Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
As consoles have become more powerful and graphics more realistic, video game violence has gone from a mere shoot-'em-up to a virtual bloodbath. And, for better or worse, there's some fun to it.
By CHIP CARTER
© St. Petersburg Times, published October 14, 2002
An altercation on a main road of a city that looks suspiciously like Miami. Two cars have pulled over to the side. A man dressed in a flower-pattern shirt steps out of the first vehicle. The driver of the convertible behind steps out as well.
No words are exchanged -- there's no time. The man in the flowered shirt simply whips out a large-caliber pistol, pumps several shots into the convertible, empties the rest of his clip at the fleeing driver, then jumps back in his car and speeds away.
This is fun? Actually, for better or worse, it is.
It's a scene from the upcoming PlayStation 2 video game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (due Oct. 29). From an entertainment standpoint, it's every bit the equal or better of the three other games in the controversial, ultraviolent -- and unquestionably entertaining -- GTA series.
And it's sure to become another flashpoint in the long-running debate over the nature of violent video games and the impact they have on the people who play them.
As consoles have become more powerful and graphics more realistic, video game violence has gone from a mere shoot-'em-up to a virtual bloodbath. Grand Theft Auto has been on the leading edge of that escalating violence.
For one thing, the star of the series -- you -- begins life as a petty thug, stealing cars and beating up little old men for pocket change. You progress to horror-show stuff such as stealing ambulances (patients included) and decapitating police officers with high-powered firearms -- all rendered in living color on your television screen. The no-holds-barred action has made the GTA series a hit on PC and consoles, spawning publications, Web sites and legions of hard-core fans since its introduction in 1998.
This time, the action has moved to Vice City, described as "a major gateway to South America and the Caribbean" -- in other words, Miami. You're Tommy Vercetti, a career thug who's back on the streets after a long stretch in maximum security.
Double-crossed by his cohorts, Vercetti takes it on himself to wreak vengeance and get back what he feels is rightfully his by any means necessary, taking on biker gangs, Cuban gangsters and corrupt politicians in an orgy of violence. (See review, page XX.)
For those who aren't already fans, it's shocking and it's worrisome.
"The development of the brain when you play the violent video games and the impact on the wiring of the brain when you play the violent video games is stunning," said Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a retired Marine Corps psychologist, author and teacher at West Point. "It's totally different from any other medium. Instead of being the passive receiver of human death and suffering, now you actively inflict it upon another human being."
Grossman has spent much of his career training soldiers and law enforcement officers to deal with the idea of maiming and killing other human beings in the line of duty. Now he's perhaps the nation's toughest and best-known critic of video game violence, with appearances on 20/20 and 60 Minutes and a pair of books.
"For 5,000 years of recorded history, we've hit each other with wooden swords," Grossman said. "But now when I play violent video games in a virtual reality -- a hyperreality -- I blow my playmate's head off countless thousands of times. Do I get in trouble? No; I get points."
Grossman contends that violence in games leads to violent behavior in kids. But other experts cite studies, from sources including the U.S. surgeon general, that show the impact of game violence is minimal. The industry continuously points to its rating system that lets consumers know what's appropriate for various age levels.
The video game industry "has a responsibility to inform and educate consumers about what's in these games," said Doug Loweinstein, president of the Independent Digital Software Association. "Retailers have a responsibility to educate them about the ratings system, and they can use (that information) as they choose. Parents have the ultimate responsibility for deciding which games are appropriate in their homes."
Both sides are watching a St. Louis case, in which the city banned the sale of mature-rated games to people younger than 18. A federal court upheld the law, but the ruling is being appealed.
While the industry fights any attempt at government regulation, Grossman thinks it may be necessary. He accuses the industry of strong-arming retailers into ignoring the ratings -- E for everyone, T for teen, M for mature.
"Think of any other product we say children shouldn't have," Grossman said. "Whose job is it to make sure kids don't drive cars, can't get firearms, can't get alcohol and tobacco? Even (the) pornography (industry) accepts regulation of their products for kids. The video game industry is screaming and fighting."
While some major retailers, such as Wal-Mart, Kmart, Toys "R" Us and Electronics Boutique, enforce the voluntary rating system, plenty of others don't.
In a recent sting operation conducted by the Illinois attorney general's investigations division, kids 13 to 15 years old were able to buy or rent M-rated games with ease.
As far back as 1983, the U.S. surgeon general blamed "violent scenarios" and "graphically aggressive themes" in video games for causing "aberrations in childhood behavior."
And though violent crime statistics have declined in recent years, incidents such as school shootings have critics looking to games as a contributing factor.
Dr. Randy Borum, associate professor of mental health law and policy at the University of South Florida, worked with the Secret Service on a series of reports studying high-profile cases such as the school shootings at Columbine, Colo., and Paducah, Ky.
He says research found a minority of kids involved in those kinds of violent incidents were fans of violent-themed video games.
Borum said research suggests "a small but significant relationship between video game aggression and subsequent aggressive behavior, particularly in younger kids."
Borum defines that behavior as a "short-term -- minutes, up to an hour -- increase in aggression, not taking a gun and stalking somebody in a school." He gives examples: "Hostile behavior, yelling, shouting mean things, play that is related to shooting, it might be pushing. Whatever happens physically is almost always very low level, but the content of what they say seems to be more aggressive."
He also says those heightened levels of aggression are lower than those displayed by children who regularly watch violent television programming. The same research shows that as children get older -- above age 8 -- the connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior seems to disappear.
On the other hand, the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and American Psychiatric Association have called for limiting children's exposure to video game violence.
Jonathan J. Greenstein, director of psychological services at the Child Development Center of Tampa General Hospital, opposes government regulation.
Greenstein regularly deals with aggressive children in his practice and points out, "There are individuals who have a certain degree of pathology -- and I can see that they become obsessed with (violent video gaming)." (See story, page XX.)
For the most part, though, "I don't believe it's going to do damage or any harm to the majority," Greenstein said. "This is an age-old battle. Go back 20 years and think about song lyrics -- somebody killed themselves because they were listening to Ozzy Osbourne. The fact is, millions of kids were listening to that, and they weren't doing that. It's really up to parents and mental health officials to identify individuals who are at risk."
In upholding the St. Louis law, the federal court ruled that video games don't enjoy the same constitutional protections offered other media and that even if they did, the city's right to self-protection would supersede the First Amendment.
Rockstar Games, maker of the GTA series, refused interview requests.
But Jane Douglas, associate professor of English at the University of Florida, is one of 33 international scholars who recently filed a brief for the defense in St. Louis.
From an artistic standpoint, the GTA series is "actually wonderful; it's a virtual world scenario," Douglas said. "It's quite remarkable. There's narrative and a plot."
As entertainment, GTA is a seamless, nonlinear romp through what promotional materials call "a town brimming with delights and degradation." Vice City is, in fact, very much like the old TV series Miami Vice pumped up on steroids and gone shockingly awry.
And that's just fine with Douglas, who specializes in interactivity in narrative in UF's digital arts and sciences program. "There's an argument that's been made traditionally -- Aristotle made it first -- (that) you get elements of catharsis from seeing violence. It purges you. By undergoing these things, you actually don't need to do it in the flesh."
Douglas draws a comparison between today's video games and classic literature.
"We covet violence and disorder in narrative because we know we actually have to deal with them, but (in art) they take place in a very orderly world that's contained inside a frame," she said. "Most literature has someone dying senselessly and violently -- the Iliad is pretty dicey stuff."
-- Chip Carter is a syndicated video game columnist who lives in Tampa.