David Weigel | June 15, 2006
Texas Congressman Joe Barton, a member of the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, is one of the stalwart votes for "kid-friendly" regulation in entertainment. But in a meeting yesterday, after railing against the sins of "Grand Theft Auto" series, Barton dropped this bomb.
I'll have to confess, Mr. Chairman, that I am also a video game player. I have worked my way up to Civilization IV. I haven't yet been able to beat it but I at least understand the fundamentals of it. I think that game is an 'E' game, which means that anybody can play it. Given the fact that the industry is booming and that more games are being purchased than ever before - over $10 billion last year - it is imperative, in my opinion, that parents are informed about the content in the games that their children are playing.
I find it hard to believe that Barton is a serious gamer. Five minutes of a good Civ IV game can result in the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people. Nuclear weapons can be dropped on cities; primitive cultures can be subjugated at the end of a broadsword. Meanwhile, in Grand Theft Auto, you can shoot a ho. If there's a better encapsulation of the priorities and ethics of our congressional censors, I've not seen it.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Yeah, but Civilzation is like a classic war movie...no blood! I mean, if you don't see gore, it can't be that bad. It's like the difference between Double Dragon and Mortal Kombat. In Double Dragon, killing is clean, while in Mortal Kombat, it is brutal. Thus, Mortal Kombat is insidiously evil. Evil, I say!
If those primitives didn't want to suffer the sound and the fury of my nuclear arsenal, they shouldn't have settled on my bombing range.
I guess the logic is that your average 17 year old isn't able to drop nukes on a primitive villiage but just might slap a 'ho.
I guess the logic is that your average 17 year old isn't able to drop nukes on a primitive villiage but just might slap a 'ho.
I guess the logic is that your average 17 year old isn't able to drop nukes on a primitive villiage but just might slap a 'ho.
"I guess the logic is that your average 17 year old isn't able
to drop nukes on a primitive villiage but just might slap a
'ho."
Or, he can join the U.S. military and do both.
I seem to recall reading an essay somewhere (Liberty Magazine, perhaps?) that argued "god games" like Civilzation and Sim City are more corrupting than violent games because they encourage the players to treat not merely individuals but entire cities or nations as means to an end (the "end" being the greater glorification of the player) and they promote the idea that centralized decision-making is the best solution to virtually every problem.
One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.
P.S. I'm more of an FPS man myself. Reminds me of my salad days
robbing banks...
I occasionally play an older strategy/fleet combat game called
Star Trek: Armada II. In the course of playing that game,
it is common to use your phasers to exterminate entire populations
of planets. Why? In order to re-populate them with the right sorts
of people, of course. One would think that a Star Trek
game would not involve laying waste to whole planets, but there you
go. Even the Federation does it!
I won't even mention what I've done playing a dark side character
in the Star Wars games. Parents, be warned. Nothing is
safe.
Or, he can join the U.S. military and do both.
This seems to me to be an unnecessary slander. The overwhelming
majority of our servicemen and servicewomen are performing
difficult jobs with dedication and care.
Caricaturing them this way does not advance a debate.
As for the god games, those aren't corrupting. You petty mortals aren't capable of understanding the infinitely inscrutable mind of God. Better for the kids to learn that lesson early, I say.
In a game like Civilization IV, you get to destroy thousands of lives, but the carnage happens at one remove. The player doesn't have to get any (cyber) blood on his hands. That is, of course, why it's perfect for government types.
This seems to me to be an unnecessary slander. The
overwhelming majority of our servicemen and servicewomen are
performing difficult jobs with dedication and care.
Caricaturing them this way does not advance a debate.
Speaking as a proud serviceman: I think your humor module is on the
fritz, Clean Hands.
Speaking as a proud serviceman: I think your humor module is on the fritz, Clean Hands.
Could be, could be.
I'll shut up now. :-) At least about this.
"You petty mortals aren't capable of understanding the
infinitely inscrutable mind of God."
First time through, I read that as "the infinitely INCURABLE mind
of God." What would Freud say?
And, by the way- what happened to the Prime Directive, P L?
---------
Stalin has it right. In the mind of the sociopath- er, Congressman-
the destruction of a civilisation, even his own, is just career
advancement; it's not personal.
"it is imperative, in my opinion, that parents are informed about the content in the games that their children are playing."
Yes, it is imperative. If your 7-yr old is playing GTA:SA and you
have no idea what he's doing, then you're simply ignorant and a bad
parent.
But whether or not parents "are informed" is not really the issue,
here. The issue here is whether the government can/should force
retailers and game manufacturers to spend their own money to do the
parenting legwork for them. I mean, where does it end? How much
more clearly does it need to be spelled out?
[Cue Dave W. labelling me a fringe libertarian extremist for suggesting that parents actually be responsible and pay attention.]
P Brooks,
Well, I've never really understood the Prime Directive, having been
raised on the Kirkian Corollary to it, but I think it's okay to
interfere with the other "Great Powers" in the Alpha Quadrant. Like
the Romulans, the Borg, etc. Of course, one would think the
Federation wouldn't countenance blasting planetary populations out
of existence, but you'll have to take that up with the game
designers.
"Well, I've never really understood the Prime Directive, having
been raised on the Kirkian Corollary to it, but I think it's okay
to interfere with the other 'Great Powers' in the Alpha
Quadrant."
In an episode of ST:TNG it was finally spelled out that the Prime
Directive normally only applies to pre-warp civilizations.
In an episode of ST:TNG it was finally spelled out that the
Prime Directive normally only applies to pre-warp
civilizations.
Though later in TNG, it was used as the explanation for why the
Federation was staying out of the Klingon Civil War.
SR, if I were on the Federation Supreme Court, I'd rule that the
Prime Directive no longer applies to any civilization that directly
interferes with the Federation's culture (e.g., by blowing up our
ships, planets, etc.). Warp drive or no warp drive.
I'd also rule that any civilization that doesn't meet Kirk's
personal standards is also exempt.
Bah! You fools! Don't you know the point of any good game is to
seize gold mines, raze forests, build military bases, hire
mercenaries, and destroy your enemy? That is what is best in
life!
The only question is whether Barton builds his ziggurats as a
defensive line or spreads them throughout his base.
Five minutes of a good Civ IV game can result in the
genocide of hundreds of thousands of people.
Hmm. Have to give it a try, then.
"Though later in TNG, it was used as the explanation for why the
Federation was staying out of the Klingon Civil War."
Well, we could parse it out by suggesting that the Prime Directive
merely bars interfering with the internal governance of
warp-capable civilizations, but bars contact completely with
pre-warp civilizations.
It is also indicative of the psycholigical difference between dropping a bomb on a target from 20,000 feet and sticking a knife in somebody's ribcage. Carpet-bombing a grid on a map is a lot less horrific to the killer than getting up-close, personal, and bloody. Thus, it is "acceptable."
What's weird to me is that most games I see already have content
ratings on them. Granted, this voluntary rating probably only
happened becuase of threatened gov't intervention in the
past.
As a parent, I like the idea of ratings (voluntary or whatever)
because I can tell if a game is okay for my kid right from the
store shelf or if I need to go home and look it up on the
interweb.
P L- not that I would pass judgement(!) on a God, incurable or
otherwise, but.... My recollection of the Prime Directive was that
meddling in the natural development of other civilisations was
strictly verboten. I'm pretty sure that total eradication qualifies
as meddling (Kirk's endorsements notwithstanding).
Something which just occurred to me: the Federation had no evident
restrictions on the adoption of alien technology which would serve
to accelerate Earthly civilisation (viz "weapons systems"). I
reckon that's just proto-Bushian hypocrisy.
As for Congressmen- they should be rounded up and gassed: for the
you-know-who-dren
Do you think that the Prime Directive extends (will extend) to children? No wonder that Wesley Crusher is so danged annoying.
Hmmm- now that you mention it, the Prime Directive has a vaguely
Rousseau-esque flavor. Let the little children revel in their
natural state, as we exploit and/or lay waste to the planet on
which they live.
Wesley Crusher: you may dispose of him as it pleaseth you.
LOL, in one game of the first Civ, I got into a centuries long
war with the Mongols, as we were the only two left.
It turned into a war of extermination, with every city being nuked
at least once, and completely destroyed when captured. At the end
when I had won, I had a single city left on my home
continent.
All the land masses had undergone rampant desertification and
pollution covered most of them. Sea levels had risen to swampify
most of the coasts. Only constant work kept my 1 million people
from starvation.
I managed to turn the planet from a rich, pleasant world in to
something out of a bad sci-fi novel. :)
As a parent, I like the idea of ratings (voluntary or
whatever) because I can tell if a game is okay for my kid right
from the store shelf or if I need to go home and look it up on the
interweb.
I've got nothing against the ratings, but they are hardly necessary
to tell you whether a game is age appropriate. A quick look at the
cover art, screen shots and self-promoting blurbs will allow you to
tell with roughly 95% accuracy whether a game is appropriate or
not.
That's what's really crazy about the whole thing: Games like GTA
don't try to dress up as youth-appropriate passtimes so they can
get into your home and infect your kids. Games that are adult
themed tend to advertise it so that the target demographic is
interested.
A bit OT, but it's a little strange to describe Barton as just "a member of" the subcommittee. He's the chairman of the main committee.
It's always amusing to read of these Republicans who obviously
feel that "it takes a village."
My not quite 7 year old has thoroughly enjoyed destroying planets
with the Death Star in the Star Wars real-time strategy game,
"Empire at War" and I often overhear him saying to himself in an
evil voice, "I will crush the rebellion!" When he gets bored with
the Empire, he plays as the Rebellion. I don't care if he's
pretending to be good or evil as long as he's thinking.
I were on the Federation Supreme Court, I'd rule that the
Prime Directive no longer applies to any civilization that directly
interferes with the Federation's culture (e.g., by blowing up our
ships, planets, etc.). Warp drive or no warp drive.
Ay, there's the rub; in order to do any of those things, that
civilization would need warp drive -- otherwise, they'd be stuck in
their own star system. Well, unless we've landed our ships on their
planet, in which case we've already fucked up the Prime Directive
anyway....
Do you guys remember the episode where Picard figured that the
Prime Directive required that they sit back and watch a planet's
atmosphere dissipate, killing off its pre-warp humanoid
inhabitants?
It was the only time I can remember wanting to punch Picard in the
coccyx.
Was the seizing of the Botany Bay a violation of the Prime
Directive?
Talk amongst yourselves.
Was the seizing of the Botany Bay a violation of the Prime
Directive?
I don't think so.
First of all, the crew and passengers of the Botany Bay were human.
I believe Riker said in a TNG episode that the Prime Directive
doesn't apply to humans.
Secondly, IIRC, the BB was intercepted in interstellar space. While
technically they had not acheived warp drive technology, they were
travelling to the stars, which is what the warp drive is for.
Lurker Kurt,
Riker was a doofus. Despite strange dialogue insinuating that he
had some sort of competence, Riker's behavior in the series
indicated that his last few promotions were definite errors. So
anything Riker had to say about the Prime Directive should be taken
with a grain of salt.
As for the Botany Bay, they had a culture, too. And the
Enterprise destroyed that culture. Surely the Prime
Directive was written to prevent precisely the type of abuse that
Kirk unleashed on those innocent supermen and women. The spirit of
the law, man, the spirit of the law!
PL,
Khan and his followers could have remained free to develope their
own culture if they had not tried to take over the
Enterprise.
It was only after the attempted takeover that Kirk decided to drop
them on that desolate rock.
Come to think of it, their culture remained intact. Their
militaristic ways did not change. I believe the prime directive was
not broken in this case.
Come now, Lurker Kurt, let us be reasonable. The
Enterprise crew beamed aboard the Botany Bay
without an invitation. There's two violations right off the bat.
They go fiddling around with the ship's controls. More violations.
They yank Khan and his crew off the ship without so much as a
by-your-leave. More violations. Then they have the gall to not
respect the superiority of the genetically enhanced
humans--Homo superior, if you will. More violations.
Naturally, Khan had to take corrective action. In a manner called
for by his warrior culture.
As for Kirk's illegally dropping them off on a desolate and doomed
rock, well, we all know how that turned out, don't we? Khaaaan!
IIRC, the planet Kirk left them on what actually a nice, fully
habitable one. The problem was a few years later a nearby star went
nova or something, and destroyed the planet's ecosystem.
Thats why Chekov didn't even realize what planet he was on in Wrath
of Khan.
star trek nerd cred thread meter
0-------------------------------------------10
(not nerdy) (kinda nerdy) (hella nerdy)
-------------------------------------------^---
-------------------------------------------l---
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245