Lunchtime Discussion: Just A Game?
Does Chinatown Wars' drug dealing subplot take things too far?Published 06/11/2009 at 12:00 by nofi
Lunchtime Discussion: Board Games [36]
Lunchtime Discussion: AI [35]
Lunchtime Discussion: Advertising [35]
The recent release of GTA: Chinatown Wars for the PSP injected the subject of morally questionable game content into my bloodstream once again. Now, GTA has a plethora of content that could be considered morally questionable, well pretty much all of it in the best ones, but I’m specifically talking about the drug dealing side of the game. Yes, that’s right, I don’t mind mowing down passers-by, but drug dealing is a little uncomfortable for me.
Of course, gaming’s history has given us plenty of other moments where our own values affect how we feel during play. I’ve written numerous times about my love for Manhunt, but some of the execution moves made me feel uneasy; At times, I wasn’t sure I wanted to be performing those moves. Even now, thinking back to the beheading, I can remember scouting around for a different weapon to the machete, one that wouldn’t have such a disturbing animation associated with it.
It’s easy to pass off everything as “just” a game, and to use that as the barrier to feeling anything other than excitement while playing. But I think that’s a cop out. If we’re honest about our feelings, there must be times when something has made us question whether we want it to be a part of gaming?
Chinatown Wars doesn’t make drug dealing mandatory, so you can mostly avoid it if it offends. More interestingly, my time with Manhunt shows that I consciously tried to avoid certain methods of killing. These moral choices add an interesting layer to a game, but are there some layers you’d be happier not to see at all? Is it ok for gaming to have an “anything goes” approach, or are there things that just shouldn’t be part of the gaming landscape?
Thanks once again to Michael for all his help on Lunchtime Discussions this week.
Comments
Please note that all comments are the opinion of the individual author and not TheSixthAxis.
cc_star | 06/11/2009 12:05
Team TSA: Writer
7854 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
I suppose the massacre scenes in MW2 will give cause for concern, I happen to think that if they’re not essential then they must be gratuitous, which says IW/Activision have included it purely for publicity, that is a shame because some games seem to be coming of age and rivalling movies in their production values, and maybe, just maybe storytelling.
So if it does turn out to be gratuitous it will do more harm than good as far as furthering the cause for gaming as an art form in a similar way to great cinema.
stingraz | 06/11/2009 17:49
Member
2227 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
all these years, GTA has got away with zero press. nobpdy questions whether it is a bad influence on people/kids who may play it. The content in GTA throughout each game, has always been bad. From … well you know that. Now they’re basically backing drug dealing! Yet no comments on it. But oh NO – MW2 has got 1 massacre scene in it. LOADs of hype over that. That doesn’t happen if you watch a tv program that shows this – oh no age rating on that now is there?
It’s pathetic, good on nofi for bringing the topic up.
lewis815 | 06/11/2009 12:09
Member
729 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
Personally, I believe that any form of media should be allowed to show anything, as long central to the plot or feel of the media.
In TV, I believe anything should be shown, HOWEVER, I also believe that the real consequences of the actions should be shown. An example of this I don’t like is Skins, a load of idiotic teens running around taking drugs and acting likes idiots to their friends. In reality, they would become nobodies, be hanging around outside shops, or they would end up in hospital. This doesnt happen, and doesnt depict reality, and unless a show explicitly has a feel that its not supposed to be real or could happen in reality, then it isn’t my cup of tea, and I do believe that sends the wrong message to younger teens who are looking forward to what happens in the later part of teenage life and see that.
However, this also makes me seem a bit hypocritical as there are plenty of other things that are on TV that are not realistic but don’t bother me. Maybe sending out a positive message of drugs is the only thing that crosses the line for me.
There is a large argument in comedy at the moment about what can and cannot be said, anything should go! It’s comedy!
As for gaming.. Gaming is simply fantasy, the GTA world is not supposed to be life for everyday citizens, if someone was going around driving at 100MPH and killing 100s of people, im sure it would be on the news.
So to conclude that mess of writing, anything should be allowed in a game or other media where the world is not trying to attempt to say “hey, this is real life you know”. But in the fantasy worlds of GTA etc, anything should be able to go. Even if it goes against peoples moral grounding, the simple answer is – if you dont like it, dont play/watch it.
tjgb | 06/11/2009 12:45
Member
313 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
I’m not convinced by your take on this. I mean, if we’re talking about how games influence the people who play them (be that an opinion or an action that’s being influenced), I think drug dealing isn’t something that I would be concerned about being carried from gaming into real life. Even if, after playing GTA, I did think that drug-dealing was a lifestyle that I wanted to buy into, it’s not something that most real life people could get into easily. Whereas, if wreckless driving was something that I wanted to get into, most people could go out and do that relatively easily.
If the arguement is against drug users, then perhaps it is irresponsible to promote drug use in games or on TV, but I don’t think that’s the case with GTA. I might be wrong, but all of the lead characters in GTA have always been pretty straight. Sure they might deal, but they won’t take drugs themselves.
lewis815 | 06/11/2009 13:01
Member
729 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
“Sure they might deal, but they won’t take drugs themselves.” That makes it ok?
Obviously morally its wrong, (apologies if my above post was hard to read, im at work so the stucture of my posts are a bit off) however, I think in gaming anything is allowed as its all fake.
TV is slightly different as some shows try to depict reality, therefore younger (idiotic) people may look at it and think hey thats cool il do that, and not see the real consequences.
Gaming however has age ratings, and as long as games are kept to those age ratings I see no reason why people over the 18 cant see anything. I dont believe gaming has any effect on what people do on reality, I’ve been playing games all my life and never once have I ever had the desire to emulate games. Played all the GTA games too, im still firmly against drugs and killing.
FRUIT0FDOOM | 06/11/2009 12:09
Member
490 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2009
Never felt guilty about any events in a games story/gameplay as such. Have questioned whether or not I can justify the time I have spent playing (CoD4 online!). The closest a game has come to having me question my own moral code is when a friend or family is needing me to dash across the field to revive them during multiplayer (Operation Flashpoint 2 and Borderlands recently). If i go will I die too? If I don’t go and it costs him £800,000 (Borderlands cost of respawn at high levels) can I deal with the guilt? But that’s about it. I’m the sort of person that finds it really funny to flaw it into the back of a parked vehicle when the owner is taking the shopping out the boot (GTA4). But that would certainly never even occur to me in reality (unless I caught Matty1209 unpacking a fresh shipment of C4) :-p
C_S15 | 06/11/2009 12:31
Member
1550 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
“…when a friend or family is needing me to dash across the field to revive them…”
You mean like that time you locked us all out of the safe room with an incoming horde on Left 4 Dead? =P
FRUIT0FDOOM | 06/11/2009 12:42
Member
490 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2009
Oh yeah that. Well if the event would tickle my sense of humor then i’m wiling to let all others die at the hands of zombies
That was funny, so glad Left 4 Dead 2 still has doors! And not with +10 to frying pan 
iNsAnE_gAmInG | 06/11/2009 16:36
* Banned *
-1930 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
Same here. Borderlands makes me feel guilty (the cost of revives are stupid though), however Claptrap’s that need reparing, even on my 2nd playthrough I still can not move on without preventing them crying and being in pain. I know they are not real and 100% computer controlled, however some things in games just get to me and I often waste time helping people or things around various game universes (e.g. Fallout 3) as I forget I am simply playing a videogame.
I don’t feel bad though if I score a harsh goal on Fifa and rob somebody of a win or if I harshly pwn a noob on COD. People should be prepared for the competitiveness that is evident on nigh-on every game in vast quantities.
I will of course help people struggling though.
matty | 06/11/2009 20:09
Member
1330 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2008
haha better get it delivered to my door from now on then
scavenga | 06/11/2009 12:18
Member
537 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
Maybe down the line, there will be options when starting a game for the first time, to exclude certain themes and settings, or some sort of parental control so you’ll have to unlock those elements on your console.
I hope not, maybe because I desperately wish to live in a world where people can differ between a game and reality, where people themselves know if they should play a certain game or not, and where parents are present to oversee children’s gaming rather than trusting a software lockout.
lewis815 | 06/11/2009 12:19
Member
729 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
Hear hear.
Severn2j | 06/11/2009 12:24
Member
1553 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
You know, thats not a bad idea.. Parental Controls could remove blood splats, bleep swearing and generally TVmovie-ise an 18 rated game so that they could be sold to anyone and parents could decide what to censor from their kids.
Of course, that relies on parents taking some kind of interest in what their kids are doing, but I’d rather that than censoring everyone just in case some parents may not be responsible..
GreenyGreenwell | 06/11/2009 15:56
Member
164 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2009
Brutal Legend does this in some senses. It asks you towards the start if you want to have swearing and gore…intergrates it nicely into the story. I thought this was a great feature. They wont bring it in to all games though. They sell FPS’s and gameas like GTA on the basis of them having this sort of content. If you don’t like it, stay away.
BadBoyBoogie | 07/11/2009 19:35
Let There Be Rock
2689 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
Yeah, it’s a nice idea. Brutal Legend leaves the choice down to the individual, so if you’re easily shocked or offended, then you can turn off the ‘adult’ content.
Severn2j | 06/11/2009 12:19
Member
1553 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
I think if its optional, then its a good thing.. You dont have to drug deal, but the option is there if you want to. Moral choices, great stuff. While I havent played it, I hear that you dont actually have to shoot the innocent people in the MW2 airport scene, but if you feel the urge, thats up to you. Its all just part of the moral dilemma and thats something that I’d really like to see in games..
In fact, didnt Manhunt have different levels of violence depending on how long you held the kill button? Thats another moral choice right there..
My point is, I dont want other people deciding my morals for me. Be it in a video game, on TV, or whatever.. Give me the option and Ill decide if I want it or not.
Michael | 06/11/2009 12:29
Team TSA: Development
2211 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Actually, I think you’re right about Manhunt – good call.
jimmy-google | 06/11/2009 12:26
Member
1727 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
Personally I think you should have the choice. In a film you can fast forward through a bit but will games if you don’t want to do something then you don’t get to play the rest of the game.
Heavy Rain may get some unwanted press for the scene in the strip club but its up to the player how far you go; its your moral decision. I hope more games follow that example.
teflon | 06/11/2009 12:44
Member
1996 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
I think its actually really interesting to see what’s socially acceptable change over the last 5 years or so. By today’s standards, the furore and outrage that short skirts brought is probably quite close to how some people reacted to the first lesbian kiss on british TV, which in turn is now more and more often expressed at explicit content in games.
As games try to express deeper story lines and more questionable morals, they’re going to be pushing the boundaries further. But none of this is stuff which hasn’t been seen in films and TV shows before. The only difference is that it’s us who are acting it out, but I think that its fairly important that some of these things be optional, lest it offend certain people too much.
Some games actually do a good job of questioning the characters and their flaws. *SPOILER* *SPOILER* like in UC2 when Lazarevic points the finger at Drake and asks him just how many people he’s killed that day alone, and does he feel any remorse? *SPOILT* *SPOILT* I felt that was quite a powerful moment.
And as mentioned above for Heavy Rain, how far will you go to get what you need within the game? There will be a route where you don’t have to do a strip tease in the night club, and there will be moments when you can choose whether or not to kill someone.
Some games will just be throwing things in for the heck of it, but there’s a good few that try to pose some tough questions for why your character is blindly killing (hundreds of) people.
double-o-dave | 06/11/2009 12:48
Member
995 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2008
Can’t see anything wrong with it, what else do you expect from that kind of game?
In fact seeming its a Friday I’ll be paying my dealer a visit later!
3shirts | 06/11/2009 13:02
Member
2486 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Remember the fuss over being able to kiss some of the boys in Bully (sorry, Canis Canem Edit)?
Games are not reality and yet when they give the player the option to do things they could do in real life if they wanted to, people seem to get upset. Surely it’s still a moral decision and, if anything, is better in a game because you can try things that you would never do in real life.
The fact is that violence and action in games and films satisfies a carnal instinct in a safe environment. It is not up to games and movies to differenciate between fiction and real life, that is what education is for.
shields_t | 06/11/2009 13:21
Member
1646 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
While the drug dealing element in Chinatown Wars is a moral choice the player makes, it makes sense within the context of the game. A criminal living and operating within criminal circles commit crimes! Much like the drug-taking in Bioshock and Fallout 3 make sense within their own contexts.
The fact is that Chinatown Wars shouldn’t be played by anyone under 18, just like Scarface or New Jack city shouldn’t be watched by anyone under 18, they deal with similar themes and their age ratings are presumably set to 18 because by the age of 18 our society expects one to be an adult and be resposible for making their own adult decisions like whether to consume alcohol, smoke a cigarette or indeed play Chinatown Wars.
xdarkmagician | 06/11/2009 13:25
Member
498 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
You’re given a choice for every single game on the market, the choice is if you’re uncomfortable with a game don’t buy it. They all have ratings for ages and most list why. Personally for me it’s all or nothing, I bought a sega just to get blood with my Mortal Kombat. Games are art and because of that I think it’s highly offensive when someone makes a game the way they envisioned it, only to have the protesters demand that they change it to accommodate to their needs. It may be offensive for someone but they need to accept that not everyone shares their views and ideas. In Nofi’s case of having the option of performing a task and choosing not to is perfectly fine. If your giving the option and don’t want to do it, don’t, but don’t say that developers should change their art to fit your standards.
3shirts | 06/11/2009 13:37
Member
2486 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
You raise a good point, imagine if an artist painted a piece depicting some drug taking or violence and some mothers group tried to make them change it. Art, in whatever form, exists to evoke emotion and if you don’t like the way it makes you feel, avoid it.
Sure, billboard or TV ads have to be careful because they are unavoidable but if I don’t like violent films or games featuring drug taking, I will not watch/play.
How do I know if they will be offensive beforehand, do a bit of research! I think this is the problem a lot of these parents have, they fail to even read the box before letting their kid get involved in something too old for them, then blame the developer as a cover for THEIR bad parenting
simplebob | 06/11/2009 13:27
Member
254 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
For me the drug dealing in GTA Chinatown wars is quite tame compared to some of the other content in here. Having put a few hours into the title, the drug dealing side is little more than a commodity trading excercise with cartoony presentation giveing little exposure to the social issues of drug use in the real world. The different drugs could have easily have been replaced with jewels, guns, hitech components etc and had the same impact on plot/gameplay. The fact that it is drugs imo fits more with the nature of the story being told and the characters portrayed. I’m not saying its right but I have no problems with this aspect of the game morally. Find it morally preferable as a means to get cash in game than killing bystanders for a few dollars a time.
djdustb | 06/11/2009 13:28
Member
1308 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2008
Not seen the game at all, the drug dealing element does it glorify it or does it should it has it’s negative points rather than just away to make cash? On the whole moral front on games I have no issues being as bad as I can be in fact given the choice of being nice or bad I generally go bad, so much more fun, my girlfriend hates this and prefers to be nice, I think she was disapointed in me a few times when I was playing GTA IV.
djdustb | 06/11/2009 13:29
Member
1308 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2008
why do I keep spelling disappointed wrong? Grr.
double-o-dave | 06/11/2009 13:36
Member
995 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2008
I’m not sure but its making get disappointed in you.
illogicology | 06/11/2009 13:29
Member
857 TSA Points | Member since: Sep 2009
I’m always in a difficult position here, I’m entirely opposed to censorship but I also have a major problem with gratuitous use of controversial content for shock value.
Stepping away from games for a second, one of my favourite films is The Silence of the Lambs. Now, this flick has some fairly graphic (for the time) moments. There are forensic photos of women with skin cut off, an autopsy, a scene where a man is wearing someone else’s face and a couple of other choice moments of gruesome exposure. My argument has always been that each example is actually either completely essential for the plot or completely essential for portraying a realistic image of an FBI investigation. Conversely, the follow up Hannibal is full of needlessly gruesome, violent and cruel images that are largely unnecessary. I’m not prude but I think images should be used to communicate your ideas rather than crafting a story as a carriage for shocking scenes.
Apply that same thread to games is a little different but I think equally applicable, does the drug dealing thread contribute to the overall feel of a real city with real crime or does it just feel like they threw it in there to sell papers? (I haven’t played it so I don’t know) and I think the same applies to Modern Warfare 2, does the massacre scene we’ve heard so much about contribute valuable, essential development to the character and story being explored or is it a set piece, crafted from the start to make the game seem edgy? A slightly more abstract example is the Overlord series. These games arguably allow you to do the most evil things imaginable. Slaughter innocents, club seals, burn halflings alive, enslave masses and kidnap women to take them home to your castle. The difference here is that the Overlord games place themselves so far over the top that being evil becomes a fun, crucial part of the game.
It’s a fine line and while I would never tell a developer, writer or filmmaker not to put something into their work; what side of that line their work falls upon has a major influence upon how much I enjoy it. However, while I have no problem arguing that overuse of the negative moral choices can affect ones enjoyment of the game, I don’t believe it influences people to actually commit harmful acts. That’s just this generation’s scapegoat.
lewis815 | 06/11/2009 13:31
Member
729 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
Couldn’t have put it better.
3shirts | 06/11/2009 13:42
Member
2486 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Very well worded. I also assume you, like any intelligent adult, form your opinions yourself and make decisions based on that. If you feel it’s unnecessary or purely for shock value it undermines the work and you would not buy and/or rate it poorly to others etc.
This is how the world SHOULD work.
double-o-dave | 06/11/2009 13:33
Member
995 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2008
I’m confused… I can’t see how being a part of a drug deal can be worse or more offensive or uncomfortable to you in a game than directly executing or killing people (ie: GTA – policemen or innocent civilians) by shooting them or running them over etc or am I missing the point?
nofi | 06/11/2009 13:35
Wants a custom tag.
4302 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Because not every human being is exactly the same.
3shirts | 06/11/2009 13:43
Member
2486 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
I am, who said I’m not, I’m perfectly normal, la la la nothing to see here
double-o-dave | 06/11/2009 13:43
Member
995 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2008
Fair enough but I’m sure I could live with myself better making some cash out of a drug deal than walking up to someone and ending their life by blowing their brains out or something.
I guess with drugs there could be some indirect deaths involved but if people choose to do drugs or get involved with that scene thats their business.
Look what kind of conversation you’ve started!