from the makers of grand theft auto, a new game called “bully” will be released in october. it involves a 15 year-old boy who has to defend himself at a private boarding school called “bullworth academy”. various groups (anti-violence groups) are already up in arms about the game, calling for boycots and such. apparently, the game (unlike grand theft auto) doesn’t have blood or death. interesting, i think, that the main character (from what i’m reading) doesn’t sound like the bully, but is instead defending himself against bullies. thoughts?
(ht to jay howver)
i think video games are fun. and protesters are not.
The people in the article seemed mad about the bat, but has there been proof that the bats are used as weapons against people yet? From the screenshots and trailers (http://www.rockstargames.com/bully/)the bat seemed to be used to destroy objects, I haven’t seen it used on a person yet.
I think people just get up in arms when the name Rockstar is dropped and people also have this conception that video games should all be child-friendly, so I think it collided again on this game.
I’ll wait and see more about it, I think it actually looks like a game I might enjoy currently, but I’ll wait and see how it develops and what actual tasks are required.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/arts/10bull.html?ex=1312862400&en=f536b0ae84f0468b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Another good overview of the controversy
Games are learning experiences. We learn strategies, responsiveness, and engage optional thought processes. The brain time spent in games includes decison making pattern development about ourselves, our values and our environment.
Even though the character is trying to defend himself from bullies, the game user develops problem-solving decision patterns that resort to a punch in the face, or a baseball bat to the kneecap. (I am not familiar with the game, but with the principles, so if I am innacurate, please forgive me the details that don’t matter.)
Children begin developing their decision-making database early, and during the teen years they discard the stuff that doesn’t seem relevant and reinforce the stuff that seems useful by repetitive application. The patterns develop subconsciously and when the person is older they emerge as life trends; especially when decisions are made carelessly.
I should add – this crucial stage of development during the teen years, is why the work done by Youth Specialties and youth ministers is so important. As I am sure you are all more than aware of, providing a young mind with a Christ-centered perspective gains them the advantage of trusting God their whole life.
I’m concerned with this mentality, “the fighting scenes did not include blood or result in the death of characters.”
So, what they are saying is, beating up on people and hitting them with baseball bats should be considered ok when it isn’t displaying blood or death?
When attacks are happening in the game and blood and death AREN’T shown as an effect, the young user could relate this to life. How surprised they will be when they attack their own real bully with a bat and the bully winds up paralyzed or dead.
In 1999, my brother was in a fight which he started as defending himself. His friend picked up a traffic cone and beat one of the guys with it. The guy who was beat was left bloody and unconscious. My brother and 3 of his friends ended up in prison. My brother served 4 years for mayhem.
I don’t agree with any game that promotes any form/fashion of violence as a solution.
I hate video games…..grrrrr