Why are new video games still being scrutinized for violence while other mediums aren’t?

Quantic Dream, a gaming developer responsible for hits such as “Heavy Rain” and “Beyond: Two Souls,” released a trailer for its game “Detroit: Become Human” in early December on Playstation’s YouTube channel during Paris Games Week.

It was met with immediate backlash from child advocacy groups stating that abusers will “get off on this stuff” and that it encourages violence within children. However, this is a poor judgment based on theories that don’t make sense.

The gameplay trailer revolves around Kara, an android helper for a man named Todd and his daughter Alice, whom Todd blames for his failed marriage. After an intense scene Alice runs up the stairs. Then the player has two options: intervene or don’t. If the player intervenes then Kara kills the abusive father and saves Alice. If Kara does not, Todd beats Alice to death off-screen and lays her limp body on the bed.

It sounds intense, because it’s supposed to be. The entire point of the trailer, aside from selling the game’s concept, is to show that actions or inactions have consequences. Sitting aside and doing nothing will have a consequence just as much as taking action does. It also shows that doing the right thing does, sometimes involves extreme actions.

According to the Daily Mail,  Andy Burrows of the UK’s National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children said, “Any video game that trivialises or normalises child abuse, neglect or domestic violence for entertainment is unacceptable.”

However, when gaming or other forms of entertainment show violence or other controversial material, they are not trying to normalize it or advocate for it. It’s used as a means of storytelling and plot development.

Of course child abuse is never okay, but just because something is wrong does not mean creators can’t include it in works of art such as video games. If art is supposed to imitate life, then art should imitate all facets of life, not just the bright side of it.

This backlash begs the question — why attack a game when abuse has been seen in various forms of entertainment for years? Vivid depictions of child abuse has been prevalent in TV, movies, books or music videos, yet there is no outcry for change or censorship. In the movies “Jaws” and “It” children are murdered — in “Radio Flyer” kids are severely beaten by their father on multiple occasions.

What makes “Detroit: Become Human” so different? Because it’s interactive?

The notion that video games encourage violence is a fallacy that has been disproven time and time again. A person simply picking up a controller and playing a violent game does not make them violent. Just because a character in the game can go and beat up random pedestrians in “Grand Theft Auto” doesn’t mean the player is going to do the same in the future.  Or just like watching “Beauty and the Beast” will not make anyone want to have an intimate relationship with a humanoid beast.

Some claim abusers will be “getting off” on material like this, but abusers are abusers. No number of pixelated frames or game scenarios are going to change the fact that they are scum that prey on people. It’s not going to make them change in either direction. On the other hand, a switch is not going to automatically turn on in a normal person’s head to make them become a sociopathic violent monster.

While no one wants to see children get harmed or abused, child abuse appearing in a work of fiction is not going to make the problem worse nor is it going to turn a legion of gamers into awful human beings. On a grander scale, “Detroit: Become Human” illustrates what anyone with any common sense knows, actions have consequences and we need to be able to live with the decision we make — no matter how horrible it might be.

Originally published in the Daily Aztec in January 2018.

No laughing matter

How a comic book cover pushed the limit and brought a much needed conversation of art to the forefront

Art is something that is subjective. Not everyone is going to like every piece of literature, music, etc., that is out there. Chances are, if you gave a million people the exact same book, it would be interpreted in a million different ways.

Art in whatever form is a beautiful thing. It can invoke emotions such as sadness, happiness and anger. Just because a few people aren’t a fan of someone’s artwork for whatever reason, that doesn’t mean the artist should take their work down or modify it and censor it in any way, shape or form.

On March 13, comic book artist Rafael Albuquequere tweeted out a link to a variant cover for “Batgirl” #41.

The artwork, inspired by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland’s 1988 iconic graphic novel “The Killing Joke,” shows the Joker’s left arm draped over Batgirl’s shoulder gun in hand while his right arm is pointing at a blood smeared smile painted on Batgirl’s frightened face.

The cover just wasn’t drawn up out of thin air. To really understand the cover, you have to understand the history from which the illustration stems from.

The cover pays homage to one of the most iconic “Batman” graphic novels. In a famous scene from “The Killing Joke,” the Joker terrorizes police commissioner James Gordon by going after his daughter, Barbara, AKA Batgirl. The Joker shows up to the Gordons’ door with his trademark smile and shoots Barbara almost immediately, knocks her father out, ties her up, strips her naked and snaps photos of her. To add insult to injury, the Joker plasters the photos in a sick and twisted tunnel of love ride all while Barbara’s father’s eyes are pried open, forcing him to look at his mutilated daughter.

While this particular scene is up for interpretation, most of the fan base agrees that it is not in the Joker’s character to go as far as raping herHowever, there are some fans say otherwise.

Some fans took to their social media network of choice to give some feedback and criticize the cover calling it a “trigger warning.” One person commented that it was a “victim being terrorized by their attacker;” others said it was misogynistic and sexist. Other people such as social commentators and people who haven’t picked up a comic book probably in their life jumped on the bandwagon and called for the cover to be axed.

The whole point of the cover wasn’t to invoke this sense of sexual deviancy. The Joker is this menacing, dark, calculating and intelligent villain whose sole purpose is to a get a rise out of Batman and prove to him that they were both cut from the same dark and twisted cloth. The whole point of humiliating Barbara in the ’88 graphic novel the way that he did was to prove to everyone that all it takes is just one bad day to a common man go completely mad, just like he is. It wasn’t some sick rape fantasy that Joker wanted to broadcast to the world.

Barbara Gordon, on the other hand, became one of the most iconic heroines in comic book history — Oracle. Gordon leaves her Batgirl persona and no longer standing at Robin’s side as Batman’s shadow but becoming Batman’s equal, being his eyes and ears of Gotham City while out on missions. Gordon also becomes one of the founders and leaders of another iconic crime fighting team — the Birds of Prey. She could have been another comic book casualty that fades from existence, but she didn’t. She fought her demons and became an icon.

Writer @JennOfHardwire explains the situation perfectly in her article titled “Strength in Vulnerability: #Feminist Reply to @DCCOMICS Batigirl #41 Ignites #ChangeTheCover.”

“You also have to consider that this event in Barbara Gordon’s past helps to show how strong she is in later comics. She was able to move past this traumatic point in her life which reflects her strength of character,” she writes. “The argument that the cover is misogynistic and sexist because Barbara Gordon is being used as a tool robs her of the strong character development that stems from this traumatic event in her history.”

The fact is, just because a minority group of people felt uncomfortable about the cover doesn’t mean that the cover should have changed, variant or not. We live in a free country where we are allowed to express ourselves any way we see fit. Albuquerque was paying homage to one of the greatest graphics novels out there, and he and DC Comics got dragged through the mud because people wanted to read more into it than was actually there and, for the most part, made something out of nothing.

While this change-or-don’t-change-the-cover issue seems relatively small compared to most issues we have today, it does bring up a necessary conversation. Just because something makes some people uncomfortable doesn’t mean that something needs to cease to exist.

Originally published in City Times, April 2015.

Everybody plays: A look at video games’ most outspoken critic, why her arguments for change of gender tropes are misguided

To advocate for an issue that you’re passionate about is admirable, however, to demonize an entire group of people in the name of the issue your advocating for is completely and utterly wrong.

Take that mindset and apply it to one of the most controversial pop culture issues surrounding one of the most popular forms of entertainment and you’ll end up being knocked out so fast you swear you’re in “Street Fighter.”

The Gamergate controversy started in August 2014 when the scorned ex-boyfriend of indie game developer Zoe Quinn made a long blog post detailing their break up and accused her of a number of things including a relationship with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson.

Gamergate has sparked somewhat of an uproar in the gaming community and has made various figures such as Quinn and developer Brianna Wu bring up issues such as sexism, gamer identity and misogyny.

However, both Quinn and Wu have been relatively quiet compared to gaming’s most infamous outspoken critic – current gaming public enemy number one: Anita Sarkeesian.

Through her website and YouTube account Sarkeesian’s commentary on video games, called “Tropes vs. Women in Video Games” discusses famous gaming tropes such as the damsel in distress, the sexual object and the background character.

Sarkeesian’s bare bones argument about how there should be more women characters in video games – on top of the already long laundry list there are – is completely valid and is something that most, if not all, gamers are in completely favor of.

Where Sarkeesian’s argument falls flat is when she attacks and accuses gamers and developers of being sexist and misogynistic just for playing or developing a game that has even an ounce of sexualizing women or having violence against them.

“It gets worse and worse,” Sarkeesian said in an interview with ABC News. “It reinforces this idea that women are sexual objects… it reinforces the idea of women as… playthings for amusement.”

It almost goes without saying that Sarkessian’s strong comments, critiques and analysis against gaming has gotten her a lot of negative reactions and backlash. Sarkeesian, like everyone else in this world, has every right to voice her opinion, no matter how wrong or flawed her analysis about games and gamers might be.

However, gamers and developers also have the right to respond to her allegations of sexism and misogyny. The problem is that a very very small percent of gamers and “trolls” take things way too far, bombarding Sarkeesian, Quinn and Wu with a multitude of death and rape threats.

One of the most famous cases happened in October 2014 when Sarkeesian was to speak at the Utah State University. The university received terrorist threats from a person perpetuating a student. The letter-writer said they would commit “the deadliest school shooting in American history,” and cited the 1989 Montreal Massacre as inspiration.

That threat was just one of many threats that Sarkeesian and company get on an almost daily basis. Death and rape threats like these are proving her point that gamers are sexists and misogynists that only want gaming to be some sort of a “boys club,” which, on the grander scale of gaming is false.

If the small percentage of gamers and trolls really want to make a statement about Sarkeesian’s skewed critiques and analysis then they would stay silent.

Silence speaks volumes. If they would just keep their mouths shut and log off of whatever social media site they frequent then Sarkeesian and her war against tropes would just go away and fade out. However, that doesn’t mean that Sarkeesian can completely escape criticism.

For Sarkeesian to call an entire group of people, both male and female, sexist for killing random woman character A on the street in “Watch Dogs ”or for picking up a prostitute in an off-brand knock off of a Ferrari the “Grand Theft Auto” franchise is completely absurd.

Objectives such as these examples are almost always optional when playing a game. No one is going to hold a computer generated coded gun to your characters head and make them do any of those things. It’s all up to the player, which brings in a discussion of the person playing, not video games at large.

To accuse developers of being misogynists because they have sexy female fan service characters or the token female character is illogical. By that conclusion, that would mean that the developers of games such as the “Call of Duty” and “Wolfenstein” franchises are Nazi sympathizers for featuring Nazi figures in their games. It would mean that Juliet Starling of “Lollipop Chainsaw” would just be that sexy blonde all-American cheerleader sucking on lollipops and not the fierce chainsaw wielding, limb maiming, decapitating zombie slayer that she is in the game.

The fact is, none of these age-old video game tropes are going away anytime soon.

Mario is always going to save Princess Peach, there’s always going to be those random side characters with extraordinary “jiggle” physics that serve absolutely no purpose but to be looked at, killing random characters A and B is always going to an optional objective and the one of the most iconic and fierce video game characters – Samus – is always going to be female.

Originally published in City Times, March 2015.

css.php