and should explore the darker sides of humanity that you've laid out above.

I cannot say that I would play a school massacre or rape-sim, but only because those don't appeal to me. At the same time, it doesn't appeal to me to join the military and go shoot at random people, but I've done it plenty of times in FPS'.

Also, nice Fight Club reference.

If you don't want me to kill kids, you shouldn't put annoying children in the games about killing people.

On a related note, the very first thing I downloaded for Skyrim when I got it from Steam was Killable Children.

Add old people while you're at it. Disabled people. Whatever really. Games like GTA are just a collection of middle-aged adults that don't accurately represent society.

The topic that this kind of brings up is that of "AO" rated games, long considered a sales death-sentence. I really don't see why there is such a stigma attached to a game that can only be sold to 18+ (console bans, store bans), yet a 17+ M rated game leads to some of the biggest blockbusters in the industry. Obviously certain things, like killing kids, would probably be seen more in games if getting the "AO" didn't mean you would likely be filing for bankruptcy shortly after.

Same reason films are pared down to an R when they're initially given an NC-17. As far as I know there is n

Same reason films are pared down to an R when they're initially given an NC-17. As far as I know there is no difference between the two ratings as far as who is allowed to view the movie, so the reason one is so taboo is the content it indicates. Really tho if a game with full frontal nudity and violence like the Witcher 2 is M and not AO I don't know if I'd even want to play an AO game, as I'd assume it would be more of a way to peddle softcore porn than a good game.

Do I think I could kill and molest virtual kids for a million dollars? Definitely. Could developers create a situation where I would feel disgusted killing and molesting virtual kids and never in a million years voluntarily engage in the activity for my own amusement? Definitely. Battle Royale is good times, but Schindler's List is harrowing. Spec Ops managed to unsettle me about simply progressing through a story, for crying out loud!

Also, this is the most refreshing article on video game violence that I've read in almost 8 years. You really got to me.

As well written this article is, I'm still not swayed to consider video games or any other works of art containing violence as the cause of mass murders, rape, etc. I may see something like A Serbian Film or that Rapelay monstrosity as a consequence of a sick society, but the cause of the sickness.

Yeah I misjudged initially the goal of the article, sorry about that, of course it still is a kick-ass piece of writing, even if it's not taking sides on the violent video games controversy. My answer to the question posed by you remains the same tho, the first comment made by me is the one that is kind of out of line now :)

Also, to actually answer the question you posed: I would play a game involving murder/rape of children as long it has a story that makes it clearly evil, no nuances or grey areas, even if my character is the one doing such things, as long it's not glorified, I could handle it. Then again, perhaps that I can handle it shows the sickness I mentioned earlier.

Alright, I've had time to think about it, and my original post sucked due to being repetitive. Over the years, I've become jaded to ultra-violence in video games, for example, God of War. Though it receives plenty of love, I find it a sign of an industry yet to mature. I say this because it has excessive violence for the sake of excessive violence, it does nothing to further the storyline or motive.
It doesn't evoke the setting of Greek Mythology, it says to the player, "Here is a Giant getting its intestines ripped out, then strangled with the intestines." It doesn't do anything beyond that. They do this because it seems as if its expected, the violent content sells the game, like a nice pair of breasts sells something on TV. It's exploitative marketing, just as bad as using sex to sell.

GTA, an example you used, straddles the line between violence for the sake of violence, and violence to send a message. It is an immature romp through a game that is a satire of modern society.

I don't know where the line is, but I'm afraid the game industry will one day find it. When it does... I hope it doesn't blow up in our faces and endanger our hobby.

Is this article a lead into the idea that Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes may have child soldier enemies? :0

I don't want to shoot children in games. I don't want to shoot dogs or cats either. Zombie children or dogs, now that's fair game.

Only thing video games, television, and books do is give already demeanted people more imaginative ideas. Hell, wikipedia can explain the best ways to terrorist bomb something. That is probably why we don't need child killing games, atleast not ones where is doesn't add seriousness to the game. In Bioshock, I couldn't hurt the girls, but in a game like GTA, I might not even blink. I say no to desenstizing oneself to the more brutal of crimes against humanity.

I think I'm willing to play just about anything, no matter how disturbing or sick, but it depends on the intention of the developer. If it's meant to be satirical or thought-provoking, cool. But if it's just for sick thrills, I can't be enthused about it.

A few other games to have mentioned for this particular article are "Postal" Series "State of Emergency" Series & the "Saint's Row" Series. You want to talk about random chaotic mayhem, look no further than these titles.

I have played and enjoyed the "Saints Row" games, though to be honest, I got increasingly uncomfortable playing this almost amoral gangster who was funny at times, but could be just utterly wicked & driven by greed & revenge. I particularly hated the "Drug Trafficking" Missions: they had zero appeal for me; I'm a "don't-do-drugs" person.

What drew me into the SR series was the customization features (creating your character, customizing your vehicle, your crib, your clothing, heck even your equally homicidal gang). But, even that has waned for me.

I just don't like playing the bad guy. I like being the good guy, the hero who saves the day & such. That's one of the reasons why I love "Fable 2"- you get to choose to be good or evil, or even somewhere in between.

As for the whole idea of:

"let's make really sick games & let people who want to play do so, while those who don't like it can avoid it,"

well I'm in the "avoid it" camp. I don't want to invent creative reasons to justify or rationalize playing really sick or depraved games.

Personally, I game mostly for entertainment (saving the world, destroying aliens, monsters, mutants, criminals; that sort of thing). I have zero interest in exploring "rape" or killing children, or the like, even if it is meant to be "thought-provoking" or trying to make some kind of a "statement."

The "How Far Is To Far" question can partly be tied into the who idea that people CAN get "desensitized" to repeated exposure to varying levels of sex and or violence, whether it's in video games, movies, books, the news, etc.

Sometimes, getting used to violence in gaming might lead you to seek out "stronger" forms of violence in other games, until you get used to that too. Eventually, almost nothing shocks you.

Only saw Suicide club picture. Interesting