John Riccitiello is ready to rumble. Speaking at the Royal Television Society's Cambridge Convention, the CEO of Electronic Arts recently told a group of television luminaries that games are no more violent than film and television. His ammunition? Clips from shows like 24 and CSI and films like 300 and Kill Bill. "Compared with programmes like 24 or The Shield, or any movie from Quentin Tarantino, games are not any more violent," said Riccitiello, according to the Times Online, though he then cited the decision to ban rival publisher Rockstar's Manhunt 2 as part of "a rating system that works." Not that it would happen, but I wonder what kind of tune Riccitiello would be humming if a ratings board suddenly opted to ban his company's upcoming shooter Crysis? Anyway...
Challenging Riccitiello's assertion, ITV chairman Michael Grade hit back, saying "Those acts of violence [shown in games] exist in a moral vacuum, whereas in films and television, it is set in a moral context, with real consequences, such as pain."
Come again? Is Grade implying that game violence isn't set in a moral context? That TV show violence is? That the "moral" consequences in the immutable 40-45 minute broadcast space of an episode of CSI are somehow more "real" than the dynamic, interactive way random acts of violence in a game like Grand Theft Auto III are effectively punished by escalating your notoriety with the police to the point of stymying your progress? Is one form of fiction any more "real" than another anyway? It it possible that "interactivity" changes how "real" something is to a viewer? Isn't that the point of "playing" as opposed to sitting on a couch and sponging up pre-packaged simulacra?
Speaking of "morality," exactly whose definition are we going by these days? A medium whose highlights of late include stuff like Fear Factor? Wife Swap? World's Wildest Police Videos?
What's the "moral context" of a show like Jackass? Anyone?
And what about the almost lurid way the "news" media increasingly highlights stories involving extreme violence? The way certain cable news networks played and replayed (and still occasionally replay) video of the infamous "pizza bomber," including the part where he goes ka-boom? Since it's "news," it's Katy-smash-the-door AOK?
So let's see if I've got this right: "Moral context" regarding TV is basically analogous to "high ratings," i.e. "profit," which, according to Milton Friedman, is the social responsibility of a business. Is that maybe what you mean by "moral," Michael?
I don't mean to rag on TV. I just don't get where this guy's coming from. You can't change the plot or denouement or implied moral context of a TV show. You can't really learn by watching TV the way you can playing a game. With TV, it's the storyteller's morals or the highway. With games, on the other hand, they're increasingly yours.
And that's really the point, isn't it?
Everything I Know About Right and Wrong I Learned From Watching Shows Where Guys Get Their Private Parts Stuck in Equine Ice Sculptures.
