Burn the Reel: Why Kane Doesn’t Belong in Games

I’ve discussed the incongruity of comparing videogames to movies here before, but the discussion about when gaming will receive its “Citizen Kane” has reached new heights, and they are ridiculous. It seems the King, or in this case Queen, has been crowned: Metroid Prime is, apparently, the Citizen Kane of games.

Michael Thomsen of ign.com went on national television to let everyone know. Thanks, Mike.

To take a quick stab at this: is the comparison between Citizen Kane and Metroid Prime really apt? The Metroid experience has been iterated several times over the years. Citizen Kane was the first and last film to feature Kane, and it seems many critics agreed it did so perfectly. Samus has had plenty of adventures before she appeared in the Prime series, and she’s had plenty since, with more to come. What if, down the road, there appears a more definitive version of Metroid than Prime? Whoops.

I could go on about why I don’t think Metroid Prime is a genre-defining candidate capable of speaking for the industry, but it would only belay my point that the comparison doesn’t matter in the first place.

The thing that really grinds my gears about this isn’t that it was Metroid Prime that was chosen to represent the entire medium of gaming; it’s more that I am becoming frustrated and disappointed in the games industry doggedly trying to get approval from people who don’t care about the artistic integrity of games because they simply do not care about games to begin with. The ‘other side’ we are trying to convince doesn’t have a stake in whether or not games are artistic. Proving artistic merit won’t convert some invisible group of would-be gamers that are just waiting for a cue from critics to adopt the hobby. It’s like expecting someone to love a painting on the basis that it is legitimate enough to be shown in an art gallery. Even if we prove that games can be art there will still be people that don’t like games. I wonder sometimes if this search for approval is actually just a desperate bid for validation so that gamers will finally have something to shoot back with when someone tells them “games are for kids.” We shouldn’t be striving to stick it to people that clearly don’t care enough about games to think outside of stereotypes.

Simply put, the search for the Citizen Kane of games is embarrassing. The Citizen Kane of games, when it arrives, won’t be known as “The Citizen Kane of Games” because it will be completely valid in its own right. Citizen Kane isn’t known as the Beowulf of film. The definitive game won’t need to be measured against Citizen Kane, or anything else for that matter. If it is truly the definitive realization of the maturation of games, it will be completely unique to gaming and necessarily incomparable to anything from another medium because what it does wouldn’t be possible in any other medium. It wouldn’t mimic the characteristics of an industry-defining movie, precisely because it would be a game and not a movie. The best point I’ve heard all week to this effect:

“Every now and then someone tries to sell a game by claiming it’s cinematic, meaning that it’s an interactive experience that apes a non-interactive medium. It’s the equivalent of a film consisting entirely of text scrolls in order to be more like a book.” – Ben Croshaw, Zero Punctuation

The validation of games will happen when it is no longer sought after. When we stop attempting to measure games against the successes of other mediums, we might be clear-thinking enough to realize that games aren’t justifiably comparable to other media. There is no one-to-one ratio for games to movies, comic books or anything else. That is why the industry has succeeded and failed in its own right, independent of Hollywood or press, and why there are people who enjoy games and people who don’t. In our endless search for the Citizen Kane of videogames we are the self-righteous child in elementary school that holds a grudge against the classmates that won’t be his friends. If we as gamers can resign ourselves to the fact that gaming is not, and shouldn’t seek to be, for everybody, then we will be better for it. It could free our thinking—maybe enough to allow that genre-defining title to be created.

Rape Games Banned in Japan: Sex Sells, But Should Rape Sell Too?

This article, announcing the ban of rape games in Japan, was posted on Kotaku the other day. Rape games are games in which it is the player’s objective to successfully attack or otherwise coerce women in the game into sex without consent.

Brian Ashcraft, Kotaku’s Night Editor located in Japan, has been following the story of the ban for the past few weeks. His posts have detailed his resentment over the fact that rape videogames, as opposed to rape comics and rape pornography, are the only medium under scrutiny. He tells readers to “expect more creative ways of masking rape and rape iconography as well as possibly more ‘amateur’ or unlicensed games” and that “there's always the rape pornography and rape comic books that will most likely continue, business as usual.” He implies that rape games should be left alone, just like other rape related entertainment, to succeed or fail on their own merit. His main argument is that the games are released legally, which most were, and that there should be no further investigation of the genre for this reason.

What really gets me about Ashcraft’s articles is the 'if they can do it, we should be able to too' attitude in his writing. Rather than taking the position of gaming being the pioneer of ending rape-as-entertainment, Ashcraft seem resentful that rape games are being shut down while other rape-related entertainment isn’t also coming under fire. Ashcraft never calls into question the validity of rape as entertainment and immediately jumps to its defense because videogames are part of the equation. This behavior reminds me of the kind of defense gamers provided against the accusations of racist imagery in Resident Evil 5 all over the net. It's all very knee-jerk.

It seems to me that there is more than a hint of paranoia within the gaming community, ingrained in us by the likes of uninformed assailants such as Jack Thompson, and that many gamers will jump in front of a bus to defend any game, under any circumstance, with no thought as whether or not there are actual issues with a game’s content. We are so ready to defend the validity of games that at times we do not check to see if what we’re defending is what we actually believe, or if we are becoming willingly blind to protect our medium. Is it not a little fucked up to be defending rape games solely on the basis that rape exists in other media?

Penn Jillette, of Penn & Teller, felt the need to exacerbate the issue:

"What blaming the video game does is it shows compassion for the rapist. It shows understanding. At some level, in some small amount, it says, 'It's not really the rapist's fault; it's society's fault for putting this stuff out here'." – Penn Jillette, “Penn Jillette Speaks Out on RapeLay,” escapistmagazine.com

Jillette’s interpretation of the situation is not only narrow, but weak. Do laws against murder normalize killing? Jillette assumes that this ban will have the largest affect on rapist and potential rapists, patting them on the head saying “it’s not your fault that you’re a violent sexual assailant.” In reality, the decision for the ban more likely included deliberation on how the trivialization of rape affects victims of the actual crime, and how normalizing sexual violence through adolescent treatment of the subject matter is spreading sexual misinformation. There will be no rapists thanking this ban for ‘curing’ them of their desire to rape.

Additionally, some gamers are defending rape games under the banner of freedom of speech and creativity, but are failing to see that rape games breach the territory of a kind of hate speech against women. The comments on the latest rape game post on Kotaku are full of opinions (men’s only, from what I can tell) on the validity of rape as entertainment:

“Anyone who looks at this [ban] and say[s] ‘It's a good thing’, yet was up in arms over Jack Thompson, the controversies over Mass Effect, Manhunt, GTA, FPS games in general, and any other game controversy, is not[h]ing more than a hypocrite, pure an[d] simple. If you are going to support freedom of speech, you have to accept it in all its forms.” – WillSerenity, commenting on “Rape Games Officially Banned in Japan,” kotaku.com

If there were a game released under the title of “Fag Hunter,” and it was ostensibly produced as fantasy fulfillment for right-wing conservatives, would anyone defend that game’s right to exist as free speech? Certainly not. So what does exchanging one oft victimized group—gay men— for another—women at large—change as far as acceptability goes? Many people arguing this issue don’t seem to understand that there are clear distinctions between free speech and hate speech.

“People need to come to the realization that speech is not free; there is a very real cost and it is almost always paid by the most vulnerable members of society.” - Renee Martin, “Fox News Provides The Vehicle To Tillers Death,” womanist-musings.com

In this instance, women. Men may have the right to sexual fantasy, but everyone has the right to feel safe. How safe would a woman feel finding out a man she knew played a game simulating rape? There is no yardstick for what measures ‘acceptable’ rape fantasy, but the profiteering and juvenile treatment of the subject is absolutely not acceptable.

"[T]here are plenty of rape victims around who can quite justifiably be shocked, horrified, further traumatized by the depiction for entertainment of the crime that caused their suffering. And they are deserving of protection. Heaven knows, they weren't protected enough in the first place, least we can do is not make things worse.” – Phisheep, commenting on “Rape Games Officially Banned in Japan,” kotaku.com

In the comments, rape in games is also being compared to murder in games as a defense, but the term “murder” is used very lightly. If two people enter into a gunfight and one dies, as in nearly every existing shooter game, there was a kind of consent within the conflict. One person fires, and the other fires back. Both player and NPC were threats to each other to begin with. There are no ‘victims’ in a willing gun-battle. There is no consent in rape. There are victims. How many games have there been where the player sneaks around killing unsuspecting victims for no reason other than fulfilling their own pathological desires? Those characters are usually the bad guys.

The kink in this issue, however, is that rape fantasy, as a private sexual practice, alone or with a partner, is a perfectly valid sexual stimulant. Many, many people, both men and women, fantasize about raping or being raped, and act on those fantasies in a safe environment with their partners or by themselves. In fantasy, the fantasizer has complete control and can derive pleasure from an imagined situation that they would never enjoy in real life. The difference between a fantasy desire and an actual desire is entirely in the individual’s power to control the situation, and therein lies the stark contrast between fantasy rape and actual rape. Men who fantasize about rape do not secretly want to rape, nor do women who fantasize about being raped actually want to be raped.

More reasonable commentors are addressing the notion of rape as a viable, normal sexual fantasy and are defending rape games as an appropriate outlet. This approach stands on some firmer ground, but all of the difficulties mentioned so far still complicate the issue.

I’m of two minds on this one. I don’t think the current state of rape games passes as responsible sexual fantasy, but I don’t feel that they should be eliminated altogether either, as there are people who do enjoy the games based of their natural inclination towards rape fantasy. Simply, rape games in their current state are so far into the territory of shock porn that it is difficult to condone the lack of morality concerning the physical and mental well-being of women.

Ultimately, this ban isn’t an outrage. It’s just a simple curiosity that has sparked some debate within the gaming community. The ban was voluntary, and was not imposed upon the industry by Japanese law. The ban was decided under a vote. The influences behind the ban are what are generating such interesting discussion. It’s not as though the doomsayers that are crying “this ban means the end of free speech” are going to convince the repeal of a voluntary ban. I think Heliophage said it best:

"It's self-censorship, what is there to get mad about? If I go outside and promise to never say the word ‘fuck’ again, will you attack me with notions of 'free speech' and my right to shout expletives?" - Heliophage, commenting on “Rape Games Officially Banned in Japan,” kotaku.com