On video game legislation
Being that I have a rather vested interest in the state of video games as they pertain to current legislation (or vise-versa), I will chose to focus my essay on that topic. Right now, there is a lot of legislation being tossed around by the Christian right and the moderate left regarding violence in video games.
Most of this legislation has to do with the sale of violent video games to minors, but some goes are for as to call for restricted access to arcades for people under the age of 18. Now, I happen to agree with a bit of this legislation (a 14 year old really shouldn’t be buying one of the GTA games), but a good deal of the bills being tossed around go a bit to far in calling for the ban or re-rating of many M rated games (the videogame equivalent of an R rating for movies) to AO, or adult only (the equivalent of an X rating).
This would, by general corporate policy, disallow many major retailers from carrying the titles that drive the next-gen systems like MGS 3, SOCOM and the GTA games. The thing I find interesting, and a bit sad, is that politicians are choosing to attack video games as a source of harmful media influence when there are so many worse messages to be found in other media sources. Heck, ever seen Jerry Springer? But honestly, videogames have much less violence than your average cop show or Saturday morning cartoon.
The politicians who propose this legislation are not gamers who have become disgusted with the state of their beloved media, they are desk jockeys whose’ staffs have told them that anti game legislation is a good way to pick up some votes in the next election. It wouldn’t be such an issue for the general gaming community if the people writing the legislation actually knew what they were talking about, or had done some research and played some games, but they haven’t. They all draw attention to a few cases of video game violence that is isolated from the larger context presented in the games and decry games as “murder simulators (Thomson).” They completely ignore the fact that for ever person killed in a given game, much more time is spent solving puzzles, interacting with the environment and trying to better your situation in the game. Usually killing in games is regulated to necessity, and the recent trend in many shooter games (S.W.A.T., MGS3, SOCOM 3, Splinter Cell) is to complete a mission without killing anyone. Points are awarded based on the amount of killing avoided, rather than done.
But the politicians don’t pay any notice to games like this. Instead, they focus on games such as Rock Star’s awful State of Emergency and Mortal Combat (a really, really crappy fighting game franchise) as examples of the bloody mindedness of gamers. They never stop to ask the gaming public if SOE or S.W.A.T. is a better game, because they honestly don’t care. They just want to seem more “pro-good-moral-values,” and the current way to get recognized as possessing such is to legislate against video games. If they made the concession that, yes, there are some terrible games, but gamers, by-and-large, don’t play the gore-fest games because they tend to be bad games, then the opposition to many of the anti-game laws would be much less vocal. Gamers are speaking out because politicians have seen fit to demonize them, just as their parents were demonized for listening to rock music. No one likes to be insulted, and by categorizing gamers as violent and irrational people, the politicians have managed to do just that. If they took time to understand what they were legislating, then all would be forgiven, but until they do, they will find themselves mocked and ridiculed and their legislation stonewalled by those they have alienated.
Most of this legislation has to do with the sale of violent video games to minors, but some goes are for as to call for restricted access to arcades for people under the age of 18. Now, I happen to agree with a bit of this legislation (a 14 year old really shouldn’t be buying one of the GTA games), but a good deal of the bills being tossed around go a bit to far in calling for the ban or re-rating of many M rated games (the videogame equivalent of an R rating for movies) to AO, or adult only (the equivalent of an X rating).
This would, by general corporate policy, disallow many major retailers from carrying the titles that drive the next-gen systems like MGS 3, SOCOM and the GTA games. The thing I find interesting, and a bit sad, is that politicians are choosing to attack video games as a source of harmful media influence when there are so many worse messages to be found in other media sources. Heck, ever seen Jerry Springer? But honestly, videogames have much less violence than your average cop show or Saturday morning cartoon.
The politicians who propose this legislation are not gamers who have become disgusted with the state of their beloved media, they are desk jockeys whose’ staffs have told them that anti game legislation is a good way to pick up some votes in the next election. It wouldn’t be such an issue for the general gaming community if the people writing the legislation actually knew what they were talking about, or had done some research and played some games, but they haven’t. They all draw attention to a few cases of video game violence that is isolated from the larger context presented in the games and decry games as “murder simulators (Thomson).” They completely ignore the fact that for ever person killed in a given game, much more time is spent solving puzzles, interacting with the environment and trying to better your situation in the game. Usually killing in games is regulated to necessity, and the recent trend in many shooter games (S.W.A.T., MGS3, SOCOM 3, Splinter Cell) is to complete a mission without killing anyone. Points are awarded based on the amount of killing avoided, rather than done.
But the politicians don’t pay any notice to games like this. Instead, they focus on games such as Rock Star’s awful State of Emergency and Mortal Combat (a really, really crappy fighting game franchise) as examples of the bloody mindedness of gamers. They never stop to ask the gaming public if SOE or S.W.A.T. is a better game, because they honestly don’t care. They just want to seem more “pro-good-moral-values,” and the current way to get recognized as possessing such is to legislate against video games. If they made the concession that, yes, there are some terrible games, but gamers, by-and-large, don’t play the gore-fest games because they tend to be bad games, then the opposition to many of the anti-game laws would be much less vocal. Gamers are speaking out because politicians have seen fit to demonize them, just as their parents were demonized for listening to rock music. No one likes to be insulted, and by categorizing gamers as violent and irrational people, the politicians have managed to do just that. If they took time to understand what they were legislating, then all would be forgiven, but until they do, they will find themselves mocked and ridiculed and their legislation stonewalled by those they have alienated.