If the death and destruction caused by the tsunami were in some way linked to violence of any kind, if it was human making-- I could see the connection you're making and I would agree that it is inappropriate.

However, it was a natural disaster. Yes, it was death and destruction, but not violence. So I don't think the connection here is very strong. Most games with a strong plot focus around some kind of conflict, and often-- although not always-- that conflict involves violence.

Whether Halo 2's violence is "wanton" depends mostly on your perspective. The game portrays the situation as a desperate struggle for survival against an implacable and superior enemy; if that was the situation I'd damn well want my species to be capable of "wanton" violence, and only the most dedicated pacifist would consider that a character flaw.

But for a moment let's just look at this from the practical, events-planning side. If you're sympathetic to the tsunami victims, you want to help. That means money. Most people, not being full-time altruists, need something to interest them in a relief effort aside from just the satisfaction of doing a good deed. They want to see some competition, or engage in an activity. That's why events of this kind often involve marathons, contests, or similar activities.

The event was organized by school students. Many students like playing console and computer games.

There were two top runaway selling console games for 2004, and they both came out just a few months ago, so they are new, fresh, and in the front of people's minds. In short, perfect if you wanted to draw attention to your event, and if the most important thing to you was how much money you would raise.

Those two games were Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Halo 2.

Anyone want to make an argument that GTA is somehow MORE appropriate than Halo 2 for a tsunami victim relief event?

Anyone?

Didn't think so.

What bothers me here is school administrators putting their own fears of retribution from parents who put their own personal qualms about-- in your words-- sanitized, cartoon violence-- in front of the success of the event. They said they would do the event if it involved another game. Odd how we never heard about what game, if any, they chose. More likely the event was just cancelled so that tsunami relief efforts are a few hundred dollars short of what they could have had, and a few school board members can sleep soundly.

Good trade? You be the judge. For me, it just doesn't sit right.

----

Rampant for over five years.

[quote=]That's odd: you think I'm "really reaching" and "linking two concepts that don't need to be linked", but to me the geopolitical causes of the tsunami disaster are as obvious as the natural ones. It's *separating* the two that takes an effort of imagination, or just plain ignorance - at least, to my way of thinking. But yours is the mainstream way of looking at things.[/quote]

I call it a "reach" because the primary cause of tsunami deaths is not geopolitics. The primary cause was a natural disaster. The situation was exacerbated by geopolitics, but that was not the causal factor.

Furthermore, poverty and lack of readiness on the part of local governments can be caused by many factors other than militarism; there are many countries whose governments are corrupt, incompetent, or just plain poor without being military dictatorships.

These links are associative, not causal-- that's why I call them a "reach"-- it's a move beyond the obvious causal factors of the tragedy to other, contributory, but not essential elements. For instance, one could argue that while Italy has, in the past, been extremely militaristic, but they are not now; however, I think the tsunami would have been no less a tragedy had it hit Venice rather than Thailand.

[quote=]I think what I'm really reacting to is the tendency for hysterical and irrational fears about the social effects of violent video games to be countered, in the gaming community, by only slightly less hysterical and irrational reactions to those fears. [/quote]

I agree. That's why I was careful not to object on that basis. I don't think their school, or any school, should be criticizing for refusing to endorse or embrace any videogame, let alone a violent one. However, this isn't a decision that was made in a vacuum; they weren't asked to wholeheartedly endorse Halo as a worthwhile and didactic work of art; they were asked to allow it as part of an after-hours fundraiser that would involve leisure activities. As such I think it's quite a different question.

Some might even laud them for taking a stand, for sticking by their moral principles. However, I think in this case the moral principles that are really relevant are those of the students who were going to take part, and the parents who had apparently already given permission. For the school administrators to put their own personal moral principles, or what they assume are the principles of nonparticipants in the event, over those of the individuals in question and their legal guardians-- that strikes me as a case of misplaced priorities, not to mention a bit of grandstanding unbecoming in an educator.

[quote=]It's true that definite causal links between violent media (movies, games, whatever) and violent individual behavior have not been demonstrated convincingly, despite mounds of research. It's true that blaming Columbine on Marilyn Manson and video games is a stupid and dangerous way of ignoring the real social issues involved, like bullying and harassment in our high schools. It's true that the school in question could probably have held a successful fundraising event using Halo 2 as it's selling point.

But it's not like the Puyallup School District's decision represents some great injustice crying out for redress. And it's not like there are no legitimate reasons whatever to be concerned about violence in video games.[/quote]

I agree completely-- and as I mentioned in my original post, my objection was not to the decision itself, but the reason and the context. If some student had simply wanted to start a Halo club and use school property and resources to play videogames apropos of nothing, then the only factor to be considered would be whether or not this was an appropriate use of school resources and facilities, and I think only the most rabid critic would argue that it is; I, for one, don't.

I didn't characterize their decision as an injustice requiring redress; what I did accuse them of was what I would consider to be an odd ordering of priorities. I'm willing to admit that kids like violent games, and so using such a game for the fundraiser would have given it the best chance for success, and I'd be willing, on that particular occasion, to subjugate any objections I might have to the game's content to the laudable goal of the event. I think to not do so intentionally hampers their efforts to raise money, and is sacrificing their charitable goal in order to protect themselves from criticism from the same people who blame Columbine on Quake.

It's not injustice-- just cowardice, in my opinion.

[quote=]Like books, movies, and TV, video games are part of culture. As such they have definite meaningful contents. Games that celebrate wanton violence (see below) committed by cartoon characters in a mostly bloodless imaginary world, still celebrate violence. They take the imagery of war and bloodshed and make it into a sport. That's something that a reasonable person might reasonably be concerned about. It doesn't mean that vids are evil, but it suggests that they aren't an unqualified good either.

There's nothing more boring than a debate where neither side will admit that the other side's position has any legitimate basis at all.

Just a thought.[/quote]

I certainly don't deny that there are games that celebrate wanton violence; what I do suggest is that this is not nearly as troubling as some would make it out to be. In any case, I'd suggest that celebration of virtual violence is not as bad as the celebration of real violence, and it seems natural to me to imagine that it is possible that the former provides a more socially acceptable form of expression for normal human behavior.

[quote=]As for "wanton": well, my good sir, you condemn yourself with your own argument. You've stated that wanton means, among other things, "frolicsome, playful" and the violence in Halo is definitely frolicsome and playful. I contend that it is also "unrestrainedly excessive", at least if you're doing it right (warthog jumping, anyone? kill-taculars?). And the storyline does feature violence that is "marked by unprovoked, gratuitous maliciousness; capricious and unjust" - the Covenant's gratuitous and unprovoked war on humankind, of course, which provides the raison d'etre for the Master Chief's every heroic action. [/quote]

"Heroic" doesn't mean frolicsome. I think that only applies to multiplayer, which as I mentioned, I was considering mostly the single player. (I have XBL but can't use it since I don't have broadband, and literally no one within thousands of kilometers of me owns an Xbox, so multiplayer isn't usually a consideration when I think about Halo.)

I wouldn't even consider Warthog Jumping violence unless you're doing it wrong-- more like vandalism :)

"Excessive" means something that is more than necessary. In the context of humanity's struggle for survival against an aggressive and superior enemy, what would not be excessive? Lots of violence, but not quite enough to win?

Also, with regard to the Covenant, I think Halo 2 has certainly tried to show their side of the conflict and not portray it as unprovoked at all. They are misguided, certainly, and aggressive. They consider their war Holy and their objective justifiable. Of course, humanity differs with them on that point, but it does not seem as if the majority of the Covenant are battling in bad faith, if you'll excuse the bad pun.

Humanity is battling for survival, the Covenant for salvation. Given that Halo actually bothers to have a plot (even if some consider it hardly original) I do think it is reasonable to take the motivations it ascribes to characters at face value, and as such, I don't think the violence from either side is "unprovoked" or "gratuitious". Just for comparison, I'd say that it is possible for players to commit such violence in the game should they so choose-- for instance, the game doesn't prevent you (except in particular cases) from killing your own men for no reason. That's certainly unprovoked, gratuitous, wanton and, if you want to ascribe a moral parameter for events that occur only in a virtual space, immoral or lewd.

[quote=]As for "immoral or unchaste; lewd" - well, that is the touchy point, isn't it? That's what the censorship advocates implicitly maintain. As I've said before, I'm an avid Halo player, so *obviously* I don't think that that playing Halo is immoral. But last time I checked, using a word by one of its definitions did not imply using it by all the others.
[/quote]

Not all of a word's definitions are relevant in every context; certainly "lewd" and "unchaste", in their more common usages, aren't applicable at all, as they most often are applied to the moral aspects of sex rather than violence.

"Immoral" of course is much broader, and could apply. Of course, many systems of morality do condone self-defense; but if one wanted to play Halo as a pacifist I suppose one could-- but the game I think would be quite short (or a speed run). That's an interesting way to play the game, but I don't think returning fire in Halo is "immoral", and only a true pacifist that does not allow for self-defense would argue that it is-- again, even assuming you can assign moral values to events that dont' actually occur. In this case, I don't mean whether Halo, as a work of art, is moral or immoral in its portrayal of such events, but whether or not the actions of a player in acting out these events are immoral-- this seems to be applicable in the context of wondering whether or not placing people in the situation of enjoying violence is bad because it might encourage immoral acts in the real as well as virtual worlds.

On that, my feeling is that the urge to commit immoral acts is a basic component of human nature that will, most likely, never be purged, and is safer expressed in virtual worlds or enjoyed vicariously through music, theater, literature and film, rather than experienced firsthand.