biteho.com

Following a pair of back-to-back mass shootings, some American politicians and pundits have once again turned their ire towards video games. The most high-profile of these was President Donald Trump, suggesting that video games contribute to a culture of violence that causes people to feel flippant with the sanctity of human life. However, he was far from the only or even the first politician to cast blame. But where does this reaction come from, and does the scientific evidence support it?

Playing Politics

Though the pair of tragic shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio on August 3 and 4 have revived the topic of video game violence, politicians expressing concern over the effect of violent video games on young people is anything but a new phenomenon.

Prompted by games like Mortal Kombat, Night Trap, and Lethal Enforcers, Congress held hearings on video game violence in 1993-1994. Led by Senators Joe Lieberman and Herb Kohl, the planned hearings were given extra furor thanks to Bureau of Justice statistics that showed gun-related violence had reached record highs in 1993. Politicians pointed the finger at violent media, especially video games.

“I’d like to ban all the violent video games,” Lieberman said at the time. “It’s hard to control every measure of this, especially in a society that values free speech and First Amendment rights.”

During the hearings, Lieberman argued that the average video game player was 7-12 years old, and so violent games were being marketed to children. Recognizing that an outright ban was impractical, however, Lieberman threw his support behind warning labels for violent video games. Congressional pressure had made clear that the government would take action to regulate the industry if it did not regulate itself. The result was the industry banding together to form and abide by ratings given by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB).

The next significant political challenge to video games came from a California law that eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. Brown v Entertainment Merchant’s Association was a suit concerning a 2005 law restricting violent video game sales to minors without parental supervision. The law, drafted by former California State Sen. Leeland Yee and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, demanded labeling beyond the standard ESRB labels and would fine retailers for selling violent games to minors. It defined violence under an obscenity statute that had previously only been used to restrict the sale of sexually explicit material. The EMA argued that the law unfairly treated video games as fundamentally different from other media, the sale of which is not restricted to minors.

In a rare 7-2 ruling, the famously conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the Court’s opinion that video games are subject to the free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, with Justice Samuel Alito concurring. Only Justices Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas dissented. Significantly, Scalia’s written opinion explicitly rejected California’s argument that a causal link existed between media violence and real-world aggression.

“The State’s evidence is not compelling,” Scalia wrote. “California relies primarily on the research of Dr. Craig Anderson and a few other research psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children. These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, and with good reason. They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively … They show at best some correlation between exposure to violent entertainment and some minuscule real-world effects.”

Despite this standing opinion from the highest court, politicians still regularly point fingers at video games, especially in response to acts of real-world violence. This latest example isn’t even the first time we’ve seen it from President Trump. Following the mass shooting in 2018 at a high school in Parkland, Florida, the president convened a roundtable with industry groups and critics on the same subject. It similarly used depictions of video game violence to suggest a causal link between exposure to violent games and real-world violence.

So why does this keep happening?

The Renewed Furor

The shootings in El Paso and Dayton took place over the course of less than 24 hours. Though mass shootings have become almost routine in American life, two mass casualty events occurring in such quick succession appeared to shake Americans to their core. Heartbroken citizens looked to leaders for guidance and action.

Almost in unison, conservative leaders rallied against video games as a culprit. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Republican House minority leader Kevin McCarthy both appeared on Fox News Channel on the morning of August 4, calling for action against video games and suggesting a causal link between violent games and violent actions. President Trump’s prepared remarks on Monday morning gained the most attention, but he was largely following a narrative already set by other conservative leaders.

“We must stop the glorification of violence in our society,” Trump said. “This includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace. It is too easy today for troubled youth to surround themselves with a culture that celebrates violence. We must stop or substantially reduce this, and it has to begin immediately.”

Critics of the president have suggested the tendency to blame video games is something of a stalling tactic, to shift the focus away from discussions of gun control that often take place following mass shootings. And to be sure, this would have strategic merit. American interest in gun control legislation waxes and wanes with current events, so muddying the waters and waiting it out could work, if one’s goal was to simply maintain the status quo.

Whatever political maneuvering might be at play, some segment of the broader population does genuinely believe video game violence contributes to real-world violence. Their strong concerns may be based in good faith, but the evidence is inconclusive at best.

What The Evidence Actually Shows

One of the most common arguments against a link between video game violence and real-world is anecdotal and intuitive. It has been stated many times and in many ways: video games are enjoyed the world over, and countries with similar or much higher video game adoption rates have significantly lower levels of gun violence.

The ESA stated this in its initial response to President Trump’s remarks, saying, “Other societies, where video games are played as avidly, do not contend with the tragic levels of violence that occur in the US.”

Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick echoed this sentiment days later, calling Trump’s comments disrespectful to the victims and their families. “The fact is entertainment is consumed world-wide,” he said, “but gun violence is uniquely American. So we need to address the real issues.”

This sentiment isn’t new. The Daily Show host Trevor Noah lampooned the Trump administration along the same lines in a 2018 segment following the roundtable after the Parkland shooting. In the segment, Noah argued that stricter gun regulations are “most effective and realistic way to limit gun violence,” citing lower homicide rates in countries like Japan–despite their fondness for video games.

A more authoritative refutation can be found in a policy statement issued by the American Psychological Association in 2017. It argues, “Scant evidence has emerged that makes any causal or correlational connection between playing violent video games and actually committing violent activities.” The policy statement goes on to point out that a 2002 analysis from the United States Secret Service “suggested that school shooters tended to consume relatively low amounts of violent media compared to normative levels for same-age peers.” It’s careful to note that this finding does not conclude that increased consumption of violent media would result in less real-world violence, just that a link cannot be established.

The paper concludes that public officials and the media should refrain from suggesting a causal link between media violence and real-world acts of violence. At most, it says, media figures should refer to studies that may link video games to “aggression.” It argues this because, as Justice Scalia noted in his 2011 ruling, the studies linking media violence to actual aggression are disputed, and usually extend to minor acts of aggression such as “the administration of unwanted hot sauce to make food too spicy, making someone put his or her hand in freezing ice water or bursts of white noise in laboratory experiments.” The APA suggests that these findings are not conclusive and the methodology “remains a matter of reasonable debate.”

On the other hand, a 2016 statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics is more sharply critical of media violence. First, it draws a distinction between aggression and violence, to help parse terms.

“For example, a snarling dog is behaving aggressively; once it bites, it has resorted to violence,” the statement says. “A person who verbally abuses another would not be committing an act of violence by this definition. Thus, all violent acts are aggressive, but not all aggressive acts are violent.”

It argues for a “broad scientific consensus that virtual violence increases aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors,” and dismisses the landmark Supreme Court ruling as based upon First Amendment grounds rather than scientific merit. It does concede, however, that laboratory aggression as a proxy for real-world aggression has proven to be a research challenge. Though increased aggression in a laboratory setting has been consistently shown and studied, this does not necessarily result in real-world violence. Finally, it states that an experimental, real-world study linking virtual violence with real-world violence has never been conducted, because the rarity of violence precludes a large enough sample size to be accurately studied. On the whole, though, the AAP appears to suspect some link may exist, and recommends more stringent enforcement mechanisms.

Conclusion

While scholars may disagree regarding the weight and emphasis of conclusions offered by laboratory studies, even the sharpest scientific critics of video game violence draw a cautious distinction between findings of heightened aggression and the soundbite-ready conclusion that video games are a primary cause in these ongoing national tragedies. Regardless, politicians have been looking to the medium for more than 20 years, and they likely will again the next time a tragedy hits close to home.

The world of Oninaki has a complex and interesting relationship with death. For the people living in this realm, death is not just accepted, but sometimes even embraced, as they believe that they will be spirited onto their next life upon their passing. But sometimes people don’t just go peacefully into reincarnation. They have unfinished business, lingering desires, or unbearable pain that prevents them from completing the cycle–and if they can’t find relief, they may transform into terrifying monsters called Fallen. That’s where the Watchers come in. They are a group of humans gifted with the ability to cross into the parallel realm of death, and they must both guide lost souls to their next destination and deal with those who have become Fallen.

As the Watcher Kagachi, you not only have to help find and guide lost souls, you must fight off the Fallen in both realms. In fact, you’ll be doing significantly more fighting than soul-guiding, because there are a lot of Fallen wandering around nowadays. That, combined with issues like a dearth of new births, a weird cult, and a vicious murderer known as the Night Devil roaming about, has the populace worried about the foundations of death and reincarnation collapsing.

This concept is undeniably cool, and it’s ripe for storytelling potential about dealing with the inevitability of death and finding peace and acceptance. The beautiful graphics and world design of Oninaki bolster the intrigue of this setting, too; serene fields, plant-filled marshes, elaborate ruins, and craggy mountains have a zen-like quality to them that feels both contemplative and somber, which contrasts starkly with the crowded, anxious mood of the bustling cities, palaces, and other man-made dungeons and structures. When you “cross the veil” to the realm of the dead to search for lost souls, familiar things immediately transform into an eerie miasma of dark shadows and bright neon lights, giving an otherworldly vibe that really makes you feel like you’ve reached a place far beyond the senses of normal humans. The combination of intriguing setting and visuals really does a lot for Oninaki, and it’s one of its strongest elements.

But this beauty is just skin-deep, because once you get into combat, problems start to come to the surface. Kagachi doesn’t fight by himself; he enlists the help of lost, memory-devoid souls called Daemons to possess and provide him with weaponry, skills, and combat expertise. There are a wealth of different Daemons you encounter throughout Oninaki, and each one has a unique weapon and combat style they can bestow to Kagachi when possessed. Kagachi can carry up to four Daemons at once and swap between them on the fly, giving you access to different weapons, movement, and fighting styles you can change when needed.

This sounds fantastic on paper, but there’s one big problem: Every Daemon you recruit is extremely weak when you first get them. Daemons level up separately from Kagachi, and only gain combat skills–active and passive, offensive and defensive–through a skill tree that unlocks with weapon stones dropped when using that Daemon. When you first get a Daemon, no matter how far along in the game you are, they have next to no skills and no weapon stones, requiring you to grind with their limited skillset to get them to a point where they are maybe, possibly fun and effective to use.

Even then, some of the Daemons are poorly designed. The long-range fighter Dia, for example, tends to get overwhelmed by frequent enemy mobs thanks to her slow startup and recovery on attacks. Acquiring a new Daemon should be exciting, but the struggle to make new ones viable makes it something to dread. Eventually, you’ll probably find yourself focusing on a few specific Daemons and ignoring others, which feeds into the larger issue of repetitive and frustrating combat.

There are a lot of enemies roaming both the realm of the living and the dead in Oninaki, and they tend to get reused quite often. Usually they come in large mobs to distract from the fact that it’s yet another swarm of walking flowers or scorpions. Sometimes they get changed up a bit (This time the scorpions belch fire!), but their appearances and attack patterns remain similar. Exacerbating this issue is how spongey even the small enemies can get, especially if your current Daemon’s not well-levelled yet. Using a powerful Daemon you’ve been putting a lot into, however, makes combat boring, as you’re encouraged to use the same special attacks over and over in hopes that one of them might randomly gain a permanent special attribute. Boss fights can change things up a bit, and there are some genuinely cool and challenging encounters. However, most of the bosses also soak up damage like crazy. Strategy tends to devolve into using attacks with evasive bonuses and quick recovery until you get enough energy to “Manifest” your Daemon for a huge damage boost, then wailing on them with your biggest attacks until that runs out, repeating until dead and hoping you have enough healing incense to make up for mistakes.

Using a powerful Daemon you’ve been putting a lot into, however, makes combat boring, as you’re encouraged to use the same special attacks over and over in hopes that one of them might randomly gain a permanent special attribute. Boss fights can change things up a bit, and there are some genuinely cool and challenging encounters. However, most of the bosses also soak up damage like crazy. Strategy tends to devolve into using attacks with evasive bonuses and quick recovery until you get enough energy to “Manifest” your Daemon for a huge damage boost, then wailing on them with your biggest attacks until that runs out, repeating until dead and hoping you have enough healing incense to make up for mistakes.

One might be willing to put up with gameplay flaws if the setting and story are good enough, and while Oninaki’s world is fantastic, the game frequently falters in storytelling. Kagachi is a very bland and uninteresting protagonist, and his shy little-girl partner Linne isn’t much better. The game has a wealth of NPC characters, but they don’t have much to offer; their interactions with Kagachi are brief and uninteresting, and you don’t get much on their backgrounds and personalities. As a result, when the game tries to deliver an emotional payout–it’s a game about death, so there’s a lot of dying in the story–it feels toothless, because you aren’t connected to these characters and lack a reason to care about their pain and grief. The pacing of the overall story is poor, as well; it often feels like a lot of nothing happening, then a really big event, and then back to something that’s distracting from the plot thread you’re actually interested in. It’s very frustrating to see the story finally living up to its potential and going in interesting places, only to be interrupted by a mandatory fetch quest that feels like pure padding.

Oninaki is a game that frequently sabotages itself. Its beautiful environments and mood are dampened by annoying hordes of samey enemies. Its amazing concept and world design are wasted on a story that’s poorly paced and doesn’t give you an adequate reason to care. Its varied and interesting combat styles get dragged down by the need to grind Daemons and uneven difficulty overall. There’s certainly some beauty to be found in Oninaki’s tragic world, but these flaws make this a circle of life that you can skip over.

You need a javascript enabled browser to watch videos.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.

This video has an invalid file format.

Sorry, but you can’t access this content!

WandaVision, the enigmatic Disney+ MCU streaming TV show, got even more bizarre today at Disney’s D23 Expo with the announcement of new and returning cast members. Kat Dennings will return to the MCU as Darcy Lewis from the Thor films and Randall Park will reprise his role as Agent Jimmy Woo from Ant-Man & The Wasp. Kathryn Hahn will join the shared universe as the “nosy neighbor” of Wanda and Vision’s happy home life.

Details of the show are still sparse, and the sizzle reel shown at the expo featured clips of Avengers: Age of Ultron and Avengers: Endgame intercut with clips from the classic sitcom The Dick Van Dyke Show to give fans a sense for the tone. Writer Jac Schaefer teased that they have been “very inspired by Disney Legend Dick Van Dyke,” while star Elizabeth Olsen said the show will be “very wacky and fun.”

Marvel Studios boss Kevin Feige repeatedly called the show a “sitcom” set within the MCU, but the team has yet to officially begin shooting so actual footage was not ready to be shown at the panel.

Lewis, Park, and Hahn are joining the cast that was confirmed for the show back at Marvel Studio’s San Diego Comic-Con presentation: Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, and Teyonah Parris who will play the grown-up Monica Rambeau from Captain Marvel.

WandaVision hits Disney+ in Spring 2021.

Marvel’s panel at San Diego Comic-Con in July was an insane hurricane of completely bonkers reveals and announcements, but somehow, Disney still had some surprises up its sleeves for the company’s big Friday presentation at the D23 expo in Anaheim, California. Among those surprises: a new She-Hulk show heading to Disney Plus.

The show will be part of the MCU’s phase four–alongside previously announced series including The Falcon and Winter Soldier, WandaVision, Loki, What If…?, and Hawkeye, not to mention the also-newly-announced Disney Plus Ms. Marvel and Moon Knight shows. The full slate can be seen in the graphic below, shown onstage during the D23 presentation.

Created by Stan Lee and artist John Buscema, She-Hulk–AKA high-powered lawyer Jennifer Walters–was first introduced in comics in 1980. Bruce Banner’s cousin, Walters gained Hulk-like powers after receiving an emergency blood transfusion from him.

During the D23 presentation, MCU head Kevin Feige confirmed that the MCU phase four She-Hulk show will hew at least somewhat closely to the source material–the She-Hulk in the Disney+ show will be Walters, and she’s still a lawyer. Other than that, we don’t know much about the She-Hulk show.

In the comics, Walters has a more controlled form of Hulkism, and she retains more of her personality and intelligence when she transforms, which could make for an interesting dynamic with her cousin Bruce, should Mark Ruffalo actually appear in the show.

Then again, the last time we saw Hulk in the MCU, he had fully solved that problem. So who knows?

The D23 announcements so far have also included more returning MCU characters in WandaVision’s cast, the reveal of Disney Plus’s Ms. Marvel and Moon Knight shows, more details about the Loki and Falcon and Winter Soldier shows, and more.

This story is developing–check back soon for more.

During Marvel’s section of the Disney+ panel at D23, the company announced three brand-new TV shows that will be coming to the subscription service. One of these was Moon Knight, a niche but much-loved hero from Marvel’s comics.

In the comics, Moon Knight has a somewhat troubling story. Originally introduced back in 1975 in the horror series Werewolf By Night, by Doug Moench and Don Perlin, Rabbi’s son turned professional boxer turned Marine Marc Spector’s life was eventful, even before he decided to give it up and become an adventurer. It was during one such adventure where he found himself in trouble during an archeological dig in Egypt. After losing a brutal fight, Marc was left for dead but rescued by locals who brought him to the temple of Khonshu, the moon god, offering him a second chance a life if he would agree to become Khonshu’s earthly avatar.

Marc accepted this bargain and was transformed into Moon Knight, a mystically empowered hero to enact Khonshu’s will.

Or, so he thought. Over the years, it was revealed that Marc’s origin may not have been as clear cut as originally thought and the character struggled with mental health and identity issues, causing him to question which parts of his own story were real–if any of them. Since then, a hazy, surreal grasp on the truth has become a staple of Marc’s stories, often bringing him into conflict with his own fractured self as frequently as his “powers” (if they really are powers) pit him against actual supervillains.

Details about Marc’s role in the MCU are unsurprisingly vague, so as it stands right now we can’t tell which incarnation of the character will come to life in the shared universe. However, Marvel Studios head honcho Kevin Feige did make a passing reference to Marc’s mental instability during the presentation at D23, so we that is something we can definitely expect.

At D23, both Anthony Mackie and Sebastian Stan took the stage during the Disney+ panel. Respectively, the actors play Sam “Falcon” Wilson and Bucky “Winter Soldier” Barnes in the MCU and are reprising their roles in the upcoming exclusive Disney+ TV series Falcon & Winter Soldier. The panel confirmed another MCU actor, Emily Van Camp, would be reprising her role during the series as well.

Daniel Brühl has already been confirmed to return as the villainous Helmut Zemo, the main antagonist of Captain America: Civil War. Prior to today, rumors circulated that Emily Van Camp would be reprising her role as Sharon Carter in the TV series–another character we haven’t seen in the MCU since the third Captain America movie. Van Camp joining Mackie and Stan onstage during the Disney+ panel seems to be a confirmation that the rumors are true.

Falcon & Winter Soldier is currently scheduled to be the first live-action MCU TV series to premiere on Disney+, coming to the streaming service in Fall 2020. That would put the show’s release in-between the theatrical debuts of the upcoming Black Widow and The Eternals movies. Falcon & Winter Soldier won’t be the last MCU series to show up on Disney+. It will be followed by WandaVision in Spring 2021.

Taking place just after the events of Avengers Endgame, Falcon & Winter Soldier sees the two titular characters team up to continue the good fight that Steve “Captain America” Rogers left behind. Though Sam now possesses Steve’s vibranium shield, the title of the upcoming MCU show suggests he’s not quite ready to forgo his Falcon identity for the responsibilities that the Captain America role implies.

Also during the D23 Disney+ panel, Marvel announced a Ms. Marvel series that will premiere during Phase 4 in-between Hawkeye and Moon Knight–the latter of which was also announced during the panel. Moon Knight will be followed by She-Hulk, a series that focuses on Bruce Banner’s lawyer cousin, Jennifer Walters, after she receives a blood transfusion from Bruce and gains the same abilities that he does.

One of the many shows that Marvel Studios’ Kevin Feige discussed at D23–albeit very briefly–was Loki. The show takes the mischievous norse god on some adventures through time and, according to Feige, will explore the questions we all have.

Questions like, where Loki goes after picking up the Tesseract in Endgame, could he make a friend, and of course, will the sun shine on him again? Although actor Tom Hiddleston wasn’t at the show, in a video message he said, “This journey you and I have been on isn’t over yet. In fact, it’s only just begun.”

Showrunner Michael Waldron and director Kate Herron teased that the show will take Loki to a “corner of the MCU we’ve never seen before,” likely a nod to the fact that, with the Tesseract–aka the Space Stone–at his disposal, Loki can literally teleport anywhere in space and time. Details about just what and how he intends to use this power will be dealt with in the show, but as Tom Hiddleston pointed out back during San Diego Comic-Con, the Loki who will star here is the Loki who only remembers things up to The Avengers, and who’s most recent experience was being pummeled by The Hulk. So it’s safe to say he’s not in the healthiest position.

Marvel Studios’ Kevin Feige appeared on stage during D23 to discuss the upcoming animated show, What If? As announced previously, this series will explore alternative realities, where key moments in the MCU unfolded in a different way and created divergent stories.

A brief teaser was shown during the Disney+ panel and it showed Captain America going into the super solider chamber, but it explodes, creating a zombified version of the beloved hero. Peggy Carter was shown in a costume, indicating she becomes a super soldier. The series will be guided by Uatu, who Marvel fans may know as The Watcher.

The final shot of the teaser showed Steve Rogers in a mech armor, a little like the Hulkbuster suit, with Peggy riding on its back. Hayley Atwell, who played Peggy Carter for close to 10 years, showed up and referred to her character as “Captain Carter,” which Feige also mentioned a little later.

Developing…