GamaGanda

You’re all familiar with the latest installment in the Medal of Honor series and the fact that its multiplayer mode allows you to play as the [wikipop]Taliban[/wikipop]. Right? This piece will cast a new light on some of the accusations floating around, but more important will solve once and for all the ever lasting problem of “video game violence”. Epic!

First, the game.

Medal of Honor, an M rated game, launches soon. October 12 in North America and October 15 in Europe, for the PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. The game is set in 2001′s war-torn Afghanistan and uses a modified version of Unreal 3 for the singleplayer and the DICE’s Frostbite engine for its multiplayer.

Second, the controversy.

Karen Meredith (twitter/blog/info), the mother of Army Lt. Ken Ballard who was killed in Iraq in 2004, stated on her blog that “Last week, when I heard about the details of this game and the ability to be the Taliban and shoot US soldiers, I was shocked at the insensitivity to releasing this game as our members of the military fight and die in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This game trivializes the training and the service of members of the military.” She was also on Fox News. You can watch the video here.

A little bit over the pond, in the UK, Defence Secretary Liam Fox called it an “un-British game” and urged retailers not to stock it. Oh, but it doesn’t stop here. We’ll go back over the pond, this time in Canada, where Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay stated something quite similar.

Now that we stated the facts, lets see if it’s too soon to play such a game. First of all, I’d really wish Karen Meredith read these interviews. Of course, they represent the opinion of maybe too few persons and while everyone is entitled to his or her personal opinion, these interviews might be irrelevant, as they do not express the opinion of a majority. On the other hand, what EA has chosen to do is not a question of legality, but morality. Is it fair for the families who have lost their sons in Iraq or Afghanistan? I’m also a parent (though SHE’s just six months old). From a parent’s perspective, no, it’s not fair. Unfortunately life is not fair and if we start pretending it is, we’ll end up living in a bubble, an illusion a lot more dangerous than the Taliban from Medal of Honor.

Let me put it another way. How many victims of road accidents are the in US each year? According to the US Department of Transportation, the 37,261 Americans killed in car accidents and other collisions in 2008 marked the lowest number since 1961. You can start checking the database here, if you feel brave enough. Of course, I cannot state that every such victim had a family, but it’s probably safe to say that most of them had one. Does this mean we should impose a ban or publishers should remove the driving titles from their portfolios? There are driving titles which seem to be more brutal than others, with unprecedented levels of car damage (Burnout Paradise for example). Of course, you don’t see anyone killed or lots of blood splashed on your screen in Burnout, but one can argue it promotes unsafe driving and trivializes accidents. The gamers should know that driving a real car is not the same thing as driving a virtual one. This is why, all such games feature a statement in the very beginning asking players to drive safely in real life. Maybe it’s time for first-person shooters to feature a similar message. War is not a game. War is real. The people are real and their death is, unfortunately, real.

During my occasional browsing for news on this subject, I’ve stumbled upon a discussion from The Globe and Mail where a few people/parents from Toronto asked if the Taliban video game trivialize war. It’s a little bit biased, but one user definitely got my attention. He said that if the Tier 1 operatives viral videos made by EA would be included with the full game, then Medal of Honor could become a learning material. If more information about the harsh reality of war makes it into A game, then yes,  that game will provide a unique view of the conflict. On the other hand, the single-player of the game follows Tier 1 operators from the National Command Authority, so no first-person taliban here.

Last but not least, I’d like to point out the fact that actual/recent real events have always been a source of inspiration for all kinds of media. If history is more or less harmless, then real recent events can disturb some of the persons still envolved. Unfortunately, there are many similar situations out there. The 37,261 victims of road accidents surely have families mourning them. I don’t know if all the WWII games out there are historically accurate or not, but sincerely I don’t care. Some historians might care though. In the future. Do we really have a reason to ban these games? I’m sorry for everyone’s losses, but no, we don’t. There is no legitimate reason for banning them. It’s just a question of morality. Is it fair? No, it’s not but as a parent, I’d like to see people have a choice, just as my kid will hopefully have a choice when she’ll be an adult, allowed to play such games.

SO, it’s quite a simple conclusion. Play it and maybe learn something out of it. Don’t play it and  live on. That’s everything there’s to say about it. Or is it?

Back when I started writing this I promised you I’ll solve the “video game violence” problem. In the future, I’ll probably conduct a deeper analysis on the subject, with international reach, but for now I’ll stick to the US which is one of the dominant markets for this industry, especially if we’re talking FPS and action games.

First of all, let’s look at some charts from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics. Just for facts.

Crimes committed with firearms, 1973-2006 – After peaking in 1993, the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988. For crimes committed with firearms, the number began at 361,141 in 1973 and decreased to 301,590 in 1977. Then the number increased to 581,697 in 1993. It then fluctuates with a low of 338,535 in 1999, before increasing to 388,897 in 2006.

Nonfatal firearm-related violent victimization rate, 1993-2008 – Nonfatal firearm crime rates have been declining since 1994, before increasing (just a little) in 2005 (and starting to decline again afterwards). For firearm crime rates, the rate of victims per 1,000 residents began at 5.9 in 1993 and increased to 6.0 in 1994. After 1994, the rate decreased, reaching 1.4 in 2008.

Nonfatal firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, before increasing in 2005. For firearm incidents, the number of nonfatal firearm incidents began at 1,054,820 in 1993 and increased to 1,060,800 in 1994. After 1994, the number of nonfatal firearm incidents fell, reaching 280,890 in 2004, before increasing to 499,390 in 2006. For firearm victims, the number of victims began at 1,248,250 in 1993 and increased, reaching 1,286,860 in 1994. Then the number fell to 331,630 in 2004, before rising to 561,760 in 2006.

After declining since 1992, motor vehicle theft rates leveled off after 2000. For motor vehicle theft, violent crime rate per 1,000 households began at 19.1 in 1973 and fluctuated with a high of 19.5 as it decreased to 14.2 in 1985. After 1985, violent crime rate climbed to 22.2 in 1991, before it decreased to 8.4 in 2006.

After many years of declining, burglary rates have stabilized. For burglary theft, violent crime rate per 1,000 households began at 110.0 in 1973 and climbed, reaching 111.8 in 1974. Then violent crime rate fell, reaching a low of 27.7 in 2002. Then it fluctuated reaching 30.2 in 2006.

For property crime, violent crime rate per 1,000 households began at 519.9 in 1973 and climbed to 553.6 in 1975. Then violent crime rate continued to drop reaching 160.5 in 2006.

For rape, violent crime rate per 1,000 persons began at 2.5 in 1973 and climbed to 2.6 in 1974. Then violent crime rate decreased to 2.2 in 1976, before increasing to 2.8 in 1979. After 1979, it fell to 0.4 in 2004, before increasing, reaching 0.8 in 2006.

For robbery, violent crime rate per 1,000 persons began at 6.7 in 1973 and increased to 7.2 in 1974. After 1974, violent crime rate dropped to 5.9 in 1978, before increasing, reaching 7.4 in 1981. It then decreased to 2.1 in 2004, before increasing to 2.9 in 2006.

Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993.

This is an important one. The proportion of serious violent crimes committed by juveniles has generally declined since 1993. According to the victim’s perception of the age of the offender, the number of serious violent offenses committed by persons ages 12 to 17 declined 61% from 1993 to 2005, while those committed by persons older than 17 fell 58%.

Violent crime rates declined in recent years for most age groups. Teens and young adults experience the highest rates of violent crime, but 2008 levels are a lot smaller than the 1994 ones.

Since 1994 violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2005. For overall violent crime, violent crime rate per 1,000 persons began at 47.7 in 1973 and increased to 52.3 in 1981. After 1981, violent crime rate decreased, reaching 24.5 in 2006.

For those charts where I have not posted additional data, there is a small [D] besides the chart. Click it and you’ll get relevant info, including data.

As you can see, all the rates and levels in these charts decreased over time. There was a peak in 1994-1995, but then they decreased again. Whatever makes them decrease, it’s really working.

On the other hand, December 1994 meant the launch of the first PlayStation in Japan. Just have a look at some of the games from that era and compare them with what 2010 has to offer. It’s quite a big change from ANY point of view. Visually, games are a lot more appealing today. The gameplay is a lot different. In the end, you feel immersed in the detailed universes that unravels in front of you. The market is also totally different today, than it was in 1994. There are big players selling lots of games and there are very big franchises selling lots of units (as they probably don’t like to call them copies). Over the years we had lots of GTAs, CoDs, MoHs, Halos, Hitmans, Resident Evils, Silent Hills  and other crazy Japanese horror games, Carmageddons, Need for Speeds, Burnouts, Mortal Kombats, Tekkens, Virtua Fighters, DOAs and lots and lots of other beautifully violent video games. Heck, even adventure games like Sherlock Holmes were a bit “murdery” violent.

And we loved it. We loved every minute of these violent fantasy we call video games, while the violent crime rates were falling. How’s that? I don’t know. All I know is THAT VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES HAVE NEVER EVER DETERMINED AN INCREASE OF THE U.S.A. VIOLENT CRIME RATES OF ANY KIND. If someone actually intends to conduct a useful analysis, then we should try to understand why violent video games HAVE NOT determined an increase of the violent crime rates AND what legal/social mix was the exact cause for the decrease we see in the charts. Understanding the past is the key for understanding the future and we have the past right here. Let’s just look into the future. Let’s try to bring everyone in this pursuit of happiness. Happiness of parents, of children and, of course, of gamers. We are somebody’s child, maybe parents and definitely gamers, all in one. The burden is ours and we shouldn’t forget that. If we let other people decide for us, then we have no future.

This concludes my rather long trip through video game violence. Of course, I’d like to conduct a deeper analysis of this phenomenon and its influence or better, lack of it, on our society over the years. Obtaining an international view of the problem might be useful. A study on violent crime and its root causes can also be a starting point. I promise I’ll think about it. If you feel you have something to say, drop a comment or two here or register in the forum, if you plan to stick around for a while. I hope you found this piece interesting and hopefully useful. Epic, isn’t it?