Violence, Sanctioned and Unsanctioned

There is an incredibly insightful article by Clive Thomspon in Wired Magazine about the mostly evaporated line between authority and criminality in modern video games. I think it’s worth quoting in bulk, so here goes:

Nine times out of 10, when you’re blowing people’s chests open with hollow-point bullets, you aren’t playing as a terrorist or criminal. No, you’re playing as a cop, a soldier or a special-forces agent — a member of society’s forces of law and order.

Consider our gaming history. In Doom, the game that began it all, you were a Marine. Then came a ceaseless parade of patriotic, heart-in-hand World War II games, in which you merrily blow the skulls off Japanese and German soldiers under the explicit authority of the U.S. of A. Yet anti-gaming critics didn’t really explode with indignation until Grand Theft Auto 3 came along — the first massively popular modern game where the tables turned, and you finally played as a cop-killing thug.

Why weren’t these detractors equally up in arms about, say, the Rainbow Spear [sic] series? Because games lay bare the conservative logic that governs brutal acts. Violence — even horrible, war-crimes-level stuff — is perfectly fine as long as you commit it under the aegis of the state. If you’re fighting creepy Arabs and urban criminals, go ahead — dual-wield those Uzis, equip your frag grenades and let fly. Nobody will get much upset.

Indeed, conservatives have long been fans of the Dirty Harry beat-down. Consider what Bill Clark — a former NYPD office who consulted on True Crime: New York City — said about the game in a recent news report: “Marcus is the type of cop we all wished we could be. He doesn’t need warrants to burst into buildings, search cars, or
people. He doesn’t have to deal with politics or property damage or paperwork.”

These days, Dick Cheney is fiercely lobbying to grant the government virtually the same powers. And indeed, Congress is set to re-up the Patriot Act, preserving and extending the CIA’s special, magnified powers to detain and wiretap suspects — their “extra life” upgrades, as it were. If art imitates life, maybe it’s no wonder that
we’ve seen a rise in games that blur the lines between criminals and state authority.

The irony is that, in reality, New York’s actual police have moved in the opposite direction. They’ve become more successful at keeping the peace by being less bloodthirsty. In the ’90s, they drastically reduced the city’s crime rate by “community policing” and beat walking, the sort of quiet, low-key work that makes a city genuinely secure. (Wired News: The Bad Lieutenant)

This has always been my theory as to why we make so many World War II shooters. I mean, aside from the fact that they sell well, in Western culture, the killing of Nazis is probably the most approved form of murder there is. Killing is okay if it’s morally righteous, which is again why military shooters in general are common. Military violence is the ultimate in sanctioned killing. Of course, it’s only sanctioned if it’s the right military. No surprise that Mercenaries, a game where you play a mercenary operating against the North Korean government, caused an outcry in North Korea (who would have guessed?) but nary a peep here stateside.

I always used to joke that iD got away with the incredible violence in Wolfenstein 3D because nobody could argue with killing Nazis. What did they do for its successor, Doom? You killed demons. Who can argue with that? But behind the joke lies the fact that sanctioned violence plays an important role in almost all violent media. Saving Private Ryan was a visceral, violent movie unlike any other, but nobody complained about it. But Reservior Dogs is a completely different animal.

Not sure if I have a conclusion here or anything. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.