Video Games as Art?

The eye of the beholder indeed. Rockstar Games recent non-release Manhunt 2 is being touted as "art" by Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. Chairman Strauss Zelnick according to an article by Reuters. Manhunt 2 is apparently so violent and bloody that it has been banned in both Britain and Ireland. But is that why it was really banned? Let's look at the history:

The original Manhunt was released to a storm of controversy over the level of violence, the brutality of the killings, and the lack of a real "hero". The game was pulled from stands by a number of vender's shelves after the linking (by the media mind you, not the police) of the game to the murder of 14 year old Stefan Pakeerah by his friend Warren Leblanc, 17 (read more here). The victim's mother claimed the perpetrator was "obsessed" with the game. So, what happened after they pulled the game? Increased demand. Even before this incident the game was banned in New Zealand. So now we have a new version coming out and England and Ireland are already banning it (before release). Retribution? Preemptive banning?

So we really have two issues here, don't we? To ban or not to ban and is a game art. Obviously the second is a way of getting around the first but lets deal with the banning issue first. If I were Rockstar Games, I'd pray for bans. Instant press. Of course getting banned by a government is a bit more detrimental than getting banned by a vender (where people can still get the game). Regardless, the amount of press (including this article) that will be devoted to the game would cost millions if not BILLIONS in advertising dollars. The number of people that hear the name of your game will increase exponentially. And there are plenty of people out there that hear the words "bloody" "violent" and "ban" and will immediately buy/rent your game.

This reminds me of the "Bully" game that came out recently. Tons of press all because you played a "bully"… but guess what? You really didn't. The character can defend others from bullies as well as be a bully himself and picking on girls or smaller children was a no-no in the game. Of course, all the "controversy" came before anyone actually saw the game. Fortunately, Bully was actually a pretty good game but I can guarantee that it would have sold well anyhow. All the talk and gnashing of teeth is the type of stuff that gamers live for.

And therein lies the rub. If you "ban" or make a big deal about a game that you don't like, you practically guarantee the success of that game. Does that mean that no game, not matter how graphic, violent, or vile should ever be banned? Yes. That's what I'm saying. Let them come out. Give them a XXX rating. Make sure that parents (like Dina over at AVRant who diligently monitors her kids game ratings) don't just buy a game called "Bloody, Sticky, Naked Death" and have the excuse, "What, that was rated Mature?!? How was I supposed to know that?" Personal responsibility is one thing, and if you don't have it, it is your loss. But it is literally a kid's job to push the boundaries. If you can't be bothered to look at the rating on the video game that YOU are buying, then don't cry to me that your delinquent was "corrupted" by the mean ol' video game.

The argument of "games as art" is quite a hard pill for many to swallow. Are there artistic elements in games? Sure. I don't see how you can debate that. Plenty of opportunities for good writing good art and good music. Beyond that, one could argue that the skill that it takes to program some of these games requires an "artistic" touch. We all have expertise in "non-artistic" realms and have seen something that was so well done you just wish you could frame it. Maybe it was a well constructed email or a mathematical formula or the skillful way someone diffused a volatile situation… all these things and more take skill that can be perfected and elevated to the level of "art" by those familiar with the skill set.

But video games as art isn't really what is at the heart of this matter is it? No, the whole "art" subject got brought up simply because Manhunt 2 doesn't want to get banned in two large markets. One can't ban art without stirring up the ire of all sorts people. Even a whole government can come under fire for banning art. But nobody cares if you ban a game. You're looking out for the kids if you ban a game.

No one that I know of outside of the ratings boards has seen Manhunt 2. To say that any game is "art" may be a stretch for some but I think we can all agree that a game that no one has ever played surely can't be considered art. Take-Two Interactive has said that they'll stand by the game and bring it to market no matter what. I think what is more concerning to them than the ban is the AO (Adults Only) rating. The AO rating means that a) the game should only be sold to people 17 years old and up and b) retailers like Best Buy, Target, and Wal-Mart won't stock the game. Sure, in theory people can go to specialty stores and pick up a copy but with so many people buying at the big box stores, sales are sure to be affected. But they'll be much less affected now that gamers know that there is a ban in place. Anything violent enough to be kicked out of England (have you SEEN the footage of some of their soccer matches?) MUST be worth a look. Oh, and don't forget that Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft all forbid licensed third-party games with AO ratings according to Gamespot. Can you say dead in the water? I can.

No, the only way to really do something about games you don't like isn't to ban them, to lament the decline of western civilization, or to boycott them; it is to let them come out quietly. Let them hit the shelves with only the advertising that they paid for. Let them display proudly the AO rating in the specialty shops as Mature and lower rated titles get scooped up by the dozen at the big box stores. Do you really think that Rockstar or Take-Two would have delayed the launch of the game if it were only facing bans? No way. It's the rating that's stopped them dead in their tracks. Now they've got to figure out if they are going to contest the ruling, modify the game or just throw it out. There really aren't any other options at this point for them. Personally, I think it is complete BS that the consoles won't allow licensed AO games but that is fodder for a different editorial.

Of course, no one wants to see kids affected by games or act them out like Warren Leblanc may have done. It is a huge step from pressing a button on a controller and luring someone out in the woods to be murdered. If games are so influential, I probably need to worry about Gene pistol-whipping me to death like he did 15 times last night on Halo 2. People who kill people are going to kill people. If it wasn't a game that they aped, it'd be something else. If you really want to hurt these games, do it through the ratings and not bans. All bans do is draw attention. And as anyone that has ever spent 2 hours doing 25 mph on the highway in rush hour just because people slowed down to look at an accident knows, people love to look.