Joel Was Right
Gold Member
Original article
The transition from two-dimension to three-dimensional space in graphics was motivated by the attempt by programmers to emerge gamers into an entertainment experience that was historically defined by simple lines, shapes and colours relying on the imagination of those in front of the screen. According to Chris Donahue [3], a former project manager at Microsoft, the real ultimate goal was to develop a fully realised environment that you could immerse yourself in. The first such video game that mimicked a three-dimensional setting, using vector graphics, was called Battlezone. Developed in 1980 by Atari, it gained popularity for being the only piece of software in a market that was saturated by two-dimensional titles by offering the gamer a first-person visual perspective. However, Atari did not only draw attention and admiration from the general public but tentatively also the United States army marking the beginning of what was to become a difficult relationship between the industry and the private military complex. The founder of Atari Nolan Bushnell recounts that, it [Battlezone] was perceived by them as being important. Aaron Ruby co-author of Smartbomb explains that it was recognised thatBattlezone was, and more importantly, that videogames were now not simply just toys but that the models [graphics] shown in entertainment can be modified to teach also things. As a consequence from that approach of delegates, Atari began to simultaneously produce for them software known as Army Battlezone, which ultimately became a training program for what would eventually be known as the militarys Bradley Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The ethical implications of the incident were not lost on several of the key developers employed by Atari who then responded with the decision to resign in protest, with Ed Rothberg, the original programmer amongst them.
The enquiries being raised about the consequences of immersive three-dimensional space portraying violence, and its cultural influence, perhaps first began when LucasArts Entertainment produced the title Rescue on Fractalus. The developers used a recursive algorithm called fractals; a mathematical equation to give shapes the illusion of depth which was crucial in the art design of the game as it aimed to recreate a piloting experience. The title originally did not have any violence, recalls creator David Fox. It was a philosophical decision not to have any of that in it. I didnt want to shoot things. A meeting with George Lucas, however, would ultimately alter this. He wanted players of the game to be able to fire a weapon. I really wanted a non-violent game, but he said no. The creator of the popular cultural phenomenon Star Wars could be accused by some of introducing violence to youngsters through this medium, but the counter argument is that he was merely reacting to a pre-existing demand from the audience; that he was delivering what society wanted. Its a debate that would form the core argument is the popularity of violent games a reflection of our culture or is it inherently propagated by the industry for exploitive reasons? Either way, it did not hinder the development of the technology. In that respect, Clinton Keith the executive of High Moon studios says, We started to get the tools such as specialised processors that could do the floating point calculations of, for example, what lighting does in the real world. It was this, the pursuit of artistic expression, advocates of the industry would argue encouraged programmers to create more mature and richer content. Unfortunately, from a public relations perspective, the genre that took advantage of this new technology was the first-person shooter; games that were based on the player carrying a weapon and interacting through an environment where they would have to destroy objects and shoot at physical representations of human beings. This led to the development of Wolftenstein 3D by the company id Software in 1995.
What was significant about its release, and in the greater context of societys reaction to violent narrative in games, was its banning in one country in Europe. Wolftenstein 3D was based on a fictional scenario requiring the player to traverse through a setting in 1940 Germany decorated by Nazi swastikas, with the anthem of the Nazi state being played in the background; depictions that constituted as an illegal crime in modern day Germany. Subsequently, examples involving the portrayal of blood or its likeness would become part of a theme that would be deemed grounds for the circulation of the title to be prohibited in not only Germany but also Australia and Scandinavia setting a global precedence where other nations signalled their intent to follow in banning video games they deemed tasteless. Pham and Sandell (2003) pointed out countries like Germany, for example, whilst prohibiting certain imagery of violence on the pretext that it was inappropriate or harmful for the young audience, and yet permitted the use of nudity and potent sexuality in the same games reflect the distinct cultures and traditions of different markets. [4]
The congressional hearings led by Senator Liebermann led to the establishment of the Entertainment Ratings Software Board (ERSB) in 1994 in response to public pressure. It was believed that the industry would moderate violence in their games by enforcing a rating based on the appropriateness of the content for a said age group. If a title was deemed only appropriate for adults, then that would be stated on the cover of the title in retail stores the hope being parents would be reluctant to purchase it for their children; a tactic that would presumably communicate to publishers through decreased sales. These types of video games, however, did not just continue to attain market success but they arguably also increased in their visual realism and consequently grew more grotesque in their violence, and particularly in Japan, their sexuality which led to the implementation of their own regulation board in 2002. The growth in popularity of these games directly led to criminality and mass violence, critics argued. When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold walked into their Columbine High School and indiscriminately gunned down students and members of staff, it challenged the preconceptions of natural human behaviour. The prevalent disbelief that young men could commit such a heinous act without influence was strengthened by the discovery that the two intensively played violent shooter games such as Doom and the well-known Wolfenstein 3D and thus reignited a debate that would continue alongside the development of graphical capability and processing power for the consoles..Ultimately in the midst of this debate and controversy, the relationship between the military and violent video games ironically received little attention by comparison. The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers made a damning remark in 1999 that Britains Ministry of Defence was overly aggressive and exploitative in its pursuit to meet quotas by targeting the young. A spokesperson for Amnesty International told the BBC that Britain had the largest number of recruited under 18-year olds in any of Europes armed forces and was the only country that actually deploys 17-year olds into armed conflicts [5]. The question of the militarys conduct in its recruiting efforts has historically been a point of embarrassment for the government but the behaviour wasnt limited to only one country. Shortly after publicised reports of the US army failing to meet its recruitment target in the early 2000s, Americas Army was released leveraging on the militant rhetoric found in a post 9/11 society. Video game journalist Wagner James Au described, It was very much designed to be an accurate simulation of the way youd train in the Army. What was significant about the project was that the army developed the game itself, or in-house as its known in the industry. They also took on a leading role in the marketing of the title by controversially sending uniformed soldiers to the same gaming conventions where young adults made a large portion o the attendees. Furthermore, and most significantly, Americas Army was completely free to the public. It was an open statement of intent and reversal of policy from the same government that was holding Congressional hearings on the legality and morality of portraying violence in video games to now have its army commission a similar title from a military perspective.
1. ABC News article, Video Game Report Card Has Mixed Results, Jan 2011
2. Clark, Terry, ed. 2004. City as Entertainment Machine. Oxford: Elsevier
3. I, Videogames. Discovery Channel documentary, 2007
4. Los Angeles Times article, June 2003, In Germany, Video Games Showing Frontal Nudity Are OK, but Blood Is Verboten
5. BBC article, 1999, UK targeted over child soldiers
There are vulnerable children out there who will begin to think about acting them out
Those are the words [1] of United States Senator Joseph Liebermann during a press conference in the mid 90s reflecting on the Senate hearings on the question of the level of violence portrayed in video games. The 90s saw the evolution of computing technology reaching three-dimensional space, impacting the design and consequently visual detail of the medium. The concern of video game violence spurned directly from the increased realism in visual likeness that certain games, such as ones involving warfare and depictions of blood, began to demonstrate and would evoke a controversy, a moral panic [2] that would in 1993 see it reach the political echelons in Capitol Hill. Libermanns comments itself drew both support and criticism between gaming enthusiasts and members of the media who claimed to be speaking on behalf of concerned parents; it quickly became a debate between two generations, the young and the old.
The transition from two-dimension to three-dimensional space in graphics was motivated by the attempt by programmers to emerge gamers into an entertainment experience that was historically defined by simple lines, shapes and colours relying on the imagination of those in front of the screen. According to Chris Donahue [3], a former project manager at Microsoft, the real ultimate goal was to develop a fully realised environment that you could immerse yourself in. The first such video game that mimicked a three-dimensional setting, using vector graphics, was called Battlezone. Developed in 1980 by Atari, it gained popularity for being the only piece of software in a market that was saturated by two-dimensional titles by offering the gamer a first-person visual perspective. However, Atari did not only draw attention and admiration from the general public but tentatively also the United States army marking the beginning of what was to become a difficult relationship between the industry and the private military complex. The founder of Atari Nolan Bushnell recounts that, it [Battlezone] was perceived by them as being important. Aaron Ruby co-author of Smartbomb explains that it was recognised thatBattlezone was, and more importantly, that videogames were now not simply just toys but that the models [graphics] shown in entertainment can be modified to teach also things. As a consequence from that approach of delegates, Atari began to simultaneously produce for them software known as Army Battlezone, which ultimately became a training program for what would eventually be known as the militarys Bradley Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The ethical implications of the incident were not lost on several of the key developers employed by Atari who then responded with the decision to resign in protest, with Ed Rothberg, the original programmer amongst them.
The enquiries being raised about the consequences of immersive three-dimensional space portraying violence, and its cultural influence, perhaps first began when LucasArts Entertainment produced the title Rescue on Fractalus. The developers used a recursive algorithm called fractals; a mathematical equation to give shapes the illusion of depth which was crucial in the art design of the game as it aimed to recreate a piloting experience. The title originally did not have any violence, recalls creator David Fox. It was a philosophical decision not to have any of that in it. I didnt want to shoot things. A meeting with George Lucas, however, would ultimately alter this. He wanted players of the game to be able to fire a weapon. I really wanted a non-violent game, but he said no. The creator of the popular cultural phenomenon Star Wars could be accused by some of introducing violence to youngsters through this medium, but the counter argument is that he was merely reacting to a pre-existing demand from the audience; that he was delivering what society wanted. Its a debate that would form the core argument is the popularity of violent games a reflection of our culture or is it inherently propagated by the industry for exploitive reasons? Either way, it did not hinder the development of the technology. In that respect, Clinton Keith the executive of High Moon studios says, We started to get the tools such as specialised processors that could do the floating point calculations of, for example, what lighting does in the real world. It was this, the pursuit of artistic expression, advocates of the industry would argue encouraged programmers to create more mature and richer content. Unfortunately, from a public relations perspective, the genre that took advantage of this new technology was the first-person shooter; games that were based on the player carrying a weapon and interacting through an environment where they would have to destroy objects and shoot at physical representations of human beings. This led to the development of Wolftenstein 3D by the company id Software in 1995.
What was significant about its release, and in the greater context of societys reaction to violent narrative in games, was its banning in one country in Europe. Wolftenstein 3D was based on a fictional scenario requiring the player to traverse through a setting in 1940 Germany decorated by Nazi swastikas, with the anthem of the Nazi state being played in the background; depictions that constituted as an illegal crime in modern day Germany. Subsequently, examples involving the portrayal of blood or its likeness would become part of a theme that would be deemed grounds for the circulation of the title to be prohibited in not only Germany but also Australia and Scandinavia setting a global precedence where other nations signalled their intent to follow in banning video games they deemed tasteless. Pham and Sandell (2003) pointed out countries like Germany, for example, whilst prohibiting certain imagery of violence on the pretext that it was inappropriate or harmful for the young audience, and yet permitted the use of nudity and potent sexuality in the same games reflect the distinct cultures and traditions of different markets. [4]
The congressional hearings led by Senator Liebermann led to the establishment of the Entertainment Ratings Software Board (ERSB) in 1994 in response to public pressure. It was believed that the industry would moderate violence in their games by enforcing a rating based on the appropriateness of the content for a said age group. If a title was deemed only appropriate for adults, then that would be stated on the cover of the title in retail stores the hope being parents would be reluctant to purchase it for their children; a tactic that would presumably communicate to publishers through decreased sales. These types of video games, however, did not just continue to attain market success but they arguably also increased in their visual realism and consequently grew more grotesque in their violence, and particularly in Japan, their sexuality which led to the implementation of their own regulation board in 2002. The growth in popularity of these games directly led to criminality and mass violence, critics argued. When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold walked into their Columbine High School and indiscriminately gunned down students and members of staff, it challenged the preconceptions of natural human behaviour. The prevalent disbelief that young men could commit such a heinous act without influence was strengthened by the discovery that the two intensively played violent shooter games such as Doom and the well-known Wolfenstein 3D and thus reignited a debate that would continue alongside the development of graphical capability and processing power for the consoles..Ultimately in the midst of this debate and controversy, the relationship between the military and violent video games ironically received little attention by comparison. The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers made a damning remark in 1999 that Britains Ministry of Defence was overly aggressive and exploitative in its pursuit to meet quotas by targeting the young. A spokesperson for Amnesty International told the BBC that Britain had the largest number of recruited under 18-year olds in any of Europes armed forces and was the only country that actually deploys 17-year olds into armed conflicts [5]. The question of the militarys conduct in its recruiting efforts has historically been a point of embarrassment for the government but the behaviour wasnt limited to only one country. Shortly after publicised reports of the US army failing to meet its recruitment target in the early 2000s, Americas Army was released leveraging on the militant rhetoric found in a post 9/11 society. Video game journalist Wagner James Au described, It was very much designed to be an accurate simulation of the way youd train in the Army. What was significant about the project was that the army developed the game itself, or in-house as its known in the industry. They also took on a leading role in the marketing of the title by controversially sending uniformed soldiers to the same gaming conventions where young adults made a large portion o the attendees. Furthermore, and most significantly, Americas Army was completely free to the public. It was an open statement of intent and reversal of policy from the same government that was holding Congressional hearings on the legality and morality of portraying violence in video games to now have its army commission a similar title from a military perspective.
1. ABC News article, Video Game Report Card Has Mixed Results, Jan 2011
2. Clark, Terry, ed. 2004. City as Entertainment Machine. Oxford: Elsevier
3. I, Videogames. Discovery Channel documentary, 2007
4. Los Angeles Times article, June 2003, In Germany, Video Games Showing Frontal Nudity Are OK, but Blood Is Verboten
5. BBC article, 1999, UK targeted over child soldiers
