Gaming seems to constantly be in the news these days, sometimes for good things, but most often it is cast in a negative light. Today, on the way to work, 7 of the 10 news stories in my gaming news feed were about violence, which included both personal accounts and government attempts at intervention. So that is my topic for this article – violence in video games, both good and bad.
One of the biggest things in the news recently has been California’s continued attempts to ban the sale of violent video games to minors. This decision was recently voted down by the US Supreme Court because of the vague description of a violent video game. One US politician has said that, as it stands, the law would be unconstitutional since it denies a person’s right to make their own purchasing decisions. In order for the law to be passed, a more stringent definition of a violent video game would be required that recognizes two distinct groups within the “violent” group. The first type is roughly described as a game that includes a violent environment or behaviour. This would include blood and gore and could generally be applied to most sci-fi and fantasy style games normally mislabelled “violent” by the media. The second group is described as games that allow players to participate in a real-world type action in such a way that they are able to train and practice violent actions. I think this would likely cover games like Call of Duty, as they place you in a war-like situation and a large part of the game is multiplayer, a big component of which is comparing and improving your stats. I’m not really sure whether I support this bill or the distinction it makes, because everything still comes down to interpretation. For example, where would Gears of War fall in this split? It involves very violent behaviour and has much of the same war-focused gameplay as COD, but does the fact that the enemies are aliens make a difference? Is this now an unrealistic, non-real-world-kind of game, making it fall under the first category?
One of the most aggravating things that I find with the “violent video games battle” is the difference in the treatment of video games versus movies. There are lots of movies that are just as violent as or even more violent than a lot of video games, but they are handled in very different ways. Movie ratings designate a required age to view a movie, and theatres are expected to enforce that distinction. Of course, people can still sneak in or can be accompanied by an adult who can vouch for their capacity to see the movie. Once we get into the retail sales of the same movies, there really isn’t as much control, with most of the violent movies releasing unrated, extended cuts that include even more graphic material. Also, in the stores, these ratings never seem to be enforced when a minor tries to buy a violent movie.
Hey, doesn’t that kind of sound like video games? The ESRB rating system categorizes games based on age ranges, which are meant to be enforced. Of course, there is no gaming equivalent of the movie theatre where the ratings are “stringently” enforced. Instead, the game goes directly to retail sale, and it is here where the ratings are meant to be enforced. Again, just as in the case of the movie theatre, a parent can buy a game for their child and bypass the rating system, and of course, there are some stores that really don’t care about the ratings and sell the game anyway. So why is there this disconnect between the two mediums? Why are we continually hearing about new legislation to control video games, but not movies? Why is a simple rating system considered to be all the security required for movies and TV shows, but it somehow isn’t enough for video games?
I think one of the biggest problems with the way politicians are approaching video game violence is that they are not familiar with it and make absolutely no effort to actually understand it. This is very different from TV and movies, where you would be very hard-pressed to find someone who has never watched TV or ever seen a movie. Movies and TV have been around for a long time and are so widespread that everyone pretty much has a basic understanding upon which to base their decisions. Games are different, and I think this is due to their relatively young age when compared to movies. Many politicians grew up before video games were widespread and would certainly not play a “kid’s toy” today, so they have absolutely no experience to draw from. Some idiot like Jack Thompson comes up to them and says “Video games are evil,” and then they hear about someone who went on a shooting rampage and a video game happened to be found in his apartment. So naturally, they make the connection and the war to destroy video games is born.
What politicians need to do is actually look at the types of games that are out there on the market, recognize that there are multiple target audiences and address the problem in a more realistic way. Banning violent mature video games, like Australia does, might prevent children from playing these games (although in the age of piracy, they will easily get these games anyway), but the real issue is stopping adults from playing the games. Adults who meet the age and maturity levels required and have every right to play the game is where any law that tries to put a blanket ban on violent video games is either going to fail for being unconstitutional or is going to anger a whole lot of legitimate customers.
On a related note, I thought I would mention some interesting “science” that has been used in the Supreme Court case. Don’t quote me on the details; I was working out at the gym so I couldn’t take notes. A recent study found that children aged four to five who played violent video games after 9 pm were more likely to be unable to sleep or to have nightmares than children who didn’t. Just think about that for a minute. Four to five year olds? They let four to five year olds play violent video games? After 9 pm? When I was that age, I had to be in bed long before 9 pm. Hell, at that age, E.T. freaked me out and would have given me nightmares. This has got to be the worst “scientific” study I have ever heard of. I don’t think anyone on the planet would disagree with preventing the sale of violent video games to four-year-olds. Where they are going to get the money to buy them is another issue entirely.
Ultimately, I think everything comes back to the parents, who have the ultimate responsibility in raising their children to be productive members of society, regardless of whether they are gamers or not. Parents routinely buy games that are way too mature for their children, but the kids want them or they will complain. Parents are expected to make sure that their kids are watching appropriate TV shows and movies, yet the government seems to think they are too stupid to monitor their kids’ video game usage. Parents need to take responsibility when raising their children. Video games aren’t like PONG anymore; they aren’t all appropriate for all consumers, so do the homework and make educated decisions.
So, to end this article, I’m going to remind everyone that the industry we love is always under attack, and that we need to tackle the root cause of this attack – knowledge and experience. Don’t let clueless politicians make decisions that affect our right to Keep on Gaming.