Violence in Computer Games

                       By Sue Medley

A number of years ago, a game called Barbarian was released. It
was a `beat 'em up' and, during it, you had the opportunity to lop
your opponent's head off with your sword. Tame stuff now but not
at the time. Some of the powers-that-be said it could lead people
to violent feelings, or be harmful to impressionable children. The
only impression I heard of it making on a youngster was a friend's
3-year old daughter who used to say, "Make the man's head fall
off, Daddy!"  and thought it was hilarious. It certainly didn't
seem to give her any sleepless nights.

But as the years have passed and games have got more
sophisticated, their artwork has become more detailed and the
violence more graphic in both senses of the word! The adverts
promise murder and mayhem and the games deliver.


Whereas the storylines of most adventures and RPGs often have you
collecting treasure, finding a particular special item, killing a
major bad guy or saving the world, the theme for most arcade games
is far more explicit and brutal. Here are some snippets from
adverts of last year:

"Escape. Dismember. Massacre. Complete freedom of movement.
Precision killing. Lop off heads, sever limbs and bring your
opponent to his knees (literally)" (Die by the Sword)

"Organ donors have not always been volunteers. Splatter your way
through 10 tortuous levels" (Deathtrap Dungeon)

"Fourteen new levels of killin' and mayhem. Run over chickens and
pigs on a motorcycle. You can even put a stick of dynamite up a
chicken's ass" (Redneck Rampage)

Multi-user games use similar phraseology - and bear in mind that
part of the fun of playing over the Net, or linked computers, is

that you're competing against other humans, not computer generated
characters. So we also have:

"Act locally - kill globally on HEAT.NET" (Net Fighter)

Even hardware doesn't escape:

"Destroy more, dismember more, disembowel more" (Monster 3DII
graphics card)

Then there's the American game, Postal, whose storyline features a
postal worker who goes crazy in his home town with a gun and
starts killing anyone he sees. Remembering some current news
stories from the States where, in similar style, kids have turned
on their parents, teachers and school friends, what good reason
can anyone give to justify wanting to play a game that promises it
is "... so freakin' real, your victims will actually beg for mercy
and scream for their lives" and has "...mass murder opportunities:
spray protesters, mow down marching bands and charbroil whole

towns." As Miss Jean Brodie used to say, "For people who like that
kind of thing, that's the kind of thing they like."

Violent crime is on the increase; no-one can deny that. What
society needs to do is identify and treat the factors causing this
upsurge.  Games like Carmageddon, where you score points by the
number of pedestrians you run over, may have little or no
emotional effect on many players, but if there is a risk that some
can be adversely affected, can we really justify the release of
such games?

Using an ELSPA age rating doesn't solve the problem. All a rating
does is encourage youngsters to get hold of a copy for the shock
value they know it will have. An 18 rating on a game doesn't stop
kids getting hold of it - it just makes it a challenge.

Some people are clearly more susceptible to the effects of
violence than others, or more easily influenced. It is generally
accepted that violent films or videos can adversely affect
children as well as some adults. When you consider that in a
computer game YOU control and take part in the action in the game,
rather than being a passive observer when you watch a film, surely
we should be more vigilant about their content?

Finally, what's a professional's view of the possible effect of
violence in games? I asked Adrian Blake, a leading
psychotherapist, for his views. He told me:

     "Violent computer games can probably bypass moral inhibitions
     in three major ways: by teaching aggressive styles of
     conduct, by desensitizing people to violence, and by making
     violence more acceptable.

     "Research suggests children (and adults) lacking a background
     and family life that instil a strong sense of morality are
     especially vulnerable. They lack the `counterbalancing'
     influence.

     "Some people in the games industry justify violence by
     claiming it helps people discharge some of their aggressive
     impulses, which they might otherwise take out on other
     people.

     "However, research throws serious doubts on this `benevolent
     influence' argument. Children, for example, who watch violent
     cartoons on TV display more not less violent behaviour
     towards others. And as learning is strongest when we are most
     involved, it is logical to assume that actually `taking part'
     in violent computer games will have even more effect".

Interestingly, Adrian Blake points to evidence that suggests games
portraying positive attitudes and co-operative behaviour actually
reduce aggression. Now there's a nice thought for the computer
industry!





                              - o -