1.29.2000»

Recently, Readers Digest published an article by a man named Stephen Barr concerning violence in video games. While I agree with Mr. Barr's assertion that something needs to be done about the ineffectual ratings system, the article is so riddled with logical and informational flaws that I cannot help but criticize it.

First off, the title alone is an informational flaw. The article lumps both computer games and console games into one category. A console is a relatively cheap, gaming-specific system, like the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), Sony Playstation, Nintendo 64, Sega Genesis, and a horde of others. The general price range for a console system is from $100 to $300. Console game players tend to be younger (although the demographics are changing as gaming in general grows older), and console games generally reflect this with cartoonish themes and flashy graphics. Computer games on the other hand, tend to have an older audience because of a computers much higher cost, which is usually from $1000 to $3000, depending on make and model. Therefore, PC games usually have more mature themes and more violence than console games. So, by dumping both categories into one pile, Mr. Barr is misconstruing the whole problem by giving us visions of junior playing Postal or Duke Nukem 3D.

After that first logical faux pas, Barr continues to act in a manner that makes hardened gamers, even those sympathetic to his cause, cringe. He starts his argument, not with a survey or proven fact, but with an anecdote containing a boatload of pathos. He describes a father's reaction as he watched his nine-year-old son play GoldenEye for the Nintendo 64, which happens to be rated Teen, for those thirteen and older. Throughout this story, he continually uses words and phrases with negative connotations such as "Maniacal grin", "Unarmed opponent," "Blood spattered", "Dinner was almost ready when the killing occurred." The anecdote makes no mention of why the player is supposed to kill the victim: The 'victim' is a scientist working to rearm a nuclear missile and launch it at the US

This trail of errors and inflammatory statements doesn't end there. In the next section, Barr uses a quote from an outspoken critic of mature content in games.

"These are not just games anymore," says Rick Dyer, an outspoken critic of titles with violent and sexual content. "These are learning machines. We're teaching kids in the most incredible manner what it's like to pull the trigger. The focus is on the thrill, enjoyment and reward. What they're not learning are the real-life consequences."

Dyer makes two errors in this comment. One, he assumes that all game players are "kids.' I consider myself a game player, and I am nineteen. When do I get to choose what I want to play? Two, he claims that gamers aren't learning the real-life consequences. I object to this statement on several levels. First, as a budding game designer myself, I'm quite sure that such a game would be rather boring: Kill an enemy, you get to spend the next sixty years in video game jail? Secondly, most - if not all - games these days have something of a back story giving the necessary reasons for the killing - such as a nuclear scientist trying to eradicate half the world. Third, video games are not real life, and I would be hard-pressed to find even an nine-year-old child who didn't understand this.

Moving on through the article - as painful as that may be - Barr then brings in another watchdog group to speak for him. The National Institute for Media and the Family (NIMF) claims that "a segment of games features antisocial themes of violence, sex, and crude language. Unfortunately, it's a segment that seems particularly popular with kids ages eight to fifteen." My first response to this is that "antisocial themes of violence, sex, and crude language" sounds strikingly similar to every boys locker room I have ever been in. Seriously, though, these games are aimed at older gamers. Although these moral guardians seem loathe to accept or admit it, they do exist. Many of the gamers I know are over twenty years old. All of the games I know of that fall under "antisocial themes of violence, sex, and crude language" have Mature or Adults Only ratings. So my question to the NIMF is: where are the parents? Even if children are getting their hands on these games, one would think that the NIMF is pointing the finger at the wrong party.

Later on in the article, Barr interrogates Steve Grossman, president of ASC games,who freely admits that more blood equals more sales. Grossman reports that violence can "get people to talk about the game", which is undoubtedly true; otherwise we wouldn't be here right now. Grossman goes on to explain that if anyone takes violent games seriously, "they have a real problem separating fantasy from reality." Grossman's statement is one of the few views in the article that is contrary to what the claim of the author, and Barr lets people know it by mentioning that the Brazilian government has banned a recent game published by ASC Games.

The next section of the article Barr brings in a bit of history most gamers would like to forget, the 1993 senate hearings on violent video games held by Senator Joseph Lieberman, a man who most gamers hold in the same regard as Joe McCarthy. From my own experience and knowledge, I know these hearings were as well informed and impartial as a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, out of the pressure these hearings generated, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, known as the ESRB, was birthed. The ESRB has rated 4000 games in the past four years, 70% of which Barr admits were rated "E" for everybody. NIMF research claims, however, that up to 30% of games deserve a stricter rating than they have gotten - which I will admit from my own knowledge to be about right.

During the four years the ESRB has been active, I have seen several games where I wonder why they got as low a rating as they did. However, at least they ESRB gives parents some idea of what to expect - not as much as they would get from, say, talking to their child or perhaps even playing games with them.

The one place in this article where I agree with Mr. Barr is the statement that there is no enforcement on game purchases - a nine-year-old can purchase an M-rated game at most stores. I will agree wholeheartedly that there needs to be some regulation on this issue, but I prefer it that parents pressure stores into making policies on this subject rather than Washington deciding the issue. However, this would require that parents who seem to prefer a quick fix actually get involved with their children's lives instead, so it seems that Barr discounts that idea out of hand.

After lambasting the ESRB, Barr goes on to explain the supposed "baser influences" of games on children, likening the effects to tobacco and alcohol. Again, Barr resorts to the voice of Rick Dyer, calling the effects of violence a "dark secret" and making mention of the "potential price we may pay in society," failing to mention what that price may be.

Barr concludes, finally comparing violent games to military simulators. "Every time a child plays a point-and-shoot video game, " claims a noted military psychologist, "he is learning the exact same conditioned reflex skills as a soldier or police officer in training."

Nowhere in this article did I find the arguments and claims I wanted to hear: "Where are the parents?", "Why aren't they involved in their child's life?", "Aren't they to blame if their child grows up to be a psychopath because they didn't involve themselves?"

It appears to me that Barr is tapping into a growing sentiment of desire for parenting quick-fixes. Well, it's a natural impulse to want things to be simple, but - especially in the case of parenting - they usually aren't. Keeping objectionable material from children is, has been, and most likely always will be the parent's responsibility, and there is no easy way around that. It is not only a parents job to protect their child from objectionable material, but to teach them why it is objectionable and to show them the difference between fantasy and reality.