Recent comments on some of my videos have encouraged me to re-evaluate my site and its content. What I have realized is that there is a definite stigma attached to parental reviews, and that the majority of gamers are definitely going to initially react negatively to the work that I do. Their reaction is completely justified because, more often than not, the writers of game content reviews for parents are not passionate gamers. I had hoped that my level of detail in my written and video reviews would show that I do love these games, but I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that citing specific examples and using visual evidence as a backing for my recommendations isn’t enough. Recent comments on some of my videos have encouraged me to re-evaluate my site and its content. What I have realized is that there is a definite stigma attached to parental reviews, and that the majority of gamers are definitely going to initially react negatively to the work that I do. Their reaction is completely justified because, more often than not, the writers of game content reviews for parents are not passionate gamers. I had hoped that my level of detail in my written and video reviews would show that I do love these games, but I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that citing specific examples and using visual evidence as a backing for my recommendations isn’t enough. I want to make it clear that I don’t believe that anyone who takes the time to sit down and read my reviews or watch my videos is going to commit heinous acts of violence. That idea is absolutely insane. I know that what little correlation there is between violent games and violent behavior does not equal causation. I know that playing violent games does not make you a killer just as you don’t have to be a killer to play violent games. Unfortunately the issue is always more complicated than it seems on the surface. Every gamer of every age, race, gender, and nationality must understand that there is more at stake here than being able to play any one game. There are a lot of adults that are scared, concerned, or stressed out because of disturbing television reports they see on the news. Major news outlets are reporting increased bullying, suicide, and violence amongst preteens and teens. Everyone is looking for the reasoning behind it all. Parents want to figure out what is wrong so that they can fix it and protect their kids. It’s a completely rational: they love their children and want to keep them safe, so they’re looking to anyone to make that possible. The media is all too happy to supply them with a scapegoat. Historically, new forms of entertainment have traditionally been blamed for violence. When movies first became popular, they were lauded as the downfall of society, so it makes sense that video games are now being targeted the same way. But video games are much more complicated than passive media such as movies or radio mostly because of the inclusion of interactivity. It’s not some random character that’s committing these acts of violence, it’s you. You decide who lives and who dies. You’re the one that pulls the trigger. And as games become more immersive and more realistic, this debate becomes more heated. Why do you think parents and the media get pissed at some games and some content but not others? It’s really easy to hate on Grand Theft Auto because the name alone indicates that the game isn’t going to be about herding magical unicorns into a fantasy pen where you can brush them and feed them lovingly the end. Why did the Hot Coffee Mod get so much attention despite the fact that it’s only accessible on the PC version after the user manually looks for and downloads a mod on an unpatched version of the disc that came out before the mod was discovered? Why does Mass Effect get the spotlight for a 10 second scene with less sideboob than the beach on a winter’s day when games like Dante’s Inferno can have full frontal nudity and no one says a word? Two reasons. One, because the media cherry picks these games and holds them up as the worst of the worst when anyone who has spent more than a year playing games knows that these aren’t that bad at all. And two because parents usually do not understand the content. They don’t have time and may not have the chance to explore games like we do. If they did, they’d be playing the games before (or with) you. That’s what my dad did. He let me play Doom when I was a kid because he’d already played it. He knew it was violent, but he also knew it was a lot of fun and that I’d really enjoy it. My dad was an extremely informed gamer in the early to mid 90s. But not every parent can or should do that. It’s just not realistic. As much as my dad loved games when I was a kid, he’s outgrown it. Parents are busy and they shouldn’t have to sacrifice their precious free time engaging in a pastime they aren’t passionate about. My dad was an exception. I know he still loves games because he’ll talk about them and reminisce about when “freeware” was a real thing and people sent each other demos on floppy discs. But try giving your parents a controller and having them play a simple racing game. Most of them will probably end up stuck in a wall, going the wrong way, or finding the one spot on the map that causes the car to morph into a horribly distorted ball of parts begging to be put out of its misery. But as I said before, there’s more at stake here than your parents letting you play a game. If we don’t do anything, sooner or later nervous parents and the media will. They will eventually turn their gaze away from gun control and start looking for something easier to fix. When it comes to politics it doesn’t matter if doing an action will solve a problem, it’s just a matter if you look like you’re doing something. Even if the decision made is ultimately detrimental to everyone, it is more important that people believe that you’re trying to make things better. So here’s what will end up happening. Eventually something like Columbine or Sandy Hook is going to happen again. That unfortunate, misguided, mentally ill kid will have played some seriously violent game. I’m talking about Gears of War, The Punisher, Manhunt, or something else along those lines. And, as a result, the media will get people to demand that the government takes action. The good news is that the American government can’t directly censor games. That isn’t necessarily the same in other countries, but the first amendment of the Constitution prevents the government from telling game developers what they can and can’t put in a game. The bad news is that the government has an unlimited number of creatively evil ways of indirectly controlling what the game developers create. Including any number of these (most of which have already been discussed in one form or another): 1. Tax violent video games Buying a new game on release day is expensive. $60 of hard-earned cash is a lot even for adults. So imagine that going up to $65 or higher. It sounds absurd, but items that are deemed socially taboo are easily taxed to absurd amounts. A pack of cigarettes costs around $12.50 in New York, and most of that is because of brutally high taxes. While a video game is currently more socially acceptable than cigarettes, anything that would increase the current cost of games will end up hurting you. If games cost more, you and your parents are going to buy fewer games. If that still hasn’t convinced you, take a moment to consider what exactly is a violent game? All shooters are violent, obviously, but what else can we think of? Is Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit violent? It involves the use of force to take down police or racers (depending on what side you’re playing on). The dictionary definition of violence is “exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse”, so if we’re using that as a benchmark then Hot Pursuit is definitely violent (you’re using your vehicle and abilities to injure your opponents’ vehicle). What about Pokemon? Or Super Smash Brothers? Or Super Mario Brothers? All include violence as a tool that the player will have to use frequently in order to progress. If we narrow down the field to “games that include blood with violence”, then how much blood? Any blood? Do we tax Halo in the same way that we tax God of War? If Grand Theft Auto removed all of its blood, would it get a free pass? This will almost certainly end in one of two ways. You either tax games based on their ESRB rating (making Oblivion just as “violent” as Prototype), or you tax all games. It will almost certainly be the latter, since the government loves to broaden the tax base at any opportunity. For examples of this being discussed, read this article and this article. 2. Legally mandate age restrictions Currently the gaming industry is fairly self-regulating. If you are 14 and you walk into Gamestop without an adult you can buy any game that the ESRB rates T or below. You can’t buy M games and Gamestop doesn’t even stock AO games. I had to have my dad come in with me and buy Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas because the Hot Coffee Mod forced Gamestop to pull all of its copies and keep them under the counter. In theory, federal mandates would essentially legislate what is already being done. However, as with any government legislation, there are always extras. The law would almost certainly be so convoluted that retailers of all sizes would have to spend extra time and money ensuring their compliance with these regulations. This would potentially increase the price of games, since retailers would have to pay for their compliance checks, and would make retailers much more skittish about putting borderline games on the market. And even if these regulations are somehow streamlined (unlikely, but possible), consider how poor the ESRB ratings are. If you’ve read some of my other contents you’ll know that I am no friend of the ESRB, but I have yet to meet any gamer who can say “Halo and Gears of War deserve the same rating” and keep a straight face. Go watch my video reviews of XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Black Ops 2 and tell me those games both deserve an M rating. But that’s what we’d be legally required to abide by. Similar legislation has been ruled unconstitutional, but if a perceived need arises there is always the (currently slim) possibility of a change in that stance. The European PEGI ratings are legally enforced abroad (more in some countries than others). For an example of this being discussed, read this story. 3. FCC Controls on Game Content The idea that the government can never regulate media such as video games isn’t entirely correct despite what I said earlier. While the first amendment does provide a measure of protection for content creators, there are still ways that the government regulates what content hits the airwaves. The government has an agency called the Federal Communications Commission (or FCC) part of whose purpose is to enforce “indecency laws”, which are basically designed to censor and control content that the government sees as against the common interest. The same reasons why television and radio programs can’t curse could easily keep game developers from including some content. The biggest problem with this is that game developers would work overtime to ensure compliance. They would never want even a hint of content that could lead to some hefty fines. And, as a result, game developers would quickly move away from games that included violence, sexuality, or substance use. I don’t mean just that games like Gears of War or Duke Nukem Forever would go away. I mean that more benign games like Left 4 Dead, Halo, and Bioshock would be changed forever. Now before you blow up into a fit of rage, take a deep breath. The FCC has only been able to regulate content that is streamed via the “public airwaves”. This means that television and radio are able to be regulated, but DVDs are not. Hopefully games will stay out of this particular territory (since it is blatant government censorship), but there is always the chance that the combined efforts of Congress and the Supreme Court will change this. The most likely scenario in which this actually pans out is if politicians say “it’s for the good of the children!” Using children as a motivation for political debate is a seriously underhanded blow, but is extremely effective. If someone says “This is for the good of children”, how do you debate that? Everything else seems secondary unless it actually 100% isn’t for the good of children, and then you have the burden of proving that it isn’t. This argument has resulted in a ton of legislation being passed in California that is completely unrelated to children. Fortunately, the current chairman of the FCC came out and praised the ESRB system as a model that television should follow, but that doesn't mean the FCC may never try to co-opt the system and try to enforce it (especially if a particular game is deemed to be liable for some sort of violent act). These may seem impossible right now but they’re really not that farfetched. The gaming industry is struggling enough as it is. Increased government regulation of any sort could very easily spell the end of gaming as we know it.
My ultimate goal here isn’t to prevent people from playing games or saying that you should be allowed to play some games and not others. It is simply to give you and, more importantly, your parents the information to make the decision for yourselves. Your parents understand you as an individual much better than I do, so if they’re convinced you’d be okay playing Prototype or Gears of War, I’m convinced. But right now there isn’t really anyone who can honestly say that they are objectively on the side of both the parents and the gamers. Right now we have game executives out to make a profit, game developers vying to keep their freedom of speech, media out to vilify anyone to keep their ratings high, politicians trying to be popular to keep their jobs, and parents scared of the suffering of their children because of the potential ramifications of violent media. My content walks an extremely thin line. On the one hand, I have to convince parents not to be afraid of video games, regardless of whether that game is violent or not. This is a monumental task, one that involves giving them the ability to see everything that they could perceive as potentially harmful to your social and moral development. On the other hand, I have to convince the gamers that I am not here to take these games away from you. I have to convince you that I am your advocate and would be willing to go toe-to-toe with those who would strip away everything that makes video games the most entertaining, complex, detailed, free form of expression this world has ever seen. I have to convince you that I have the motivation to stand in front of a group of angry parents and explain to them that video games are not the sources of social decline that the media would like them to believe. That, in fact, these games that we know and love are amazing stories filled with complex characters and situations that, more often than not, encourage the player to do the right thing in the face of insurmountable odds. That games encourage players to be heroes, paragons, and saviors much more often than pariahs and villains. And that even when these games paint the player as a renegade or an anti-hero, the stories still convince the player that there is some sort of ultimate good to their actions. I don’t want gamers to bicker amongst each other about whether one game is appropriate for them or another is not. As I said before, the real purpose to these reviews is to provide the information to the necessary people so that they can make the decisions for themselves. The reflexive reactions that gamers have to the perceived attack of their beloved franchise is completely understandable. Parental reviews have been designed to make parents afraid of games for far too long. It is more important that we inform everyone about the content within games so that they are unafraid about the potential social implications of the new Call of Duty, Mass Effect, or Grand Theft Auto rather than let them stew in a constant state of terror over whether their son or daughter will end up being the victim of another poor, misguided soul who inevitably uses games as a bullet shield for their own mental issues. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my recommendations. They are, after all, simply recommendations. However, it is far more important to me that you and your parents understand all of the mature content within these games and can make the ultimate decision for yourselves. I don’t want anyone, whether it’s the media, the government, activist groups, executives, or myself, to make the decision for you.
1 Comment
Jonah Mann
7/30/2013 03:33:08 am
This is great work, and I could not agree with it more. Another reason why backing up the ESRB ratings by law would be bad is because it would solve next to nothing. Currently, the M-rating asserts that minors can't buy Mature games if they aren't accompanied by an adult.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
The Legendary Carmine
Andrew Clayton (a.k.a. The Legendary Carmine) is SSG's Executive Editor. He toils at the stone to make sure this site brings its readers valuable content on a daily basis. Like what we do? Want to see more? Donate to the site using the button below!
Archives
July 2015
|