The Playground of Immorality

I once asked myself, “Why do I play violent video games? What draws me to them?” The one
conceivable answer I came to was that the world I emerged myself into yields no consequence. I
can do whatever I want. I can do bad things. In the real world I am good, but in the fantasy land
of video games I have the opportunity of exploring the uncharted territory of immorality.
This is not exactly a breakthrough epiphany. Playing any video game, violent or not, lets
the player be whoever they want; a hero or a villain, an adventurer, treasure hunter, or an
invincible soldier fighting to save the world. Video games allow us to live fantasies and become
more than what we think ourselves to be. They allow us to get small victories in an otherwise
disappointing and often unrewarding world.
Perhaps that is why the industry has become such a giant in our generation; we like to be
rewarded often. But why do we treasure rewards in violent video games, and why do we find
such pleasure in doing bad things, like killing someone, and at times even find it hilarious? When
do we test the boundaries of immorality too much?
Stress hormones may have something to do with the trigger pulling, blood gushing
violence we yearn for in games. Douglas Gentile is a professor at Iowa State University and
studies the effects violent video games have on children. Gentile was featured in a 2013 article
by NPR journalist Sami Yenigun called ‘Video Game Violence: Why Do We Like It, and What's
It Doing To Us?’ He discusses why humans are so attracted to violence in video games.
“‘These gamers do have an adrenaline rush, and it's noradrenaline and it's testosterone,
and it's cortisol — these are the so-called stress hormones,’ Gentile says. ‘That's exactly the same
cocktail of hormones you drop into your bloodstream if I punched you.’”
He goes on to say that video games create a safe environment to experience this type of
adrenaline. This allows the player to have “fun” instead of feeling the pain and displeasure of
actually getting punched in the face.
Basic instinct also triggers the pleasure felt in the intense moments of striving to save
one’s life. Gentile says that video games ignite a “primal instinct.” He explained, “There are two
things that force us to pay attention. […] One is violence; the other is sex. Whenever either of
those are present in our environment, they have survival value for us.”
These games awaken a very animalistic side to us, one that is subdued in our day to day
lives. It times like these that Freud looks upon us in contentment. Video games satisfy more than
our “primal instinct” however. Games also gratify certain social and individualistic needs that
humans crave. Gentile calls them the “A, B, and C of human motivation,” and playing video
games addresses all three; autonomy, belonging, and competence.
Autonomy is all about being in control, and because gamers have to have a controller to
control what they do in a game this need is easily met. Games arguably offer more control than
we experience in our real lives.
Now, more than ever, video games immerse gamers in a social environment where they
are either cooperatively playing together or facing each other head on. This social environment
gives the player a sense of belonging. Competence is also easily felt by playing video games. The way games are designed to
help the player learn, better their game play, and achieve goals makes players feel more
competent. In other words, playing a video game is like eating a salad to help you feel good
about yourself.
The question is, however, what are we doing in video games that makes us feel so good
about ourselves? Can game developers go too far? In 2013, Rockstar Games opened a floodgate
of controversy over a torture mission in the highly anticipated Grand Theft Auto V (GTA V). The
popular title gave gamers more control in their game play, and focused less on cinematic cut
scenes. One of the main reasons the torture mission was so controversial is that players were
doing the torturing themselves instead of simply watching the torture take place like you would
in a movie.
In the mission, gamers play as one of the three main characters, Trevor, whose job is to
torture an informant named Mr. K. There are four different torturing devices; electric clamps,
which are used to electrocute Mr. K, a wrench that is used to beat him, and a pair of pliers used
to pull Mr. K’s teeth out. I had to cover my eyes as Trevor began to yank the informant’s teeth.
The fourth form of torture was “waterboarding.” To perform this, players used their controls to
flip the chair Mr. K is bound to on its back, lay a cloth over his face, and pour the jug of what
looks to be gasoline over his face, almost drowning their victim.
I have had little game play time with GTA V, but I have played it enough to know that the
game challenges people’s concept of morality even if it did not have a torture mission. We have
all ran over our fair share of innocent pedestrians.
GTA V forces gamers to face a disturbing realty. There are games in which the goal is to
kill unrealistic monsters, but when you are placed in a situation where the act you are
performing, in this case, torture, exists in real life, should it strike a different chord? There
seemed to be a general consensus among gamers that the torture they had to preform was fairly
disturbing at the least. No one went around saying, “Hey, did you play the torture mission on
GTA? Man, that was a lot of fun.” However, there are gamers out there that did have fun with it.
The 2014 edition of the book Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Media and Society by
Alison Alexander and Jarice Hanson presents readers with both sides of the violent video game
debate. Henry Jenkins is an American media scholar, and he is on the “no” side of the violent
video game debate, and “argues that the primary audience is not children, that violence is not
increasing in society, and that concerns about isolation, desensitization, and violence are
overblown.”
In Jenkins’ argument he discusses how video games can be a playground for testing the
boundaries of morality and immorality. Games place players in situations where they can break
the rules, do bad things, and then have time to reflect and feel remorse for their questionable
behavior in a safe environment. Jenkins says, “In the right circumstances, we can be encouraged
to examine our own values by seeing how we behave within virtual space.” My husband will be the first to tell you, I am bad at being bad. Even in a game where
there is a choice to be a good or bad character I mostly do good characters, and my bad ones
always struggle making the bad decisions. I know, it is pathetic.
Violence in all media affects me, but there are others who can play the torture scene in
GTA V and not be troubled by it. There are different levels of tolerance displayed in everyone. I
have a low tolerance for violence, meaning it is difficult for me to observe violence in the media,
such as video games and movies, without being disturbed by it. My counterparts may have a high
tolerance for violence, meaning they will only be slightly disturbed, or not bothered at all by
what they see in a video game.
Those people are unstable, right? Wrong. These gamers know the difference between a
video game and reality. They do not imitate their game play in a real-life setting. In Jenkins’
argument he points out that people know the difference between play and “real-world
interaction.” He describes Eric Zimmerman’s explanation of this concept, “…the ways we
understand play as distinctive from reality [is known as] entering the ‘magic circle.’” When a
gamer picks up the controller he or she is entering into the “magic circle,” a fantasy world, and
when they put the controller down they leave the “magic circle” behind and welcome reality.
There are media critics that argue that behavior displayed in the “magic circle” is carried
over into real-world interactions and that video games cause violence. This debate has been
going on since the seventies was introduced to the game Death Race. The object of the game was
to run over gremlins that took the form of human stick figures. This is fairly innocent compared
to what we see today.
Basically, the argument that violent video games cause violence stems from the way we
learn as humans. Craig Anderson, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Iowa, presents
the counter-point argument for violent video games in the book Taking Sides.
He believes violent video games cause violence. He says that repeated observation over
long periods of time “…creates more positive attitudes, beliefs, and expectations regarding
aggressive solutions to interpersonal problems.” Meaning, if you are in an argument, you are
more likely to use aggressive actions first to cope with your current situation instead of leaving it
as a last resort. Violence is the answer.
Do violent video games make us killers? No, they do not. Anderson says, “…that would
be an overstatement, one that mainstream media violence researchers do not make.”
In short, there are too many other casual factors that result in extreme aggressive
behaviors, like we would see in a school shooter. Yes, a shooter will most likely play violent
video games, but have they been bullied, what was their home life like, did they suffer from
mental illness, or have easy access to guns? No one of these things caused someone to become a
school shooter. Instead, they are a mix of ingredients that can explode if baked too long without
supervision. Which brings me back to the question, “Can game developers and publishers go too far?”
Yes. Sometimes developers can abuse their first amendment rights, and push the envelope with
inappropriate and offensive content.
For example, games like JFK Reloaded and Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, where
tragic, real life events are reenacted through game play, are put on the shelves simply to provoke
a reaction. These kinds of games serve no other purpose and express no real meaning or
importance.
However, because main media outlets decide to cover these types of games and bring
them to the head of popular discussion, the games themselves become popular. Gamers buy them
and play them just to see what all the fuss is about.
When games like JFK Reloaded become the face of the video game world, even for a
moment, non-gamers can generalize this one bad video game to all games, giving the whole
industry a bad rap. All video games are bad. Do not play video games. Video games have no
meaning. As gamers, we know these statements to be untrue.
Ken S. McAllister is Assistant Professor of Rhetoric, Composition, and the Teaching of
English at the University of Arizona and Co-Director of the Learning Games Initiative, a group
that studies, teaches with, and builds computer games. In his book Game Work: Language,
Power, and Computer Game Culture he says, “[Video games] themselves are works of art and
industrial works; and [video games] do work, particularly rhetorical and cultural work.”
In order for video games to perform rhetorical and cultural work developers must
implement violence into their games responsibly, and know when violence is necessary and
when it is not. Violence should not be part of a game if it is simply there for the sake of creating
violence, and, as gamers, we should know when to say enough is enough.