Controversy and Rhetoric

In a case that mirrored the James Bulger killing of the early ‘90s, the game ‘Manhunt’ became a 21st century “Childs Play”. Released by the ever controversial Rockstar Games, the game was vilified by the media in 2004, when Warren LeBlanc killed his friend Stefan Pakeerah in a fashion supposedly inspired by the game. The premise of the game is that after being abducted, protagonist (antihero?) James Earl Cash finds himself the unwitting star of a ‘snuff movie’, pitted against an army of foes, each determined to kill him. Using a variety of weapons ranging from a screwdriver to a huge electromagnetic JCB to defend himself, he escapes and destroys the mysterious ‘snuff’ show of which he is the star. Is the vilification of this game justified? In retrospect, it seems that Manhunt fell victim to the subjective ignorance of a powerful few, who, given their position of power, sparked what Stan Cohen terms a ‘moral panic’- a phenomenon that dates back centuries- in that the values and rhetoric within the game conflicted with the values of the society in which it was released.

Salen et al. (2004, p.9) describe rhetoric as ‘a persuasive discourse or implicit narrative, wittingly or unwittingly adopted by members of a particular affiliation to persuade others of their beliefs’. Manhunt is not the only game to cause controversy, games such as Duke Nukem, Grand Theft Auto and even Doom have been subject to criticism due to the rhetoric contained within. The values of Grand Theft Auto:Vice City, also by Rockstar, are not dissimilar to that of Manhunt in that violence is used to overcome obstacles, for example wiping out rival gangs to obtain ‘turf’, however the overall rhetoric differs, and is somewhat more negative that that of Manhunt, a key aspect of which is the context in which the violence is set. In Manhunt, the violent nature of the game is based on self-defence when faced with mortal danger. In GTA:Vice City, the violence is far more gratuitous, albeit less graphic, for example a player can shoot the head off of an elderly pedestrian with no provocation whatsoever, and the overall rhetoric seems to be that crime does pay, for upon completion of the game, the main character suffers no retribution for the hundreds of different crimes he has committed. Critics such as Dr. Spock may argue that this rhetoric has a detrimental impact upon gamers, particularly the young, however I feel inclined to agree with the theory that games such as this can serve a cathartic purpose, and are not only entertaining but help channel aggression in a safe, passive manner.



Bibliography

Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2004) The Game Design Reader, A Rules of Play Anthology. Cambridge: MIT Press

Video Games: Cause for Concern? Retrieved on 17th Feb 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1036088.stm