If Jerry Springer Made Games...

I was amused yesterday by something so childish, that I could not help but play through the entire game. I traded in a few games and got two oldies but goodies (Condemned 2 and The Darkness) and one of the worst games I've ever played, Rogue Warrior. It isn't that the gameplay is broken (which it is), or that the graphics are pale in comparison to most other games (which they kind of are). Hell, it's not even that the game is glitchy (Alpha Protocol aspires to be as buggy as this game is), or the fact that it's a whopping 3 hours long (yes, I beat the game in one sitting). What makes the game bad is the writing. By writing, I mean, taking Mickey Rourke out to a bar, get him drunk, and record him rambling, making sure to use the most vulgar lines in this game.

This was kind of amusing due to the fact that it made the game feel all the less real. I mean, sure, it's pretty unrealistic to run up to a random guy and stab him without him seeing you, but when you hear, "Drop dead, motherfucker, you motherfuckin' amateur!" you cannot help but laugh. That is, until you realize that this is one of several "one-liners" he uses that seem like he's a rambling drunk, who would fit better in Condemned 2.

I understand putting language like that in a game meant for a mature audience for realism (or in the case of Killer7, surrealism), but by the second level and the second time hearing, "C*** Breath fuckin' Commie Motherfuckers!" you really have to think that a two year-old with Tourrette's and a bizarre infatuation with Reservoir Dogs wrote the game. Oh, and that's not the worst part. For some reason, the character, based on Dick Marcinko (a real life Navy SEAL), has a strange trait of talking about his enemies penis size and , why not, Polar Bear Testicles. I am pretty sure that if Marcinko saw this game in action, the developers would not be safe. Ever.

Being in the Army, I've heard some pretty vulgar things, but this game takes the cake. It's offensive to others and its pretty damn offensive that this is how people see the military. But, at the same time, I can't deny the fact that its so over the top bad that it's almost redeeming, then back to being offensive again. It takes away from the fact that I cannot review the gameplay of the game because it's just another FPS (a phrase I usually hate, but applies), only with more language in it. The only thing this game does to stand out is use the "f-bomb" so much, that George Carlin is begging people to create another vulgar word because "fuck" has lost its meaning.

Opinion: Violence In Games; The Good, The Bad, And The Disgusting

Note: This article on CNN is what got me to write this post. Your opinions are welcome, as long as they're thought out, non-confrontational opinions. Debates are welcome, not immature shouting matches.

It's a long standing debate that violent video games "create" or "encourage" real life violence. Years ago, a man attacked another man by biting his head like Blanka from "Street Fighter II." Another shot several people because he thought he was in the game "Doom." What seems to have began as a concerning epidemic has become more of a boiling point for the media, and a joke to everyone else. For example, in the Disney movie, Wild Hogs, the Sheriff mentions that he took an online course, and for shooting a gun, it said, "just play 'Doom.'"

On the media side, you have psychologists saying that violent video games make violent people, but only do studies on subjects and patients prone to violent behavior, or come with a all ready biased opinion. On the other hand, you have psychologists who do tests on subjects who aren't prone to violent behavior, and have a preordained bias as well. There's a simple test that scientists can do that will put this issue to rest. And, it's one so simple, that I'm surprised that no one has thought of it: Ask the gamers, "Where do you draw the line with violence in games and in real life?"

I doubt it's a secret to anyone who knows me; I am a gamer. My friends are gamers. My brothers are gamers. No one in my circle of family and friends have gone off to hurt anyone for no reason. I never went off to hurt anyone for no reason (outside of psychological issues). Currently, I'm playing more violent video games than I have before, what between "Deadly Premonition," "Borderlands," "Dante's Inferno," "God of War 3," and "Heavy Rain." Have I had a desire to hurt people lately? No. Am I a good test subject for this? Yes. But, I can't speak for everyone who plays these games, as several psychological factors could change one's way of thinking. Also, notice most of these games are either shooters, slashers, or contain violent themes.

Now, for a new test: Ask me if I'd play a game that simulates rape. My answer: No. It's disgusting to even comprehend playing a game where I have to rape someone to win. I mean, I even stopped playing "Quake" when I saw an image of a mutilated (i.e. cut open in a graphic manner) Jesus Christ on a wall. Why would I play a game that glorifies such a degree of violence that in nearly every culture is so vulgar and despicable that a lot of people want a punishment of death or castration for it? My opinion of rape is that it is, in fact, worse than murder due to the fact that the rapist may force the victim to live with the crime, not to mention the fact that the suspect/perp is taking away something a victim may never get back. Who in the right mind would model a video game off of this fact?

Well, Japan has done several. What's even worse is, in the CNN article listed above, they mention a game that was banned a year ago. It was released three years ago, and just now are people getting involved with it. How do I know it was released three years ago? SomethingAwful.com reviewed the game, along with several other Hentai titles. I am not shocked at this story. I am shocked, however, that it took the mainstream media this long to report it. The Japanese officials probably never replied (save for the one) because they were dumbfounded by the fact that this is just now a big story.

My question is this, though: With games having much more mature story lines now, are we heading in that direction? "Deadly Premonition," a game heavily based on the series "Twin Peaks," has a main character mentioning a case he was working on where a killer would rape and murder women and use their skulls as cups for urination, drinking, or both. This is meant to appall, and appall it does. In a more mainstream example, Madison Paige, on of the main characters in the game "Heavy Rain," is heavily hinted at being a rape victim from the first minute you play her. In fact, you play a flashback of her attack (the chase and assault) until she's pinned to which she wakes up before anything worse can be seen. Later in the game, she's almost raped again, but she fights back against her attacker and eventually kills him.

Both games contain the mention of rape, or at least the hint of it. "Deadly Premonition" uses it to show the graphic and disturbing cases your character has solved. "Heavy Rain" uses rape as a means of what motivates a character's desire to survive. Both games do their purpose well, without showing it. Both games also don't require you to rape anyone. As far as I know, no American game designer felt the obscene urge to fit a rape scene into a game. Yet our movie makers over here seen to have no issue with it. The Hills Have Eyes series have rape scenes that seem to try to top each other in graphic detail... but they serve as plot points of how cruel the mutants are, and their violent desire to reproduce. More recently, the movie Chloe contains a young woman raping an older woman. Why? Is it necessary to the story? Do I even want to know?

There's a point where violence in entertainment can go to far. Maybe it's a slippery slope argument, but with the rape content in movies now, do we need it in video games. Should anyone be playing a video game where they need to rape to win, or even kill innocent people to live? Even "Modern Warfare 2" made the killing of civilians optional in the mission "No Russian." Why should we have a game on the market that glorifies degrading women and men in one of the most heinous acts a person can do to another? Have we drifted this far from morality?

The competent gamer knows what should be considered right and wrong. Controversy buzzed with "Bioshock" when it was announced that you could kill the Little Sisters. The same with the "Bad Nanny" trophy for killing unbaptized babies in "Dante's Inferno." Yes, both situations are gruesome to imagine, but with two different outcomes. In "Bioshock," you could "cure" the Little Sisters, making them "human." In "Dante's Inferno," you can absolve the babies. The offer of two moral choices is there for violence all ready.

Finally, video games are used to escape real life, and forget the bad. You can be the hero, or the villain, but you should know it's fantasy. Adding rape into a game will just be a reminder that this act of violence is all too real. Heroes shouldn't go raping women, children, or men. We have games that are extremely cruel (including a Nazi Holocaust simulator) all ready. Why should we try to make it worse?