Jul 24, 2026
Dodging The Bulletstorm
What is our place, as Christians, when it comes to critiquing culture? It’s a question that is incredibly important not just to those who write for a web site like this one, but to all Christians who desire to live a life that’s not inherently withdrawn from culture. It’s also a question I had to deal with head on recently.
Recently, Gamasutra published a piece that I had written about a videogame called Bulletstorm. It’s a game that, no, I haven’t played but I’m annoyed by nonetheless. I explain why in my article, which you can go read if you want. When I was writing it, I knew it would get some negative comments, but what followed kind of took me off-guard.
Within the day, the comments section had exploded, and I started to notice my article popping up quite a bit on twitter. It became clear that because I was one of the first to be critical of this game on moral grounds, that I was striking a nerve with people. The responses were relatively varied, ranging from the depressingly predictable to the incredibly encouraging. The creative director of the game, Adrian Chmielarz, while coming across as somewhat defensive, still did a decent job of at least engaging the article, and I appreciated that. Some of the game writers I most respect seemed to like the article okay, and that really made my day.
One criticism of my article really got to me, though, and it was best and most concisely expressed by one of the creators of the Duke Nukem series, George Broussard through the following tweet: “Ridiculous Gamasutra article on Bulletstorm. http://bit.ly/gLuZKU Oh, never mind. Christ gamer.” The sentiment, of course, being that it makes perfect sense that such a ridiculous article would be written by a Christian, and that it therefore invalidates the article. This was an idea expressed over and over within the comments section, and always to essentially avoid and/or write-off the argument. It was said in-lieu of an actual discussion of the issues, in other words.
It’s not as if I hadn’t thought of this before, and in fact, I struggled a lot while writing the article with that very issue. Was this the kind of ethical issue that only a small amount of Christian gamers should be concerned about? In other words, was I just writing for an entirely wrong audience and thereby unnecessarily stirring up trouble where it need not be stirred?
Before you guys all respond with a unanimous “NO WAY” I should probably point out that such a thing is possible. It’s really a question of audience, and this is an important principle for Christians to keep in mind, even if they’re not writers: non-Christians don’t always need to be confronted every time they violate some specific Christian ethic. Living in the world means living with people who have different values and standards than us, and that doesn’t matter so much. What matters is that even those of us with the right standards have failed to live up to them, and our only hope is the gospel. No amount of decrying or rebuking is going to change that.
So I struggled, a lot, while writing that post. I worried about whether I was simply going to come across as a knee-jerk reactionary Christian and whether I would alienate people I need not alienate. Ultimately I decided that this was one of those things that the world probably would and should agree with us on. I don’t know what you want to call it: common law, universal morality, or whatever. But to me, the brazen quality of the objectionable content and its apparent intent pushed it over that “questionable” line to something else – something that people of all faiths, creeds, and persuasions can look at and say “Wow, that’s a horrible idea.”
At some point, we have a responsibility, like any decent human being would, to speak up when something is wrong, even if it makes us look like a close-minded fundamentalist to those who disagree with us. The key is to never lose sight of the essentials: that we are not beyond sin, that we were shown incredible grace and love, and that even while we speak truth to those around us, we show them at least the courtesy of doing the same for them. I don’t know how you do that over the internet, except for engaging the argument as fairly and thoughtfully as possible. Still, I would love to sit and talk to Adrien about his game face to face, though I doubt that will ever happen. There’s a lot of amazing things he and his studio did with that game that doesn’t make me want to cringe, and I’d love to hear about how all of that took shape. And I hope that one day, if I ever get to meet George Broussard, he’ll shake my hand and hear me out, even if I am a Christ-gamer.
Editor Picks
Recent Columns
Recent Podcasts
Jan 31, 2024
The Scandal of Reading 37 | Tiffany Kriner on Louise Erdrich’s LaRose
Jan 24, 2024
The Scandal of Reading 36 | Winn Collier on Wendell Berry’s Jayber Crow
Jan 10, 2024
The Scandal of Reading 35 | Lit Pulpit – The Moviegoer by Walker Percy
Dec 13, 2023
The Scandal of Reading 34 | Daniel Nayeri on Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson
Dec 6, 2023
24 Comments
Richard, thank you so much for your writing, your approach to writing, and the way you’ve handled the backlash from your Gamasutra article. As an aspiring game developer and a Christian I have been blessed and encouraged.
Thanks, Nathan.
Rich,
Dude. What does this mean? “Non-Christians don’t always need to be confronted every time they violate some specific Christian ethic.” It isn’t as if there are legitimate competing ethics, which may not be what you meant. You have to say the truth, wise as a serpent/harmless as a dove, but you have to say it. If you start measuring whether or not you should say something based on whether or not it will upturn the pagan ethic apple cart, you’re writer’s anxiety is only going to get worse.
Don’t hear me saying that I think you should go in and kick over the money-changers table. I’m saying that you need to be thinking about what would honor Christ, not what might be least offensive to the gaming community as a whole. Some will enjoy what you say. Some will think about it. Others will hate.
Even in this response, I could worry about how you are going to receive what I am saying, if I am being tactful enough, and etc. The fact is, you have to say what you need to say. If Christians don’t point out that people are blowing their own spiritual brains out by playing Christ dishonoring, intensely sado-masochist games, who will? I mean, at what pointhave we reached a sort of “violence pornography?” You need to talk about it, man. Keep it up.
Your friend in Christ,
Brad
I think your Gamasutra article was right on the money when it came to Bulletstorm’s blatant immaturity. Like you stated above, whether one is a Christian or not, when a game’s objectionable content crosses over from “objectionable” to “downright ridiculous,” it is worthy of moral/ethical criticism. I mean, think about the universal scorn heaped on BMX XXX when it was released back in 2002 even by secular game critics. Unfortunately, Broussard’s reaction is quite typical, especially when realizing your pet project could be similarly critiqued, as the assumption still is prevalent that being a Christian gamer serves as the perfect avenue for an ad hominem argument that not only avoids but also supposedly invalidates any serious discussion whatsoever.
Brad, what a fascinating response! Here are some Bulletpoints: (see what I did there?)
*Running around telling everyone every single time they sin is probably going to both make you overly busy and THAT GUY. People don’t like to be around that guy.
*Further, Jesus wasn’t THAT GUY, at least, not to everyone. To those who were in power, who were hypocritically religious, who thought much of themselves – those were the people Jesus annoyed. To everyone else, he waited for them to come to him for the most part. When he was asked questions, he answered them. To the woman caught in adultery, he lashed out not at her, but at the Pharisees.
*The truth is, people already know our opinions on a lot of these issues, and they don’t need our “helpful” clarifications. Being wise as serpents means only saying something when it adds to the conversation and is actually helpful, or as Paul might say, edifying (though he’d say it in the greek). Otherwise, we’re just saying things so that we can feel like we “did the right thing.” This is a bad motivation, because even Jesus was concerned first about loving others, not being perceived as being on the right side of an argument. He let others misunderstand him because certain battles just weren’t worth fighting at certain times.
*Will playing Bulletstorm blow our spiritual brains out? I don’t think so. I played the demo, just to see what was up, and I felt just as godly afterward. The key is to do so with discernment and wisdom, and to know your limits. My motivation isn’t really to stop people from playing the game as much as it is to cause people to second guess what they’re playing and maybe not cheer for it so brazenly.
Rich,
Hmmm…I think I did a poor job of explaining myself in my first response. I’ll address, briefly, your bullter points in hopes of more clarity. I say briefly because I don’t want to bore you to death if we agree anyway.
1. Yes, I agree. I’m not so much interested in pointing out sin, though it is necessary, as I am pointing out Jesus Christ. But the law is the schoolmaster, as you know. You can’t tell a guy who loves pornography, “Dude, you’re looking at nekkid women! Sinner!” and expect a very nice response. But then, you really can’t say very much at all without him flipping out on you. But you have to say something to point him to see Jesus. Where do you start?
2. Yes, Jesus is THAT GUY to everyone. He is just much wiser and better at it than us. (And also why he is so busy, maybe. ;p) There is not a single person in the world who has not felt the spectre of guilt before God because of him. Even the tax collectors and prostitutes who grew to love him at one time hated him, felt the sting of the Spirit’s rebuke, and new what sort of death the law brings.
On the flip side, how do you know which gamers are Pharisees and which ones are the adultresses? Which one, metaphorically speaking, is Bulletstorm? Talk to it as is appropriate.
3. Rich, are you sure that people know our convictions on these things? More importantly, do they know why we are convicted of things at all?
Also, I agree completely that we ought not say things to make ourselves feel better. However, we ought not keep silent out of the fear of man either. Sometimes, we do that by saying, “I’m not sure the truth would be helpful here.” Or, “I don’t want to be THAT GUY.” Or, “I won’t be able to be friends with these guys if I tell them what I really think.” Even though every one of those things are true. We don’t want to be THAT GUY, and we shouldn’t always say everything in our heart, the enemy can use those good impulses to turn us into a bunch of silent say-nothings.
For clarity, I’m not saying that you did that. But this temptation is common to all men, and it is something with which we all struggle. We have to beware, I have to beware, that my “contextualization” isn’t really a cloak for moral cowardice. I also have to beware that I’m not being a self-righteous jerk. Somewhere in betwen there is wise living and walking in the Spirit.
4. I disagree with you about Bulletstorm based on this review I read at Gamasutra. ;) I think that game does blow your spiritual brains out. It may not do it quickly, but it is a kind of poison that is detrimental to walking in the joy of the Lord and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. I cannot imagine getting a “gang bang” and giggling and thinking that Jesus is probably particularly pleased with that. I can, on the other hand, imagine head shotting you in a very awesome way in Halo and Jesus loving it. Because, seriously, if you get beat by me in Halo, it will hurt any sort of pride you have, because I am awful.
In the end, I hope that Bulletstorm flops, gets consigned to the trash heap, and such vulgarities never get made again. Not because I’m pro-censorship, but because people would simply make better choices.
In the end, we probably agree on most everything. I’ve just seen this thing from the start until now, and I worry that Sandballot and Tobias might get to you. Speak the truth in love, brother. That’s all I’m saying.
1) I thought the original article was great. I thought even more highly of the comment from the Bulletstorm guy Adrian Chmielarz. He was fair in his approach to the criticism without apologizing for his creation.
2) Being a Christian means being written off for our values a LOT. I used to work at an ad agency, and my values went opposite of some of my coworkers. So who wasn’t asked what should be served at the Christmas party? Me. But I was cool with that.
I don’t believe our words are going to mean a whole lot to people who might have ethical/moral/religious differences with us IF we don’t have a couple things in place. First, we need to love everyone. I tell the adults who work with my students that before they “get on” to a student for behavior, they need to make sure they LOVE that student. Second, are we striving to live a life that honors Christ? I’m not saying that we should be perfect (obviously we are NOT), but are we STRIVING?
Jesus didn’t always wai, Richard. He sought out the 12 Apostles. Jesus just did life and was sensitive to the Holy Spirit.
The thing is, in some ways, their response was reasonable. Your reaction to the game’s trailer coincided seamlessly with what could be imagined as the stereotypical fundamentalist Christian’s perspective (with the small caveat that you disagree with censorship). You, essentially, played to type.
You, for all your desire to speak of things fairly and engage arguments neutrally, are completely unable to do so. You’re necessarily fair-and-balanced in the FoxNews sense of the term. You are a deeply biased party.
For someone who doesn’t share your metaphysical presuppositions, your argument doesn’t necessarily need to be addressed. (Just as I do not feel any need to engage Muslim criticism of my dietary choices.) From the outside, no matter how much you squawk otherwise, it will be perceived that you don’t like the idea of the game because you love Jesus. And really, how wrong is that assumption?
Your ethic in regard to gaming is pretty pinned down by your religious convictions. And for better or for worse, you wrote an article antagonizing game developers in exactly the way that the typical Baptist would have been perceived to do. You sally forth with the expected Christian hang-ups, demonizing those who disagree by tagging them with implications of sociopathic obsession.
I’d say you got the response you should have expected.
If you wanted dialogue about the article’s particulars, you should have fielded it to an audience who at least shares the basic ethical principles that you do. I mean, if even I (who agree with you on far more foundational issues than Bulletstorm’s devs do) thought the article was overwrought and hyperbolic, how much more the non-believer?
Seth,
Everyone is a biased party, right? Fox News and Fundies don’t have the corner market on bias. I find your review of Rich’s review overwrought and hyperbolic. Were you in disagreement with Rich’s review? What was specifically hyperbolic? I couldn’t tell, but I may have too much Bible bias to see it.
To Rich, I would say, you need to keep being who you are. Developers will want you at the table because they know you speak for a significant number of people who won’t by their games if they cross a certain line. They really want to know where that line is, not because they care about God’s law, but because they care about money. Somebody might listen to you for other reasons, though.
Seth,
Ah, my review of your review of Rich’s review was overwrought and hyperbolic. I must be grumpy today. I’m hearby banning myself from commentary until I kick the grumpies out.
Brad
@Brad – “I find your review of Rich’s review overwrought and hyperbolic.” I didn’t actually review Rich’s review, but thanks for playing.
As for what could be conceived as hyperbolic? How ’bout stuff like this: Bulletstorm revels in skillshots, not only by rewarding them, but by giving them names that do little more than cheer on a sort of sociopathic obsession with causing the enemies the most pain and humiliation possible. Not only does he turn the gameplay mechanic that he just described as being potentially fun into a mark of sociopathy, but he humanizes gameplay characters to a degree unmerited, granting them access to feelings of humiliation.
He later adds that Bulletstorm has a seemingly complete lack of any social responsibility. Complete lack of any is almost always a great indicator of hyperbole.
In any case, hyperbole isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But if one’s intent is to engaged and foster discussion, it’s best to pare that stuff down. That’s why I say that Rich got the response he should have expected.
Seth,
In order for your assertion that the aforementioned paragraph was hyperbolic to be true, do you not have to demonstrate that such was the case? Bulletstorm clearly does revel in skillshots and it indubitably rewards them accordingly. And if Rich is incorrect that the skillshot names “do little more than cheer on a sort of sociopathic obsession with causing the enemies the most pain and humiliation possible,” then what is the purpose of the developers giving the skillshots such impudent, sexually charged names and plainly encouraging players to utilize them? “Sociopathic” may have been going too far, but I’m sorry, the burden of proof is not on Rich to show that his statement was not hyperbolic; it’s on you to show that it was.
You also state that Rich “humanizes gameplay characters to a degree unmerited, granting them access to feelings of humiliation”? Could it be that perhaps you are desensitized to such a degree that you do not accord the gameplay characters enough humanity?
See, Matthew? Your comments do more to foster discussion than the whole Gamasutra article (which merely functions as editorial). You at least pose your opinion in the form of a question, asking whether we shouldn’t see Bulletstorm‘s values as sociopathic—as opposed to Rich’s article, which simply asserts that such is the case.
As I’ve said, there is a place for that. And the Gamasutra article may have been the place for it. But to show surprise that such assertions would garner a negative reaction seems either disingenuous or naive. I think CAPC would have been a more valuable place for Rich’s article, if he wanted discussion of the article’s particulars rather than an excursion into knee-jerk reactions from those his article seems to set out to offend.
Quibbling for a moment: no, my assertion of hyperbole is true or false based on whether it is true or false, not based on whether I give evidence to support my the assertion. As well, my comments are intended to reflect perception rather than reality. That said, we can talk about those things if you like.
Lets start at the end. You suggest that I may be desensitized to such a degree that you do not accord the gameplay characters enough humanity. As desensitization is a realistic occurrence (sometimes for good and sometimes for ill) this would be plausible if these characters were actual characters. Really, this question comes down to the nature of games and how an individual approaches the facade draped over the mechanic. And this differs per individual.
At root, we should be able to agree on these three things.
1) Games are mathematical systems within which players are rewarded for taking some otherwise neutral action and punished for taking other otherwise neutral actions. That is to say, at their most basic form, games have less moral import than tic-tac-toe.
2) Games layer on what we may call theme in order to engage a wider audience (as doing math and calling it a game won’t attract that many people). In many cases, the theme expands to include some story elements.
3) As believable story elements are built into a game, players begin to accept more and more the illusion of the fantasy world being presented. Gameplay elements known as characters may create an emotional response (e.g. anger or fear or affection or camaraderie) as their thematic elements are built to greater degrees. It is things like this development of theme that forge the response-difference between the player who feels no guilt when curb-stomping a koopa in Super Mario Bros. and the player who feels remorseful when ending the life of one of the giant creatures in Shadow of the Colossus.
With me so far? If so, we can continue to develop how things like character humiliation play out.
So, from personal experience, I can tell you pretty plainly that I can be made to identify with fictional, non-existent characters. I feel deeply uncomfortable when Michale Scott does pretty much anything because I feel the humiliation on his behalf that he doesn’t feel for himself. I recognize that Michael Scott is just a fiction and yet because I buy into the draping of the theme (since story is just another form of mathematical system, a formula for eliciting response), I buy into him and his humiliation.
The question then is does a particular game do this. Some may get closer to doing that while others do not. And some players may be far more willing to invest themselves in even a thinly-proposed theme. People are just like that. You may connect more deeply than I do with poorly crafted facsimiles of a buy-able world. From past discussions here, I would say that Rich certainly does. Generally, when I’m playing a game, it takes a lot of effort for me to buy into the characters and see them as anything more than game devices, props whereby the game interacts with me, the player.
I may have fun rolling bears down hills in Oblivion, but that’s because though it looks like a bear is actually rolling down a hill, I’m never not conscious that it is not a bear. And I would consider the real thing to be absolutely horrific. And from what I’ve seen of Bulletstorm, it seems like the kind of person who would actually import humiliation into the experience of a nameless NPC in the game would have to be the kind of person who immediately accepts even the flimsiest-built gameworld as Compelling Theme.
This is not a criticism against such a person. I marvel at their abilities. I personally am unable to do that and I find it less a matter of desensitization than it is a matter of being very aware of the game system.
For this reason, I think we need to be careful about making statements of certainty about what amounts to a subjective reaction which relates entirely to the way in which an individual interacts with a game’s developed theme. Personally, though Bulletstorm doesn’t appeal to my particular gaming interests, I doubt I would be able to feel any human feeling for any of the game’s robots draped in ridiculous facsimiles of humanoid life. From what I’ve seen, they’re so clearly not people that it could hardly matter what my player does to them using the physics engines and gameplay mechanics at his beck and call.
I’ll get to the sociopathic bit another time as this is already pretty lengthy.
Hey guys, interesting discussion.
I would like to make one point about the argument regarding whether Rich (or anyone) can make statements about “universal” morality.
In news, Americans have a somewhat peculiar “commitment” (rarely fulfilled) to non-biased journalism. The debate rages about who said what and how, whether a particular story is biased or not, whether organizations that seem biased should get federal funding, etc.
But no matter what, two things tend to be true.
1.) To a certain extent, every news organization gets to have their own standard for what being “non-biased” really means without any serious criticism.
Perhaps you dislike NPR or Fox News, but for the most part you don’t think that they are doing anything treasonous or illegal. So, despite disagreements in this area, everyone can still share the same space.
2.) At the same time that everyone DISagrees on the right amount of bias or non-bias, nearly everyone AGREES on which things cross a certain line.
For instance, blatent falsehoods, lies, or unfiltered support of one side verses the other without any nuance is grounds for dismissal. This is why, for instance, we don’t give much credibility to, say, white power websites.
It strikes me that we need to allow for reviews of media to have the same options. It’s perfectly fine for someone to say that we Christians should not disqualify video games for not preaching the gospel. And it’s fine to say they disagree with our perspective on the value of a shoot-em-up game.
But at the same time, there DOES need to be space for common-ground discussions about how we will set standards for quality and value. Just as society has decided that slander is not acceptable, it’s perfectly ok for people from various components of society to participate in a discussion about whether various levels of torturous violence in videogames are healthy for people, especially the kids who will inevitably get their hands on them.
Rich’s article isn’t asking non-Christians to have Christian sensibilities. He’s merely trying, as a member of that culture/society, to participate in a discussion about where good lines for tastefulness and health might lie. To dismiss his careful article as being “just Christian” misses the point.
Bulletstorm occupies a similar space in society as people advocating removal of speed limits, Fox News reporting the President’s failures but not his successes, and Larry Flynt pushing the boundaries of speech and decency. Rich is merely acting as a citizen participating in the discussion about where the lines lie, and that’s a pretty darn reasonable request.
Seth,
The brevity of this response seems unfair, given the length of yours, but if you’ll pardon it, I’d like to engage your most recent comment in toto with a question for you and then my thoughts. Unfortunately, my time is limited this afternoon, so I hope you won’t find such a short response insulting.
If in Bulletstorm, I were shooting burning bullets into the anuses of digitally depicted infants, would your thoughts be any different? You wonder if Rich is being disingenuous, but if anything seems disingenuous to me, it is your claim that “Generally, when I’m playing a game, it takes a lot of effort for me to buy into the characters and see them as anything more than game devices, props whereby the game interacts with me, the player.” In such an instance, would you see those infants as being merely “game devices, props whereby the game interacts” with you? I’m going to go out on a limb, however precarious it may be, and assume that watching digital infants being killed by sodomizing bullets would bother you to a certain degree no matter how cognizant you were of the fact that they were not actually infants.
In that regard, I think I’ll stand with my original concern about your potential desensitization. My point is that while I understand your argument as to not only the characters not being real, but also the characters being NPCs with no discernible personality traits with which to identify, I nevertheless reject it due to the fact that I can produce situations in which I have been negatively affected emotionally (or even spiritually, in my case) by a video game, even though I knew that its characters were not real. Some games may emotionally affect players more than others, but even the crudest (in terms of graphics and gameplay, not content) still has the ability to do so if it “pushes the right buttons” (pun intended).
Richard:
You do a very good job at analyzing and expressing what you wish to do, and your concern or anxiety involved is only a residual of that effort (and in many ways you can take as a sign that you are okay). The Gamasutra article is actually what made me aware of this site, so I feel it is a little more important personally.
In any case, my point is this, I think you are correct in explaining that Christians should definitely hold the line on truth, but be sensitive that others will not be turned away from you. When you look at Christ, he did not have to be “in your face” to show people truth, or even to convict them. He worked with people on their level (as any good teacher would) so they could learn what they needed. Shooting from the hip, I’m thinking examples such as the rich, young man who is told to sell his possessions. Maybe the lesson wasn’t followed but it was definitely learned. Other times he was direct, and bluntly so, but not confrontational. Think of the woman at the well. He calls out her sin and she is shocked but not insulted. Then there are the times he gets mad, like the seven woes of the Pharisees. Those instances only happen when people are closed to discussion. It isn’t even the point that they are “attacking” but the point that they are closed down to anything other than themselves (and in their case are standing in the way of others actually hearing the truth).
So if you were to look at your responses with this type of light, I’m sure you could almost categorize them like this (maybe not exactly this simplistic but you get the idea). So when you get a response from George Broussard that basically dismisses an analysis of any kind, it makes sense that you are irked. I would be too. And here is the key that George and most others miss; you can lash out at him and still be righteous. You have every right to also publicly call him out to not being open minded to intellectual analysis and discussion – the very thing he implies of you when he says “Christ Gamer.” But here is the thing, you can and would not be wrong, but you didn’t. That is maturity. That is grace. Maybe he misses that, but maybe others watching don’t. Those are the signs that you are different. That Christ is not a religion, or a thing you do on Sunday, but can actually impact you life and who you are. That is the gospel spoken loud and clear.
@Ben – I’m pretty much totally in agreement with you. I think that everyone has has their biases and that their pre-dispositions necessarily colour both the way they perceive information and the way the information they present will be perceived.
When i say that Rich is a deeply biased party, I do so because with respect to his understanding regarding the interplay between fictional gameworlds and morality, his Christian faith pre-dictates his response. His response almost certainly would have been totally different had either one of those two elements been of different quality. This is not a bad thing. It is merely the way it is.
Further, it is entirely appropriate to give air to one’s biases in reviews. I did so in a book review I published yesterday. I made the audience aware of my prejudice, gave tacit explanation of my reason, and moved on with the understanding that everything that followed would flow from that bias (reasonable or not). The reader’s responsibility is to take that information and do whatever he likes with it. Take it to heart, dismiss it, whatever.
The problem arises when we speak from our presuppositions and expect others—who either don’t share those presuppositions or have actively rejected those presuppositions—to engage us in conversation. It’s one thing if we present our opinions in such a way that it appears we are seeking discussion and are open to dialogue. But to present opinion as dogma and then complain that people didn’t engage the opinion but simply drove straight to the presuppositions that were perceived to be the opinions origin? There’s a bit of disconnect there.
It would have been fine had Rich written his article and pissed some people off. It happens when you make moral statements. And obviously I’m fine with this because I do it all the time. But to then express disappointment that no one engaged the argument? This doesn’t seems to follow since the article never gives the opposition any reason to want to engage the argument.
Seth,
I think we agree pretty closely, I just think it’s fine to expect the engagement part. I think Rich approached the argument as a citizen of a particular culture, and should be able to expect a fair debate about cultural standards as such.
The big problem I have is that a person who discounts the Christian contribution to a secular conversation about shared societal standards is that they are essentially arguing that only people who do NOT have some sort of religious worldview have validity in the conversation, and that’s just ridiculous.
The only real exception to that is a sort of extreme libertarianism which says that conversations about shared standards are essentially wrong from the start. But unless we want to allow pornography on billboards and drugs at the coffee shop, SOME discussion of shared societal standards around right and wrong has to happen.
So, when Rich makes a contribution to that discussion around a video game he thinks violates a much more general standard than the Christian one, I feel expectation of engagement with the argument is a fair request.
@Ben – Agree with pretty much everything here with the caveat that I think Rich could have invited discussion better than he did. (Since I doubt many of his opposition received their invitations.) Especially if he would have liked to have had a better reaction from Bulletstorm devs, flatout saying that their product reveled in sociopathy was maybe not the best choice and doesn’t exactly encourage cross-culture dialogue. (Again, this is only important if cross-culture dialogue was part of his goal.)
@Matthew – I bare you not ill-will for a brief-but-long-enough response. Time being in short supply on my end as well, I’ll try to respond later this evening, since I think your question deserves an answer.
@Seth:
I get what you are saying about presenting dogma and then complaining that people don’t engage. I think two things need to be kept in mind with that though.
One, venue plays a big role. Of course there are ways to respond an interact with all media, but an internet site with easy reply space at the bottom is a venue that promotes response. I think internet communities are steeped in that, so articles tend to expect it when written. Just look here and the amount of comments and speed of replies that associate with it. Opinions and commentaries are written to create discussion.
Two, the definition of engaging should be clarified. To me, a response is not an engagement. George Broussard responded, but did not engage. If he wanted to engage and discuss he could have. If he thought Richard’s article was dumb or he himself was an idiot or a nut job, he could have dismissed it. But what he did was neither. He responded, insulted, and ran. It reminds me of the old days of chat rooms. Remember you would sit there for hours, talking, discussing, maybe even arguing about something…like that Batman is greater than Superman (you know, really serious stuff here). And you have discussion from multiple people on both sides giving their opinions, based on some form of reasoning, then you would get that guy who jumps in the room, types in all caps “Batman Sucks” and then leaves the room. Not only is it immature, but it is disruptive to the discussion. If one doesn’t want to engage, then don’t. Don’t be arrogant enough to think you can make a brash statement and walk away all high and mighty, too good to discuss such silly things with those who still believe in a living God who works miracles in daily life. That is the problem.
@Matthew:
Shooting videogame babies? Again, it depends on the context within the game and how well I buy into the game’s theme-presentation. From the sound of Bulletstorm‘s presentation, I wouldn’t have any compunction shooting their videogame babies simply because the game itself is absurdist and divorced from reality.
Now a game like Heavy Rain in which the audience is more deeply invested in the characters and theme? Yeah, I’d be more reluctant to kill a baby (or any innocent in a game like that). Ultimately, in story-centric games, I might cause my player to behave in atrocious ways anyway, because those games are less about my actions and what they say about me and more about the story being told.
For instance. I’ve been playing Fallout New Vegas recently and while the game never threatens to really invest me in any of its characters, the stories the game holds are interesting and sometimes compelling. And if I have to play the roll of bad guy to see some of those stories play out, then I will do so. My first play through, I made decisions more often based on how I might make decisions were I in the particular situations that the game presents (simply because, being new to the game environment, it was easier to have one less thing to think about). My second playthrough, however, I’m doing things I would never do, from aiding out-and-out criminal gangs to betraying confidences—all to the end of discovering what stories Bethesda/Oblivion have cooked up and to see if they’re as well built and interesting as the ones I came across in my earlier playthrough.
So far as responsibility goes, I have in this sense, about the same degree of agency as I do when I’m reading a novel and someone is about to be murdered and yet I turn the page and read it, completing a murder that never would have happened had I not read that page. I am complicit in the death of a fictional character, a fabrication. Is there moral import in that? Probably only if one has to go against conscience to participate in such a faux-murder.
As far as your concern for my desensitization, I thank you.
As I mentioned earlier, desensitization can be good or bad. If we are desensitized to our own sin, this is a terrible thing and will make our sanctification a rocky and painful path. We can be desensitized to other things in quite helpful ways however. For many of us, our first response to gross disfigurement will be revulsion; our natural ability to entertain the grotesque is limited. However, those who become desensitized to disfigurement are much better able to interact with the poor individuals suffering disfigurement, are better able to treat such people as if they are perfectly human. Doctors have been desensitized to seeing the stuff that should remain on the inside and so are able to do thing that would make my wife pass out.
Being sensitive to something can be a good or bad thing, depending on what the object of the sensitivity is.
Still, that being the case, what I am talking about is not so much (I think) a matter of sensitivity so much as it is a matter of perspective. You and are are viewing a single thing from two different points of vantage. From where you view, these games mirror reality enough that they become disturbing (and so inflame your sensitivities). From where I view, these games are mechanistic absurdities that bear no relation to reality (and so do not relate to my sensitivities). This is how one can explain the fact that if I read a news item about a child abused, I experience anger and sadness, but if I played a game in which I had an over-the-shoulder cannon that shot homing-babies at enemies, I would chuckle at the humour of it.
Seth, I appreciate and understand your thoughtful response!
@The Other Ben (Pitselah):
While I think you’re right that venue can contribute or hinder discussion, I think the democracy of the internet can be taken pretty easily in either direction. And oftentimes it all starts with the tenor of the original article. I think with the article in question, opposition readers had three easy ways to regard Rich by his words: well-intentioned but naive, a Christian blowhard, or someone trolling for a reaction. Or perhaps some combination of those. He probably wouldn’t be perceived by those of an opposing perspective as having offered much evidence that he was interested in discussion or engagement—so they gave what they thought he wanted or deserved: a simple (and simplistic) reaction.
You’re right of course about Broussard and others. They contributed nothing to the discussion. My guess is they may have felt they were giving like in return for what they got though. Rich after all never discussed the question of whether Bulletstorm‘s content has merit. Instead, he simply declared it to be a negative and said he hopes that the game will be the last of its kind. He presents himself (within the scope of the article) as someone who isn’t really looking for discussion. And I reiterate: this is fine and the place of editorial statement is useful.
We just shouldn’t expect such statements to give birth to fair-minded discussion. And if they do, then we should consider that the work of common grace.
@Matthew:
Thanks!
wow you actually listen to what people say and respond to it logically.
you win at life my good man
Comments are now closed for this article.