Richard Lewis takes his weekly look at the true nature of what it is to be a gamer.

Read Richard's last column "Relationsips"HERE

This column is the sole opinion of the author and does not represent the opinion of Heaven Media Ltd or the opinion of any affiliates.

Gaming and controversy walk hand in hand across the beach like a couple approaching their seventh anniversary. Their stares may drift out across the water wishing it was different, longing to be with someone, anybody, else, but it just isn’t like that. They’ve made their bed now and they have to lie in it. There have been good times down the years and most people have arrived at that general conclusion that they are “good together” but the truth is that Gaming just wants a quiet life, just to be admired for his work and try and avoid all the drama, while Controversy… Well, she’s a crazy bitch and Gaming will never be enough to keep her satisfied entirely.

Gaming and controversy loving their life together

Right, that metaphor went so out of control I’ve even resorted to personification, which has no place outside of GCSE English and certainly – therefore – no place on Cadred. But the point is illustrated. Ever since gaming has been around it seems to have been steeped in controversy and it’s got to the point where I’m not even so sure as to what that means anymore. It certainly doesn’t seem to marry up to the simple definition of the word anymore. All controversial used to mean was “causing a dispute” but now it seems that every top selling game has to court controversy in some way or the other.

Some of the most recent cause for complaint revolved around the hugely popular and lucrative Modern Warfare 2. The much discussed “No Russian” level, where you play an undercover agent who has to watch a terrorist group massacre a large group of civilians at an airport. Hell, even though it makes absolutely no difference to the outcome of the game, you can even join in. Go on, indulge yourself… Or maybe you shouldn’t as some parts of the right wing media would then go on to call the game a terrorist training tool, as if members of the fictitious Al Qaeda sit around all day planning their latest atrocity based on games.

A scene from the No Russian level that caused a lot of controversy

“We shall have to call off the attack my brother… I simply can’t get past this level. Until I do, I will not be ready to battle the infidel.”

If you even manage to somehow circumnavigate the whole “if a game depicts terrorism, then it encourages it, but if a film or TV depicts it, then it’s somehow artsy and clever” nonsense you still have to tackle the Christian right. Back in December Gamer Politics reported on a Christian group calling for Modern Warfare 2 to be banned. Maine’s Christian Civic League said:

“We live in a different age, a time in which the public has been dangerously desensitized to violence. Instead of the normal emotions of remorse and pity called forth when someone commits an act of violence, many find a thrill in participating in violent video games.

But even in our own desensitized age, there are limits. Many members of the public are appalled at a new video game called "Modern Warfare 2." The script for the game was written by the same screenwriter who writes the popular television series "NCIS." In the game, the player becomes a member of a terrorist gang which guns down helpless men, women, and children waiting at an airport. This scene in the game is called the "Massacre Level.

There is a well-established cause and effect relationship between video games and school shootings, and parents of some of the victims have sued video game makers. Mercifully, our own state has been spared the occurrence of any school shootings, but the danger is growing with each passing day. The ready availability of drugs, violent video games, and outrageous rock music is a witch's brew which will eventually lead to tragedy here in Maine.”

You see, they did that classic Christian trick of starting out reasonably and then before you can say John the Baptist the opinions have turned into FACTS and curse your Satan worshipping behind if you disagree with them. I mean, can people like this really be allowed to comment on anything of a technological bent, while on the same website they use to decry Modern Warfare 2 they also accuse a local book store owner of being a witch and casting a spell on the head of their little group?

But it wasn’t just Daily Mail readers and cooky cults that had a problem with the level. Pretty much everyone did. The Russian government threatened to ban the game totally unless the level was removed. Japan and Germany modified the game so if you decided to get in on the hostage killing fun, it was game over. Over here in the UK, typically, it prompted a lot of talk but very little action. The hysterical Keith Vaz brought it to the attention of video games, then everyone remembered he’d been banging that drum for years and generally talked bollocks anyway. Fazan Mohammed, a prominent member of the British Muslim Forum, compared the game to the propaganda of Joseph Goebbels, before that was duly shot down as sensationalist bollocks. But perhaps the most sickening display was from TV agony aunt Jennifer Trent-Hughes who was quoted on MCVUK.com as saying:

“I felt sick to my stomach and I was frightened. People are screaming, there’s blood splattering all over the screen. It is absolutely awful. I sat there with my son, who’s 15, and he was like [covers eyes].”

Apart from being bollocks, you have to wonder what else she’s put her kids through just to prove a point.

GTA 4 let's you sample life as a serial killer - why?

But here’s the thing. Even someone like myself who believes that if something is a fiction it should be able to depict whatever it wants, in whatever way, free from sermonising or judgement, especially from those who don’t even engage with whatever it is. Most people who call for books to be banned never read them, most people who call for albums to be burned never listen to them, people calling for films to be censored never watch them and certainly those who call for games to be banned have never played them.

Yet even I have to ask – why was that level in there? I mean, it’s a cut scene at best. Is the gaming experience enhanced in any way shape or form by being able to drill down wave after wave of unarmed civilian sprites? It might make you feel good after a long commute, but in terms of what it brings to the gamer’s table it’s minimal. But we all know that why it was included can be boiled down to two reasons. The first and smallest being the need to push the envelope so the question can be asked “would we even be talking about this if it was a movie?” because if that’s asked enough times people might stop being so hysterical about the whole gaming deal. But secondly, and mostly, they are baiting. Yes. Baiting.

Of course they are. They know the minute that goes in to their game all hell will break loose and with that “uproar” comes inch after inch of column space that they don’t have to pay for. Free advertising with a sensationalist bent that makes people who perhaps wouldn’t ordinarily play the game decide to get a copy to “see what all the fuss is about” – you just got free advertising, increased sales and ensured a place in the annals of gaming history and all you had to do was shoot an unarmed virtual woman in the back. Not bad.

Don’t be fooled into thinking it’s anything new either. Back in the days of the Atari 2600, a time before the internet and when geeks were too scared to buy pornography, you could actually purchase adult cartridges. They would typically be a game where two badly drawn sprites would have to move close together and this somehow was considered erotic. People actually debated whether they would have a corrupting effect on people using them and in the furor a load of bedroom coders made some decent sums of money for an absolutely awful product. The most easily recalled of these titles would be the odious “Custer’s Revenge” where the aim of the game was for you, playing as a naked General Custer, to have sex with a large breasted Native American woman as often as you could, typically while she was tied to a totem pole. Seriously. And if you think that’s awful, read the “Carry-On” style puns that were on the back of the box: “She's not about to take it lying down, by George!” it proclaimed.

Incredibly this was deemed pornographic in the 80s

Controversy has become little more than another tool in the increasingly sophisticated arsenal of advertising. It’s the reason why I can be become a serial killer of homosexuals in Grand Theft Auto 4, because it wasn’t just enough to beat hookers to death to get your money back this time around. It’s why Manhunt 2 went out of its way to offend by allegedly including images of real murder victims. It’s why they put fatalities in Mortal Kombat – you’ve won the fight, does it really matter if you rip the guys heart out? It’s why Carmageddon rewarded you for mowing down pedestrians before the BBFC decided that if they were turned into zombies it was OK. Every cause for complaint is something to be welcomed and there’s one form of advertising that goes out on prime time, on every channel and is watched by people across the widest demographic: The news.

So controversy equals attention and very often money. One of the things that makes me laugh about e-sports is the almost puritanical way in which people preach about the perceived idea of professionalism, that if ANY controversy is courted whatsoever it is some kind of massive problem. You could have the most well behaved Counter-Strike player in the world, someone who routinely donates his organs to needy kids while completing fun runs, and nothing will detract from the fact that he plays a game where he has to shoot people in the face, plant bombs and dress up like a terrorist. If CS was on mainstream television it’d have to be rigged so the counter-terrorists always won anyway and the players on the terrorist team would have to play up to a script, like the English General in every American movie ever, or 80s wrestling when it was OK to be racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and you could solve everything through violence.

Most people involved with competitive gaming are themselves, without even knowing it, part of some sort of broad social experiment. Because surely are we not proof against everything that the media has alleged about video games? Most of us play daily, some for two to three hours a day, a significant number for more. We’re all supposedly saturated in this violence, continually exposed to these games that would subvert our better judgement. Yet are we all not normal to the point of being completely mundane? Even the few eccentrics that invariably crop up are tame by the true measure of eccentric standards. Where are all the news reports on just how yawn inducingly normal we all are, about how many of us actually played through “No Russian” and then proceeded to board a plane later that month with absolutely no repercussions. It doesn’t shift papers, it doesn’t fill news slots and in that sense the press are – of course – as guilty as the gaming industry itself for simply trying to coax a response out of you about something you’ve probably never thought about or even cared about.

The rest of the gaming industry appreciates the value of a bit of controversy yet us, lurking in the darkest corner of gaming where the light rarely shines, seem convinced that if we all appear saintlike people will start appreciating what we do more. I don’t think they will – it’s all about the game at the end of the day, the same way that the true heroes of the 1950s B-movies were the monsters, not the guys trying to kill them. I don’t think a bit of attitude is going to shake the foundations too much and right now we could probably do with something else to talk about anyway. You know, let’s get with the times and start marketing ourselves a little bit better. We’re already playing the right kind of games to get in the papers and all the good behaviour in the world isn’t going to stop the moral minority trying to link the games we all play in a completely healthy way to the next act of violence when society fails one of its citizens.

Sometimes games can take difficult subjects and approach them smartly - still generates controversy though

Incidentally though, there are those occasions where the controversy is just the veneer and what lies beneath is actually a smart critique on modern society, or something equally thought provoking. The deliberately tastelessly titled “Super Columbine Massacre RPG!” wasn’t what it appeared to be on the surface – The press called this game tasteless, accused it of trivialising a tragedy and martyring two murderers. As always, they completely missed the point. The game itself was not only a look at the societal causes that triggers these traumatic flashpoints, but it also looked at the individuals themselves. The players take the role of the gunmen Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and at various intervals the game provides flashbacks to the genuine documented instances of bullying and abuse they suffered. Along the way the game takes swipes at the media and the arguments made that put the blame for the tragedy on popular culture, such as music and video games. It is no more trivialising the event than Michael Moore’s documentary, which used the tragedy as a leap-off point to explore gun ownership in the USA. Ah, but it’s a game… Perhaps the problem lies in the name. Games shouldn’t be serious, no more than cartoons should be adult themed. Are we really so linguistically bound?

Sometimes things have to shock to genuinely get their message across, sometimes it is just a cynical marketing ploy and other times it is because the media is too brazen in showing their agenda. But ultimately controversy is what you make of it. The people having these debates about the games rarely look at facts, evidence or anything beyond their own preconceived ideals and in a lot of cases people are happy to exploit that small-minded view to make money. It is a complete cynical bastardisation of the freedom of speech issue, but amid all this controversy it is at least pushing the discussion of what we can and can’t do in a virtual world towards more sensible outcomes.

The Gamer understands that “When a thing ceases to be a subject of controversy, it ceases to be a subject of interest.” (said by William Hazlett in the 1800s) So keep the controversy coming.