.png)
Violence in Video Games is a topic of great controversy and debate. There are those who see it as insignificant and harmless, and those who see it as down right deplorable. As I write this The United States Supreme Court are hearing a case that has the potential to change the way in which Video Games are perceived, by the masses, for good. I spoke to Nathan Ditum, a gaming journalist – former Reviews Editor at Official Playstation Magazine, current associate Editor of FirstPlay, and one of MCV’s “30 under 30” in the gaming industry - in an attempt to gain his insights on the controversial issue as well as his thoughts on the case.
Last year, California State Senator Leland Yee attempted to pass a law that would restrict the sale of violent Video Games to minors in California. However, it was deemed unconstitutional and as a result was never put in place. In February this year, after an appeal by Governor Schwarzenegger (who signed the bill in 2005), the US 9th Circuit Court again rejected Yee’s proposed bill. Now, with Yee appealing once more, this time to the United States Supreme Court, the question of whether or not the US government should interfere with the sale of Video Games is once again up for deliberation.
Every generation has one; a creative movement, medium or art form, that the previous generation just can’t seem to wrap their heads around. They are critical and dismissive because it’s new and different, like a child who throws his mushy pees in the dogs face because they don’t resemble the bright-orange, processed, ‘MSG-filled’ bile he’s grown accustom to having injected directly into his cornea, or however your supposed to feed infants. Today that medium takes the form of the Video Game, despite being one of the world’s fastest growing and most profitable forms of entertainment; the industry is still subjected to numerous attacks and accusations regarding the negative aspects of the art form – in particular the use of violence in many popular games - with very little attention paid to the good. It’s not change that the vacant skulled masses fear per se, it’s simply what they do not understand; which is a lot, but in this case it’s Video Games.
It’s something we see repeated throughout history; the kids begin to develop their own culture, their own art and their own creativity. Young people need a form of expression they can claim as their own. One that wasn’t taught to them by their parents or handed down by those that preceded them. It’s not a conscious decision to rebel, more an innate urge to veer off the beaten track. They latch onto some aspect of popular music or entertainment they relate to, they resent and reject the ‘old’ and welcome the ‘new’ with open arms and eager, fickle hearts. The parents cry out so heartily you’d think their offspring had just presented them with the trophies of a sixteen month killing spree, not Elvis ‘The Pelvis’ Presley’s latest 12”. Their fear for the fragile collective brood is natural though. They worry how this strange new music, attitude or technology will affect their little sweethearts, because they haven’t taken the time to experience it themselves. The same problem occurs with regards to video games; Ditum, a father himself, notes the lack of understanding among other parents,“it’s up to them to educate themselves about the things their children are interacting with, and to decide what’s suitable and what isn’t.” Regulating bodies such as the BBFC and PEGI are already in place to provide guidelines for both retailers and parents, all it takes is for a Father to take a look at the back of the box and learn a little more about what he’s about to buy his kid.
The apprehension that develops when the public are presented with adult content, be it violent or sexual, is based on the incorrect notion that Video Games are toys. As long as games are seen as a child’s plaything, as opposed to a form of entertainment and creative expression for all ages, the majority of adults won’t be inclined to engage with them, and the caution amongst those unaware will be propagated by the unabashed sensationalism and brazen ignorance that practically defines our society’s fear mongering media. Eventually it becomes more than caution, it becomes disapproval, which in turn leads to attacks on the medium as a whole, rather than smaller, more questionable elements of it. In other words, Fox News blames a school massacre on a game rather than the country’s reckless abandon attitude to firearms, and suddenly every oxygen deprived soccer Mom thinks her son is going to slit his teachers throat if she buys him a Gameboy for Christmas. A point that Ditum brings up in our conversation, “None of this stuff is known. The vast, vast majority of people would struggle to understand the distinctions between game genres and playing modes”, with so many people in the dark, he begs the question – “how, then, are we supposed to legislate and regulate them properly?”
Although he doesn’t “object to it on principle”, when asked about the violence often featured in games, Ditum stresses the importance of “context”. It’s true, with so many different forms of gaming available to us; the varying ways in which violence is presented to us must be taken into consideration. “Everything from the abstract to the photorealistic, the humorous to the sadistic, the contextualised to the gratuitous” can be found. He reminds us that “games are more complex and varied than many people who don’t play them realise”. He goes on to defend the presence of the violence, arguing that it “is common in games because many of them are, broadly, about gauging skill of movement and reaction, and sport and violence are two obvious ways of incorporating these things into a gaming mechanism.” The fact is violence in games is far more justifiable than the vacuous action tripe they pump out to cinemas every 6 months, in which countless victims are shot, beaten, maimed and blown up in the name of ‘justice’. At least with gaming there is reason; it provides a challenge, a competition. So why should games be treated any differently from film?
My worry is that if the supreme court rules in favour of Yee’s bill, the debate as to whether games fall under the First Amendment - like movies, books and music - will have officially been lost. America has an opportunity here to look at the foundations of it’s nation, at the history of it’s culture, and decide if irrational fear and lack of parental responsibility is reason enough to undermine the crux of it’s country’s freedom, and effectively place a leash on one of it’s fastest growing industries. I hope that the people who have been lumped with making this decision can look at the arguments and evidence (or lack thereof) objectively, not through elderly, frightened eyes, and make the right choice. If they don’t, they’ll be setting a precedent for this sort of thing. Ditum points out that it might “lead to inoffensive games being restricted” due to the bills vague definition of “Violence”. Even here in the UK this could still affect consumers; developers won’t want to make certain more adult orientated games, which have their worth, because it’s less viable as an economic venture. It will dumb down a large sector of the industry and its output, and perpetuate the ignorant perception of videogames as children’s toys.
Ditum believes the furor surrounding this law is “more about maintaining a broad market base than defending civil liberties.” I disagree, this is censorship; they’re forcefully discouraging true creative and intelligent expression simply because unwatched minors might come across adult themes in an interactive form; regardless of the fact that game rating’s are implemented more effectively than those of film or music. They’d place the responsibility of parental judgment on retailers before taking the time to educate themselves on this young, developing medium, or allowing themselves to make informed, sensible decisions about what is and isn’t appropriate.
Posts
