In an article leadingly titled ‘Is Bulletstorm the Worst Video Game in the World?’, John Brandon warns parents to beware of profanity, explicit sex, graphic violence and exploding body parts.
So what? Nothing new in that.
But it’s the in-game awards – the ‘SkillShot’ system – that’s raising eyebrows. The Bulletstorm site itself boasts of the 'SkillShot' system, “Every enemy presents a new opportunity for stylish, over-the-top and ever increasingly bloody ways to take them down.”
Bulletstorm 'SkillShot' system
Bulletstorm links graphic violence to explicit sex, using suggestively titled awards. Gaming has reached a new level. In the ‘SkillShot’ system, ‘Topless’ means cutting a player in half, whereas with ‘Gangbang’ you earn rewards for killing as many enemies at one time as possible. Other awards include, ‘Rear Entry’, ‘Gag Reflex’ and ‘Drilldo’. I’ll leave the carnage required to your imagination. The terms themselves are reminiscent of titles for banned 70s snuff movies. I guess that’s the idea.
Fox contacted Dr Jerry Weichman, a clinical psychologist at the Hoag Neurosciences Institute in Southern California. He commented that,
“Violent video games like Bulletstorm have the potential to send the message that violence and insults with sexual innuendos are the way to handle disputes and problems.”
Carol Lieberman, psychologist and author, took this line of argument further, adding,
“The increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of sexual scenes in video games.”
Schwarzenegger vs. The EMA
What does all this have to do with Arnold Schwarzenegger? In 2005, the California legislature passed a law banning the sale of violent video games to anyone under the age of 18. Such games must be clearly labelled in accordance with the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) system.
The law was the idea of Senator Yee, a former child psychologist, who believes that there is a strong connection between video games and violence. He argued that the government has a responsibility to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors in the same way that it already does in the case of pornography.
The Entertainments Merchants Association (EMA) successfully challenged this law. It argued that the ‘violent video game’ definition encompassed many titles that were otherwise suitable for sale to minors. Yee's law, argued the EMA, would damage the entire video game industry.
In August 2007, US District Judge Ronald Whyte ruled in favour of the EMA, on the grounds that the law violated the First Amendment concerning free speech. There was no proof submitted that video games were any different to other types of media. Further, Judge Whyte could find ‘no evidence of causality’ between violent video games and violent behaviour.
Schwarzenegger vowed to defend the law and via a few legal twists and turns, the case reached the Supreme Court. A decision is expected in June 2011.
Parents vs. the First Amendment
Video game advocates and opponents of the law argue that the existing ESRB warning system is sufficiently effective. Parents, not the government, should decide which games their children can or can’t play.
The ESRB’s rating comments for Bulletstorm include the following:
“Injured enemies emit large sprays of blood that stain the ground and surrounding walls. Specialty kills (i.e., Skillshots) represent the most intense instances of violence: enemies can be dismembered with explosives; impaled on spikes; and drilled into walls, resulting in body parts breaking into pieces. During the course of the game, players can consume alcohol and kill enemies in order to receive an Intoxicated Skillshot; the screen turns blurry during these sequences.”
It is, perhaps, unfair to single out Bulletstorm. Game makers, generally, appear reluctant to comment. On the other hand, game makers might also be thinking, as Phineas T Barnum is supposed to have said, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.”
That old adage is about to be tested.
Join the Conversation