Tuesday, 18 April 2017

Critical Investigation Easter Update

“Which means I'm gonna kill you, chop off your heads, and piss down your necks!”  – Tony Alpert[1]
To what extent do contemporary video game texts such as "Battlefield Hardline" represent violence in a more explicit manner and should we be concerned?
Battlefield Hardline is the Cops v Robbers first person shooter that was developed by Visceral and published by EA. This would be Visceral’s first attempt at creating a battlefield game as they are generally known for the Dead Space series and this would be considered a theme shift considering that “Dead Space” is known as a third-person horror shooter. Although it was not as well received as its predecessor Battlefield 4 which was developed by DICE, EA was still happy with the sales that Battlefield Hardline had. This could be due to the fact that it was leading the sales for video games in March 2015[2]. However it is not just home consoles as worldwide game industry hits $91 billion in revenues in 2016, with mobile the clear leader[3] as many people would own a smartphone and so this market would be dominated by the mainstream market. This essay will cover the violence that an audience is exposed to when playing violent video games such as the Battlefield franchise and depict whether or not the violence is being presented in a more explicit manner and whether the audience should be concerned. The main topic that will be explored is the moral panics that these games generate. To enforce this idea “children said 17 years ago “war is shit”[4]. This could highlight the desensitisation that an audience would have towards their exposure to violent content. However, this opinion with children has changed over time as “children enjoying killing”[5] in the modern day.
To begin looking into changes of view, the first topic that will be covered is the first moral panic that was centred on violence which had made video games appears in negative light with many news outlets reporting this moral panic. Death Race was the video game adaptation of the film Death Race 2000 starring Sylvester Stallone. This arcade variation of the film sees the player use their vehicle to road kill what was supposed to be gremlins. During this time it was considered very controversial for games to make the player kill human like targets. So therefore during this time it would be games like Doom that would put the player in hell and making them take on hellish creatures which would justify why the player is killing them. However in Death Race, the game was controversial because the enemy targets that were meant to be gremlins end up looking very familiar to humans. As well as Death Race, another video game that had ended up stirring controversy in the news was Mortal Kombat. Although in the present day it is known for its brutality with the gory graphics of fighters finishing their opponents in very unusual ways such as ripping their spine out, this content at the time was considered very mature. And it is mainly because of this title being a home console version of game that video games would introduce an age rating with the ESRB being their main use for rating games. As said with "Age classification originating from the home console distribution of Mortal Kombat"[6]. This would be due to the increase in popularity that home consoles had and their accessibility as from $250 million to an amazing $4.7 billion in this industry[7]. On the contrary the ESRB did not prevent the video game controversy as another title that was banned in certain areas of the world due to its explicit manor was Manhunt back in 2003.
However, the current day of video games would present violence but not as violent as Manhunt. The text that will be analysed would be Battlefield Hardline. This is the video game that would have gun violence as its centre stage for showcasing its sense of entertainment to the audience. The first section of the game that would be discussed is the campaign or story mode. This would follow the narrative of Nick Mendoza that the players take the first person perspective view of controlling him.  The game and its genre show that the gun is the most prominent choice of entertainment throughout the whole game.
The first time that the players get to control their characters they are already wielding and pointing guns at suspects which can suggest that the game’s intent way of playing the game shows that firearms are acceptable. However could this mean that the audience would already be influenced to go and purchase a gun from a store? This point can already be disagreed with the fact that “Violent juvenile crime in the US reached a peak in 1993 and has declined ever since”[8]. This decline in crime could suggest that this can be seen as a new form of escapism in modern day. The camera shots that are present in the game would also take inspiration from “other crime dramas”[9] which would explain the criticism that would come from the lack of creativity or uniqueness in the way that shots are composed and how each mission would be called Episodes which can present how there would be some form of familiarity. This would factor into the sense of nostalgia for games that would try and deliver the message that the story of the campaign would not be one of the main aspects of the game.
Going in depth for an example would be the concluding point in the campaign. This is scene is an important part in the conclusion to the Hardline Story Mode. This would be because it would present Nick Mendoza in a state of power against the Captain Dawes. This would be important because of the trust in power that was represented in the game that shows a corrupt police force that had put Nick Mendoza in prison in the first place. This would be important to the story because it would also present a change of character as Nick Mendoza has grown to become cold hearted rather than the morally right character he was once seen as during the beginning of the story.
Regulation and censorship would be a debate that revolved around this final scene because it features the glorification of Captain Dawes Death. This would link with the investigation since the scene of his death tends to be off camera shots if this game had a lower age rating. However since the game is rated with a PEGI 18, then this means that this violence would be seen as normal or considered what is a part of an 18 game since a majority of 18 games that are among the genre of FPS games would generally emphasise on violence.  As well as those video games that would also highlight this sort of content tends to be regulated by stores. This does spring up whether a younger audience can or cannot view this scene. This would be because of how frequent the releases are of FPS games that it might consider that the audience are desensitised to the content which could suggest the medium shot of Captain Dawes' dead body. As well as that there is also use of a close up upon shot once Nick Fires the gun which could also present how firearms would make it seem like a weapon that highlights power. This could be due to their tolerance in violent content as “the participants who played the violent video game were far more tolerant of criminal violence”[10].
This may not have as big of an impact as traumatising since players generally play Battlefield Hardline for the Multiplayer. This could highlight the effects that this would have as players may spend hours of playtime to compete and feel a sense of achievement as they rank up. However this violence is not rewarded in the Multiplayer as the Story Mode would reward players for arresting warrants to rank them up suggesting that killing is not a rewarding way. This does end up going against previous instalments that would reward players for killing enemies. However since this is the only Cops V Robbers themed game in the franchise, it could be excused. Another media effect that it may have would be desensitisation[11] which is a recurring theme that is present in a majority of the game.
One of the main theories that would always be negated by this would be the hypodermic syringe model[12]. This model would suggest that players would become more aggressively violent and become killers after playing shooters such as Hardline. This would be because this game could offer a sense of escapism as it links with Uses and Gratification[13]. This would be because they get to play through chaotic battles that would also present how they play. As well as that there is also the addition of the desensitisation theory[14] which would make the audience not have an emotional reaction upon exposure to violent content which would mean that the audience of these video games would be impacted on an emotional scale since they would be repeatedly exposed to violence through consistent matches. This would be because the players would be placed in one hour matches with killing as one of the methods of competing to win the game. This would be because of how “their participation in violent acts in a virtual environment has no bearing on the ‘real world’ as they aren’t violent people”[15]
This is scene is an important part in the conclusion to the Hardline Story Mode. This would be because it would present Nick Mendoza in a state of power against the Captain Dawes. This would be important because of the trust in power that was represented in the game that shows a corrupt police force that had put Nick Mendoza in prison in the first place. This would be important to the story because it would also present a change of character as Nick Mendoza has grown to become cold hearted rather than the morally right character he was once seen as during the beginning of the story. Regulation and censorship is something that a majority of video games would go through considering that it is presenting violence as the selling point of the game. This would be a debate that would revolve around this final scene because it features the glorification of Captain Dawes Death. This would link with the investigation since the scene of his death tends to be off camera shots if this game had a lower age rating. However since the game is rated with a PEGI 18, then this means that this violence would be seen as normal or considered what is a part of an 18 game since a majority of 18 games that are among the genre of FPS games would generally emphasise on violence. With this, they show the shots of Dawes from a medium shot presenting a bloodied and dead character with this highlighting the end result for all the action. As well as that, video games that would also highlight this sort of content tends to be regulated by stores. This does spring up whether a younger audience can view this scene or not. This would be because of how frequent the releases are of FPS games that it might consider that the audience are desensitised to the content which could suggest the medium shot of Captain Dawes' dead body. As well as that there is also use of a close up upon shot once Nick Fires the gun which could also present how firearms would make it seem like a weapon that highlights power as well as something that can be seen as an area of entertainment.
This may not have as big of an impact as traumatising since players generally play Battlefield Hardline for the Multiplayer. This could highlight the effects that this would have as players may spend hours of playtime to compete and feel a sense of achievement as they rank up since there is that feeling of ranking up. However this violence is not rewarded in the Multiplayer as the Story Mode would reward players for arresting warrants to rank them up suggesting that killing is not a rewarding method. This does end up going against previous instalments that would reward players for killing enemies. However since this is the only Cops V Robbers themed game in the franchise, it could be excused.
One of the main theories that would always be negated by this would be the hypodermic syringe model[16]. This model would suggest that players would become more aggressively violent and become killers after playing shooters such as Hardline. This would be because this game could offer a sense of escapism. As well as that the theory of catharsis which would suggest that people or in this case players physically present violence as a means to release stress as there is still a common belief that playing violent video games or watching violent TV and films allows people to “vent” their aggression and therefore behave less aggressively”[17] This behaviour is quite common with those that would be exposed to violent content however it hasn’t exaggerated to the extent that it suggests what the moral panic thinks. This would be because of examples such as “mind numbing video games and gruesome Hollywood movies that dangerously desensitises those who struggle with mental health challenges”[18].  This would be because they get to play through chaotic battles that would also present how they play.
The promotional material that would mainly highlight the multiplayer aspect that which is the main game mode that the audience of this game would play as it would give players to play the games as they would like to compare to following a linear story which has a fixated path. As well as what the game would connote, the ideologies that are present in this game would show off redemption with the character of Nick Mendoza and highlights that violence can be used as a mean to end the problem. Violence would not be considered a problem solver towards real life as it would think to cause more problems. However the campaign highlights the rewarding aspects of gunning your way down to the end of the problem highlighting that violence would be a means of both entertainment and journey for the protagonist.
 This would mainly be because the conclusion of the story presents the protagonist with a questionable ending as to whether he takes the gold vault or not. This would play with the morality of the game as it would show an ex-police officer as he goes out his way to try and gain vengeance for putting him down to imprisonment. This would appear to present the Marxist view of the elite class taking in the role of a supreme or high status. However this is contradicted as the protagonist would be willing to break into the house of a rich criminal. This would be set after he broke out of the Prison Bus and is labelled a fugitive who has to go hiding. The fact that the game embraces this sense of excitement with the characters as they would go through action set pieces of shooting galleries can show that the audience are exposed to violence. However the first person shooter genre is known for its audience of young players this quote would say that “The fact is that media violence primes children to see killing as acceptable”[19]. This would therefore be applied to Battlefield Hardline since it would present how people would be desensitised to the violence that it presented in video games.  Battlefield Hardline belongs to the First Person Shooter genre. This would be emphasised with the sense iconography of the handgun being presented with the front cover character holding it. In this case it would highlight the action that players would be going into. As well as that it will also include the gameplay trailers that had highlighted the genre further with the players seen as killing each other in close quarters combat. Especially considering that there would also be another known attribute towards the fact that “Violent video games increase aggressive thoughts and behaviour”[20]. This quote could highlight how this genre may have a negative impact on an audience. The representation of violence in this game would present in in a partially glorified manner. This would not glorify the violence to the extent that both Manhunt and Mortal Kombat since these two games had stirred controversy. However that is not to say that this game would also have controversy with representation. Battlefield Hardline has also had some controversy with its theme of Cops v Robbers. This binary opposition[21]  being used as the selling point of the game. Portraying the game on a theme like that would present to the audience that they would have had to make sure that it would still sell and be successful as well as make both sides enjoyable to play as.
However since the time of promoting “Hardline and the Ferguson Shooting”[22] was very close, this would mean that there would be some complication with the sales of the game. This would present how the genre can gain some sense of controversy. However this did not entirely stop the success as a report from GameSpot had reported that “EA is "Very Happy" With Battlefield Hardline Sales”[23]. This could present that the audience are in fact desensitised to the violence that is present in the real world. The audience of this game would mainly consist of a male dominated population of players that would mainly play the game for action that is within the game. This would be because of the fact that “The top 5 selling games in the UK in 2013 are further proof that this trend is global, with 4 of the top 5 being from the action and/or shooter genre”[24]. In this case it would also highlight how there is a potential for violent content to be desensitised for a mass majority of others that could highlight the interest in the market being dominated by sales of the action genre. Although this list was constructed back at 2013, it can still be argued that the violent games that have been featured above that can suggest how the audience would much prefer to engage in violent content by controlling their character to do it which can introduce a form of escapism for the audience that would let them do violent acts without the consequences.
This can heighten how these games change over time reflecting the zeitgeist for the modern age of violent video games. In this contrary to the controversy of roadkill in Death Race in which the action was considered very gruesome with human like people being run over by the player, Hardline rewards the player for killing enemies. There is a bonus 20 points for killing the enemy by running them over. This can present the change in the judgement of videogames further as it would highlight the potential for the games to become more gruesome but not to the extent that Manhunt has done Since "2003 game Manhunt presented controversy for the due to its level of graphic violence"[25].
Other games that have been considered alongside Battlefield Hardline would be games such as the Call of Duty franchise. This franchise had had a earned $360 million on the first day of the release of Black Ops[26]. This would be due to their “attention to the spectacle and magnitude of industrialized warfare”[27] This would be Battlefield’s main competitor and even they have had controversial backlash surrounding their games. In this case it would be in Call of Duty’s No Russian Mission from “Modern Warfare 2”. This had put the player into the perspective of an undercover agent performing a terror attack. The controversial part would be that the Daily Mail had highlighted, put the player in the “perspective of killing innocent lives”[28]. This would present the negative setbacks of what the game would have resulting in the big controversies around the media and the gaming industry. Media outlets had seen this as an outrage even though gamers are aware that this mission can be skipped presenting the fact that Infinity Ward, the developers of Modern Warfare 2, understood the negative backlash that would come for this game. The negativity in the video game industry has still got that sense of negative criticism the games even if they would have an association to violence. This would go to the point that “Should developers of these video games start thinking of more ways to entertain their players than through violent themes”[29]  In this case outlets such as The Guardian have given a concerning view of the recent Battlefield game “Battlefield 1”.  In this it has said that the game would not show the ugly side of war but rather “a game set in the Great War will necessarily whitewash the horrors of trench warfare”[30]. However since this was set prior to the release of the game they have later changed their mind and over time accepted what Battlefield 1 has become[31]. In this case it has praised Battlefield 1 for what it was.
In conclusion an audience that doesn’t play violent video games should not be very worried with what a gamer would play. This would mainly be because these games would serve as a way for people to live out their violent fantasies. Since there is no link between violent video games and violent behaviour, although he acknowledged that “it is difficult to prove a link in an experimental setting"[32]. This could suggest that there is not truly a way to prove that games would turn people into killers. In that sense there would be millions of players[33] committing crimes to this day if the statement is true. This however is not the case. This would further reinforce that video games are just another platform of entertainment and not a gateway towards a more violent lifestyle. Video games get a lot of controversy over the same accusations that films may get but games would be it worse only because a player controls the action of the character that they play as. As an ending statement the only thing that would need to be said is that video games are for entertainment. An audience should not be concerned because games get more violent but rather concerned about themselves considering they purchased the copy of the recent violent video game. It is the responsibility of the player to not behave in a violent matter. Although it can be argued that it has made players desensitised, it still should not be something to be concerned about but rather embraced. People do not see the harm of violent content on TV and Film, then why should games not be excused of the same thing.








Works Cited

Books

  • Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (2007). Violent video game effects on children and adolescents: theory, research, and public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press

  • Cantor, J. (2009). Grand theft childhood: The surprising truth about violent video games and what parents can do - by Lawrence Kutner & Cheryl Olson. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 199-200. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01411_8.x

  • Castro, R. (2004). Let me play: stories of gaming and emulation. Tucson, AZ: Hats Off Books.

  • Chaffee, J., & Carlson, S. (2015). Critical thinking, thoughtful writing: a rhetoric with readings. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

·         Edwards, M. (2003). Key ideas in media. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.

  • Gentile, D. A. (2014). Media violence and children: a complete guide for parents and professionals. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

  • Fourie, P. J. (2001). Media studies. Institutions, theories and issues. Lansdowne: Juta.

  • Goldstein, J. H., Buckingham, D., & Brougère, G. (2004). Toys, games, and media. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

  • Gunter, B. (2016). Does Playing Video Games Make Players More Violent? London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

  • Lowery, Shearon (1995). Milestones in Mass Communication Research: Media Effects (en inglés). USA: Longman Publishers.

  • Markey, P. M., & Ferguson, C. J. (2017). Moral combat: why the war on violent video games is wrong. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books.

  • Ramsay, D. (2012). Through a glass, darkly: American media and the memory of World War II. Great Britain: University of Nottingham.


Internet Links









Moving Images

·         Vargas J, (2015) - Battlefield Hardline Angry Review - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztZDVr3mZzg

Works Consulted

Books 

  • Bogost, I., Alexander, L., Quinn, Z., Sarkeesian, A., Cross, K., Shanahan, I., . . . Larsson, L. (2015). The state of play: creators and critics on video game culture. New York: Seven Stories Press.

  • Carlsen, R., & Willis, D. A. (2007). Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference annual: March 26-30, San Antonio, Texas, USA. Chesapeake, Va: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

  • Ferguson, C. J. (2007). The Good, The Bad and the Ugly: A Meta-analytic Review of Positive and Negative Effects of Violent Video Games. Psychiatric Quarterly, 78(4), 309-316. doi:10.1007/s11126-007-9056-9

  • Fisher, V. A. (2012). Raising children in the 11th hour. Springville, UT: CFI, an imprint of Cedar Fort, Inc.

  • Grossman, D., & DeGaetano, G. (2014). Stop teaching our kids to kill: A call to action against TV, movie, and video game violence. New York: Harmony Books.
  • Happ, C., & Melzer, A. (2014). Empathy and violent video games: Aggression and prosocial behavior. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Huntemann, N. B., & Payne, M. T. (2010). Joystick soldiers the politics of play in military video games. New York: Routledge.

  • Mire, S., & Roberson, C. (2011). The study of violent crime: its correlates and concerns. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

  • Nakaya, A. C. (2014). Thinking Critically: Video games and violence. San Diego: ReferencePoint Press.

  • Netzley, P. D. (2015). Video games, violence, and crime. San Diego, CA: ReferencePoint Press.

  • Paradise, A. (2007). Trait aggression and style of video game play: the effects of violent video game play on aggressive thoughts.

  • Quandt, T., & Kowert, R. (2016). The video game debate: unravelling the physical, social, and psychological effects of video games. New York: Taylor and Francis.

  • Rogers, R. (2016). How video games impact players: The pitfalls and benefits of a gaming society. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

  • Schott, G. (2016). Violent games: rules, realism, and effect. New York: Bloomsbury.

  • Taller, T. (2002). Research on the effects of media violence. Vancouver, B.C.: British Columbia Film Classification.


Internet Links

  • Battlefield: Hardline Is A Bad Idea, DICE Said In 2011 – CINEMABLEND

  • Battlefield Hardline: How Real-World Police Controversies Affected Development

  • Battlefield Hardline Trailer Box Art causes controversy wake in Ferguson Shooting

  • Soldier Cops Aren't So Fun Now, Video Games



  • Battlefield: Hardline – is it a problem to play war as a cop?




  • Are Video Games Actually Desensitizing Us To Violence? -

  • Keith Vaz urges tighter controls on violent video games

  • Video games are not making us more violent, study shows

  • Violent video games research: consensus or confusion? | Pete Etchells & Chris Chambers

  • What is the link between violent video games and aggression? | Pete Etchells



  • Media Psychology. (n.d.).

  • Media violence and children: A complete guide for parents and professionals. (2004). Choice Reviews Online, 42(01). doi:10.5860/choice.42-0622  


Moving Images

Media Magazine
  • MM40 Page 16 Play, Pleasure, Panics - regarding the effects of video games and how an audience intends on using it.




[1] Alpert, T Battlefield Hardline
[2] Battlefield Hardline takes arresting lead in UK sales charts - http://metro.co.uk/2015/03/23/battlefield-hardline-takes-arresting-lead-in-uk-sales-charts-5116403/
[3] Takahashi, D. (2016) - from https://venturebeat.com/2016/12/21/worldwide-game-industry-hits-91-billion-in-revenues-in-2016-with-mobile-the-clear-leader/
[4] Goldstein, J. (2004). p.13.
[5] Ibid p. 28.
[6] Ibid p. 129.
[7] Markey, P. M., & Ferguson, C. J. (2017) p.103
[8]  Cantor, J. (2009).  p.8.
[9] Vargas J, (2015) Battlefield Hardline Angry Review - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztZDVr3mZzg
[10] Gunter, B. (2016) p. 156
[11] Edwards, M. (2003) p. 159
[12] Lowery, S. (1995) p.400
[13] Fourie, P. J. (2001). p.297
[14] Gentile, D. A. (2014). p.335
[15] Ferguson, C. J. (2007). p. 184
[16] Fourie, P. J. (2001). p.294
[17] Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (2007). p.144
[18] Chaffee, J., & Carlson, S. (2015). p.304
[19] Ferguson, C. J. (2007) p. 13.
[20] Griffiths, M (1999) p. 14.
[21] Fourie, P. J. (2001). p.472
[22] CraveOnline (2016),- http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/797623-battlefield-hardline-trailerbox-art-causes-controversy-wake-ferguson-shooting
[23]  GameSpot (2016), -http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-very-happy-with-battlefield-hardline-sales/1100-6427131/
[24]Metro (2014),  http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/16/100-best-selling-video-games-of-2013-revealed-4265929/
[25] Goldstein, J. (2005) p. 133.
[26] Markey, P. M., & Ferguson, C. J. (2017). p.105
[27] Ramsay, D. (2012).  p. 86
[28] Revoir P, 2016, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226588/Call-Duty-Political-storm-brutal-video-game-allows-killing-civilians-airport-massacre.html
[29] Castro, R. (2004) p. 114
[30] Hern A. (2016), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/battlefield-war-game-first-world-war
[31]White S, (2016),  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/25/battlefield-1-review-ea-dice-shooter
[32]Casey  M, (2015), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-violent-video-games-lead-to-criminal-behavior/
[33]Passalacqua M, (2016). - http://uk.ign.com/articles/2016/09/15/battlefield-1-beta-had-132-million-players