Sometimes I feel like the Pyro in Team Fortress 2. Non-gamers are shouting at all the atrocities video games portray, and the sick, twisted thoughts I must be having when playing. But in my view, I don't see that at all. I see fun and relaxation...with friends!
I'm almost certain that most gamers feel that way as well...
You don't have to look hard to see some kind of debate about violence in video games. There have been several lawsuits against Grand Theft Auto alone where lawyers accuse the game of teaching kids how to murder and commit crimes. Some of these lawsuits are of actual murders where the killer idolized a character in the series, like Trevor in Grand Theft Auto V; why someone would idolize Trevor, I will never know.
Not to mention people like the infamous Columbine shooters loved violent video games.
Sadly, the list is quite long.
Studies done to see whether games do in fact influence violence have been rather inconclusive. Some studies show a correlation between gamers and aggression (not necessarily violence), yet there are still too many alternatives to imply causation.
One thing is conclusive though: violent video games are not going away any time soon.
The games Death Race and Mortal Kombat were two of the pioneers of extreme violence in video games. More recently, a game called Hatred came out where the objective is to kill anyone and anything that moves without remorse. Controversy sells, after all.
From a storytelling perspective, violence increases the thrill factor. In any type of media, having the main character vulnerable to death makes it exciting. All the bullets and explosions put the audience at the edge of their seat. You naturally get an adrenaline rush from such adventures (I do, anyway).
So what happens when we throw our faith into the mix?
Well, Christians have not always agreed on a stance for violence. In terms of extremes, there have been a few militaristic Christians who embrace violence as the main proponent to vanquish evil (these Christians also seem to be more political in nature, I've noticed...That may be a poor stereotype, though). The most obvious depiction is the Crusades.
On the opposite extreme, there are Christians who say that violence never leads to good, let alone glorifying God. It is worth noting that the early Christians were known pacifists, as this camp likes to make clear.
I think Kevin Schut speaks for the majority. "For better or worse, I reject both pro- and antiviolence extremes and end up in Lewis and Tolkien's camp. I think...antiviolence is compelling in light of the overall thrust of the gospel: the story of Scripture presents death and pain and suffering as the result of corruption. Glorifying any of those things should be problematic for people who call Christ their Lord. Ever since the time of Constantine, Christians have been too easily excusing the use of state violence, and, by extension, I think we too easily excuse violence in other settings" (Of Games and God, pg. 61).
But all this talk is very high-level. Let's experience some of this violence in video games firsthand, shall we?
WARNING: I'm going to show you something that was extremely controversial when it first came out dealing with terrorism. Do not feel like you are missing out if you skip this video! Watch if you can stomach it, but feel free to pause whenever you had enough.
I'm almost certain that most gamers feel that way as well...
You don't have to look hard to see some kind of debate about violence in video games. There have been several lawsuits against Grand Theft Auto alone where lawyers accuse the game of teaching kids how to murder and commit crimes. Some of these lawsuits are of actual murders where the killer idolized a character in the series, like Trevor in Grand Theft Auto V; why someone would idolize Trevor, I will never know.
Not to mention people like the infamous Columbine shooters loved violent video games.
Sadly, the list is quite long.
Studies done to see whether games do in fact influence violence have been rather inconclusive. Some studies show a correlation between gamers and aggression (not necessarily violence), yet there are still too many alternatives to imply causation.
One thing is conclusive though: violent video games are not going away any time soon.
The games Death Race and Mortal Kombat were two of the pioneers of extreme violence in video games. More recently, a game called Hatred came out where the objective is to kill anyone and anything that moves without remorse. Controversy sells, after all.
From a storytelling perspective, violence increases the thrill factor. In any type of media, having the main character vulnerable to death makes it exciting. All the bullets and explosions put the audience at the edge of their seat. You naturally get an adrenaline rush from such adventures (I do, anyway).
So what happens when we throw our faith into the mix?
Well, Christians have not always agreed on a stance for violence. In terms of extremes, there have been a few militaristic Christians who embrace violence as the main proponent to vanquish evil (these Christians also seem to be more political in nature, I've noticed...That may be a poor stereotype, though). The most obvious depiction is the Crusades.
On the opposite extreme, there are Christians who say that violence never leads to good, let alone glorifying God. It is worth noting that the early Christians were known pacifists, as this camp likes to make clear.
I think Kevin Schut speaks for the majority. "For better or worse, I reject both pro- and antiviolence extremes and end up in Lewis and Tolkien's camp. I think...antiviolence is compelling in light of the overall thrust of the gospel: the story of Scripture presents death and pain and suffering as the result of corruption. Glorifying any of those things should be problematic for people who call Christ their Lord. Ever since the time of Constantine, Christians have been too easily excusing the use of state violence, and, by extension, I think we too easily excuse violence in other settings" (Of Games and God, pg. 61).
But all this talk is very high-level. Let's experience some of this violence in video games firsthand, shall we?
WARNING: I'm going to show you something that was extremely controversial when it first came out dealing with terrorism. Do not feel like you are missing out if you skip this video! Watch if you can stomach it, but feel free to pause whenever you had enough.
Non-gamers, what did you think? Were you shocked? Appalled? Does it make you feel better that this mission is optional and skippable in the actual game? What about if I told you that you can go through the first half of the level without firing a shot (you still have to shoot the military when they show up, I think)? Even better, you can fire on the terrorists instead if you want. They kill you and the ending is the same, but hey, you did your best to defend innocents!
To give you some background for what you just witnessed, this is the game's main plot point. The CIA agent you play as is found and identified by the Russians and they invade America, crying for justice. Part of the game has you playing an American soldier defending his homeland. The other half of the story has you playing a British SAS officer trying to uncover the truth, find the true villain of the attack, and end the war between U.S. and Russia. So everything hinges around it. It is not just in the game just to be in the game (however, its sequel, Modern Warfare 3, does have a pointless controversial scene with no point to push the plot. Shame on you, Infinity Ward).
Granted, this is an extreme example. "But Trent," I hear you say. "You just quoted Kevin Schut above saying that 'we too easily excuse violence in other settings.' Is this not an excuse?! Is there really any difference between the civilians and the military shooting back at you?"
Not as much as you would think.
There may be a clear differentiation in your head, for sure. The game creates that illusion by imitating reality, but in the end, it's just clever computer programming.
The next time you or a friend is playing a violent video game, quit the game after a violent act (without saving) and enter back into it. Everyone should be back to normal. The violent act was not saved and therefore not remembered.
The airport mission is replayable, meaning everyone is revived and everything is set back up for you to play through again.
It's like a game of chess--which depicts an act of war, I might add. The game is played, pieces are removed, and a winner emerges. If you want to play again, you take all the "dead" pieces and put them back on the board, allowing you to sacrifice that pawn yet again.
Another good example is the game Dodgeball. Do I have ill-intent when I throw a ball at my friend as hard as I can? No, but I do want to win in the context of the game.
Do I actually want to kill when I murder in games? Absolutely not!
Does this make sense? I'm not trying to make light of the violence shown in video games, but truth be told, video games only use it as a means to an end. The majority do not try to praise violence.
In an interview about the upcoming game Battlefield 1 (a game that takes place in World War I), Lars Gustavsson, Design Director at DICE, said that "[They're] trying so hard to treat it respectfully. We want to depict the era, but with the purpose of building fun gameplay with variation. In the end, it is entertainment, we're not trying to make a statement" (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefield-1-interview-its-not-worth-stepping-on-/1100-6439710/).
Remember, "Gameplay is king." All interactions center around competency (challenge, progression, completion), autonomy (choices and impact), and relatedness (playing with others). Many of these war games even add a point system (i.e. +50 per kill and +150 per headshot) and a rating system (3 stars, Ranks A-E, Gold/Silver/Bronze medals, etc.), further showing that deep down, these games are essentially just competitions against others, yourself, or even the game itself.
How far can you go? (See Part I)
Hence why I think there is a correlation between gamers and aggression; the same aggressive behavior can be seen in competitive people across all walks of life. Just because gamers look nothing like football players doesn't mean we cannot get just as intense over a game. We're here to WIN! HOO-RAH!
With this mentality, it does not seem video games are inherently bad. In fact, this sets the stage for none other than Paul, who dealt with his own controversy of eating food offered to idols in 1 Corinthians.
"Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol has no real existence,' and that 'there is no God but one.' For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'--yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble" (1 Corinthians 8:4-13, ESV).
In my opinion, we are not better off by playing violent video games, and we are no worse off. But don't make your brother stumble just for entertainment purposes! Paul is pretty clear. That is an affront to your brother and to Christ.
Knowing that, can we individually separate video games and reality? Truthfully, I find that I'm not as consistent as I would like. I once had to turn off Dynasty Warriors 5 because the screams of the enemy were too much, despite my playing of the game for years before this (and this is a game with no blood or dismemberment and not the best of character animations). Yet I never batted an eyelash when I played the new Doom, one of the goriest games I have ever played.
So what's my point? It'll be different for everyone. I have no problem with violent video games, but there are some days where it is probably better to refrain from them for one reason or another.
And if you completely refrain from ever touching the genre, then that is perfectly acceptable as well! You are not a lesser Christian for completely abstaining from violent video games because it seems too real to you (as someone once told me, there is no such thing as a lesser Christian).
It may also depend on the game. Games like Hatred unashamedly display empty violence, calling it art and expression. That may be the case, but that doesn't exactly make it good art, nor worth justifying, in my opinion.
Video games require discernment. Violent video games require more discernment. You have to be honest with yourself--something really hard for someone like me to do on a consistent basis.
And again, this isn't ultimately about my opinion. This is for discussion purposes. To get you thinking on what you can handle and still glorify God. When you first think on it, it will be rather uncomfortable. One more video...
To give you some background for what you just witnessed, this is the game's main plot point. The CIA agent you play as is found and identified by the Russians and they invade America, crying for justice. Part of the game has you playing an American soldier defending his homeland. The other half of the story has you playing a British SAS officer trying to uncover the truth, find the true villain of the attack, and end the war between U.S. and Russia. So everything hinges around it. It is not just in the game just to be in the game (however, its sequel, Modern Warfare 3, does have a pointless controversial scene with no point to push the plot. Shame on you, Infinity Ward).
Granted, this is an extreme example. "But Trent," I hear you say. "You just quoted Kevin Schut above saying that 'we too easily excuse violence in other settings.' Is this not an excuse?! Is there really any difference between the civilians and the military shooting back at you?"
Not as much as you would think.
There may be a clear differentiation in your head, for sure. The game creates that illusion by imitating reality, but in the end, it's just clever computer programming.
The next time you or a friend is playing a violent video game, quit the game after a violent act (without saving) and enter back into it. Everyone should be back to normal. The violent act was not saved and therefore not remembered.
The airport mission is replayable, meaning everyone is revived and everything is set back up for you to play through again.
It's like a game of chess--which depicts an act of war, I might add. The game is played, pieces are removed, and a winner emerges. If you want to play again, you take all the "dead" pieces and put them back on the board, allowing you to sacrifice that pawn yet again.
Another good example is the game Dodgeball. Do I have ill-intent when I throw a ball at my friend as hard as I can? No, but I do want to win in the context of the game.
Do I actually want to kill when I murder in games? Absolutely not!
Does this make sense? I'm not trying to make light of the violence shown in video games, but truth be told, video games only use it as a means to an end. The majority do not try to praise violence.
In an interview about the upcoming game Battlefield 1 (a game that takes place in World War I), Lars Gustavsson, Design Director at DICE, said that "[They're] trying so hard to treat it respectfully. We want to depict the era, but with the purpose of building fun gameplay with variation. In the end, it is entertainment, we're not trying to make a statement" (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefield-1-interview-its-not-worth-stepping-on-/1100-6439710/).
Remember, "Gameplay is king." All interactions center around competency (challenge, progression, completion), autonomy (choices and impact), and relatedness (playing with others). Many of these war games even add a point system (i.e. +50 per kill and +150 per headshot) and a rating system (3 stars, Ranks A-E, Gold/Silver/Bronze medals, etc.), further showing that deep down, these games are essentially just competitions against others, yourself, or even the game itself.
How far can you go? (See Part I)
Hence why I think there is a correlation between gamers and aggression; the same aggressive behavior can be seen in competitive people across all walks of life. Just because gamers look nothing like football players doesn't mean we cannot get just as intense over a game. We're here to WIN! HOO-RAH!
With this mentality, it does not seem video games are inherently bad. In fact, this sets the stage for none other than Paul, who dealt with his own controversy of eating food offered to idols in 1 Corinthians.
"Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol has no real existence,' and that 'there is no God but one.' For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'--yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble" (1 Corinthians 8:4-13, ESV).
In my opinion, we are not better off by playing violent video games, and we are no worse off. But don't make your brother stumble just for entertainment purposes! Paul is pretty clear. That is an affront to your brother and to Christ.
Knowing that, can we individually separate video games and reality? Truthfully, I find that I'm not as consistent as I would like. I once had to turn off Dynasty Warriors 5 because the screams of the enemy were too much, despite my playing of the game for years before this (and this is a game with no blood or dismemberment and not the best of character animations). Yet I never batted an eyelash when I played the new Doom, one of the goriest games I have ever played.
So what's my point? It'll be different for everyone. I have no problem with violent video games, but there are some days where it is probably better to refrain from them for one reason or another.
And if you completely refrain from ever touching the genre, then that is perfectly acceptable as well! You are not a lesser Christian for completely abstaining from violent video games because it seems too real to you (as someone once told me, there is no such thing as a lesser Christian).
It may also depend on the game. Games like Hatred unashamedly display empty violence, calling it art and expression. That may be the case, but that doesn't exactly make it good art, nor worth justifying, in my opinion.
Video games require discernment. Violent video games require more discernment. You have to be honest with yourself--something really hard for someone like me to do on a consistent basis.
And again, this isn't ultimately about my opinion. This is for discussion purposes. To get you thinking on what you can handle and still glorify God. When you first think on it, it will be rather uncomfortable. One more video...
What if a game did show us the realities of war? What if a game exploited the interactivity of video games in such a way to show a harsh truth?
Luckily for us, there is such a game...
Luckily for us, there is such a game...