On a different note - Morality and Video games

[orichalcum]

The New York Times just gave an incredibly favorable review to the new Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City (aka NYC) game. It praises the game's graphics, its sandbox design, its music, its variability, etc...

Nowhere in the review does the reviewer (Seth Schiesel) comment on the relative morality of the game or what age group it might be suitable for.

Keep in mind that, aside from the robbery, assault, carjacking, etc.. plots....this is a game in which you (_can_ - Edited for accuracy, thanks redhound) hire prostitutes, have sex with them, and _then kill them._ That's what women are for in the game context. Not one of the numerous characters mentioned in the review is female. In the preview, female strippers at a strip club talk about how stripping arouses them. The online dating club is called "The Twat."

So...my question is - should reviews in this case query the moral and age-appropriate content of a game? Admittedly, I don't necessarily expect reviews of, say, Sex and the City to condemn it for questionable relationships, or Deadwood to be slammed because of all the obscenity. But I'd kinda like to know about it in both cases.

GTA crosses the line for me where I wish, I really wish, that someone was devoting all that effort to making a game with content that I'd feel comfortable playing. But while it may have great gameplay, the thought of selling it to 10-year-olds upsets me.

Am I overreacting? Should this game just be evaluated on the basis of whether it's fun to play?

Comments

[ellinor.livejournal.com]

I'm with viking_cat on this one. I understand why there's a lot of controversy over the game, and I question its gender politics on a personal level, but even as a heartfelt pacifist, I enjoy fantasy violence under some circumstances and respect the rights of others to do so even when I might not. This game has an age restriction for purchase, and individuals under that age should not be purchasing it. Stores who sell the game are going to enforce that because of the controversy surrounding the game. And just because I don't like an expressive work doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Frankly, there is a good opportunity for a "teaching moment" in this game, and in many war games, if people are paying attention. Although I don't know if enough people are.

So, maybe you (or maybe even I) think less of the reviewer on a personal level because he is someone who finds this particular brand of fantasy violence enjoyable. But people know what the game is about. What they want to know is whether it does that thing well. What the reviewer is telling them is that it does. So it's a useful review. Frankly, it would be a less useful review if it condemned the game for its subject matter rather than discussing its play characteristics, since people already know about one and not the other.

[ellinor.livejournal.com]

. . . which -- I should point out -- is not to say that a mention of mature subject matter or the like would have been out of place.

[orichalcum.livejournal.com]

But do people know what the game is about? You and I do, sure. But I'm thinking about the non-VG players reading the NYT who may be considering it as a present, and have (quite easily, really) missed the controversy over previous versions.

[ellinor.livejournal.com]

Which is why I say that a mention of mature subject matter would not have been out of place. In fact, given that the NYT is not a publication for gamers, as you rightly point out, it would probably be a good idea to give some concept of what the game is about just on general principles. But I think the point is that violent games are violent games, and information about mature subject matter in a review in which the reviewer thought the game play was excellent would be more properly stated as an admonition than as a condemnation. And it's just backup to the "M" for Mature, which should accomplish this on its own. I don't know that it's a reviewer's responsibility, although it's a good idea. I find the analogy to Deadwood to be a good one.

[meepodeekin.livejournal.com]

Of course people have the right to play the game. Why would any review of any type with any content affect that?

I would be pretty upset if a review left out any aspect that significantly affected playability. And for me, and in my experience plenty of others, the level of despicable behavior in the game affects its playability. Not the fantasy violence, or the mature level, per se, but the moral issues. I would also be upset if the reviewer left out a discussion of the actual game play. It's not a review to say "It's wrong, don't buy it." But I also don't think it's a responsible review to say "I had fun, buy it," if it is reasonable to expect a significant number of people won't find it fun.