About Us | Game Reviews | Feature Articles | Podcast | Best Work | Forums | Shop | Review Game

Passive Violence

Peter Skerritt's picture

Passive Violence - Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

Working in video game retail opens your eyes to a lot of things. You realize that you probably don't agree with a lot of corporate policies. You find that the majority of gaming consumers don't know how to put a disc back in its case. You also see that, despite its good intentions, the ESRB rating system simply does not work when it comes to trying to protect minors from controversial or explicit content. With the recent news that the Supreme Court of the United States is going to review a violent video game law in California that was struck down by the state's 9th Circuit Court, the argument about violent video games has reared its ugly head once again, and it's time for me to throw my hat in the ring on this subject.

Here's a very simple fact: There is not one single entity that is to blame for the controversy that comes with violent video games and the ability for unintended players (minors) to obtain them.

In fact, everyone involved gets a share of the blame from the kids to the parents to the retailers to the gaming industry. It's far too convenient to blame allegedly lazy parents or to point out that not all retailers enforce the ESRB with authority. If we really want to make a concerted effort to make sure that these games are not played by unintended parties, then everyone involved needs to change.

Let's look at the major players and problems here:

Parents: This group takes the brunt of the blame from the gaming community at large, and that's fair to a certain extent. Parents should know what their kids are playing and whether or not the games are suitable and appropriate. Unfortunately, more parents seem to play a more passive role these days and it's not uncommon for them to just buy whatever their children want in order to appease them… despite the game's possible content. This is evident when working in gaming retail; parents are informed of the ESRB rating system more often than not, and the response is a hasty "Sure. Whatever. He just wants the game." I've sold Grand Theft Auto: Vice City to a parent with a 10 year-old after explaining the content descriptors and everything just to hear, "Are you done? How much is it?" A rating system like the ESRB can never work when parents either don't want to be bothered, don't care, or just want to buy something to keep little Jimmy from making a scene because he wants what all of his friends allegedly have. The fact of the matter is that parents absolutely have to be involved in the decisions regarding what games that make their way into their families' consoles, and they cannot be passive and afraid to say "no" to certain games.

Retailers: While the ESRB does have its fair share of problems, it can't work at all if retailers don't uniformly follow the guidelines. For example, I walked into a local Play 'N Trade establishment late last year and saw a minor playing Modern Warfare 2 on an Xbox 360 unit during store hours with no parent in sight. I understand that the bottom line is sales and that minors account for a significant amount of disposable income out there, but there has to be a realization that there's an understanding that not all games are for everyone. One of the things that was interesting about the California law was that there were fines to be levied for selling M-rated games to minors. While the fines were a bit stiff ($1,000 each case), they did serve as a basis for taking the time to make sure that these games were either being sold to adults or that parents at least heard that the game was meant for older gamers. Without consequences, there isn't always as much of a priority on trying to follow the ESRB system. While it's true that selling violent video games to minors is far different than selling guns, alcohol, or cigarettes to the same group, retailers are doing no favors to either parents or publishers by not adhering to the ESRB. It literally takes a few extra minutes to go over the content descriptors and rating with someone, and if they don't have ID, then c'est la vie.

Passive  Violence - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Screenshot

Kids: Kids don't understand limits. Having to be this tall to ride a ride or this old to go on a certain trip just infuriates kids today. When it comes to violent video games and the kids, parents, and lawyers that have used them as a defense against various crimes… kids also forget that they're simply not old enough to take responsibility for their own actions and that the gaming industry needs to take steps to protect itself. It's a lot harder for a 26 year-old man who steals cars to try and pin it on growing up playing Grand Theft Auto than it is for a 12 year-old to attempt the same defense. Kids may say that they're old enough to take violent games for what they are, but in today's day and age, using the violent game defense and implicating other outside forces is more prevalent. I understand the griping about the ESRB from kids, but it's not like they don't have the ability to play these games… as long as they can convince their parent(s) to buy them and that they're mature enough to know the difference between reality and a video game.

Gaming Industry: I don't necessarily have a problem with violent or controversial video games. I'll admit that I've played my fair share of these games, and my feelings about them run the gamut from great (Borderlands, BioShock) to indifferent (Grand Theft Auto, Halo) to just awful (Time Killers, BMX XXX). Mature content in games should not be out of bounds, especially since the gaming demographic has extended far beyond tweenagers and teenagers as adults make up a healthy portion of the community. Having said that, I cannot help but to wonder sometimes whether game developers and publishers try to push the envelope needlessly far at times. Are decapitations really necessary? What purpose do sexual intercourse minigames really have? Isn't it arguable that mass killings in an airport are a bit too real, considering the terrorism scares that we've seen since 9/11? These things don't need to be included in the games we play; they're added for shock value and buzz. Kids hear that you can run over police officers with a car in a game, and it sounds funny to them… so they don't understand the big deal when that big black and white "M" is plastered on the game case and they're told that they cannot buy it. The question, to me, isn't whether violent video games should be made or not; instead, I wonder where the line is between making a violent game and just going over the top just to create publicity and inflated demand.

Plenty of time and opportunities have gone by for everyone to stop pointing fingers and instead accept some responsibility, but nobody has made a consistent effort. Parents are still largely uneducated about gaming and tend to remain passive. Retailers continue to be inconsistent when it comes to honoring the ESRB rating guidelines. Kids still play what they want to play because they think—and know—that they can. The gaming industry continues to push the content envelope, hoping to find the next thing that will incite discussion and publicity that may equate into the next surprising blockbuster. Now the Supreme Court is going to step in and look closely at the regulation that we think we don't need. What we, as a gaming community, refuse to acknowledge is that we've collectively brought this upon ourselves.

Perhaps the Court will determine that, like all others passed and struck down before California's, this law is unconstitutional and infringes upon the First Amendment. Then again, perhaps a surprise may be in the offing and regulation may be the only way to save us from ourselves. The Court review is expected to begin in October, and every member of the gaming community should watch the proceedings with great interest.

— by Peter Skerritt

Category Tags
Platform(s): Xbox 360   Wii   PS3   PSP   PC  
Articles: Editorials  
Topic(s): Pop-culture   Business  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

thumbs up

i really liked this moment to sit down and chat about the industry today and how kids don't take responsibility anymore. i remember when i was a little a teen game was out of my reach and you just had to be patient now a kids like. I WANT GTAIV NOWWW! and the parents buy it and kids really dont know the difference of whats right and wrong i let my sister play gtaIV for half an hour thinking she would just drive around. when i came back she was in a restaurant shooting anything that would move. and it seems like when you play any game online today you meet up at least once a night with some 12 yr old spoiled rotten who thinks hes the shizz. it has to stop. i know that's a bad way to end this agreement rant but as anyone who has played games online will tell you. that's almost an atrocity of the highest level.

Thanks!

Thank you so much for reading the piece and for commenting.

Instinctively, I wanted to mention the same kind of thing in this piece. In my mind, there are some things that kids have to wait for; it's a rite of passage. The problem is that we're not talking about driving a car or being of legal age to have your first drink. It's a video game, and there are some (maybe many) kids who CAN handle controversial content.

This is why I like the ESRB guidelines. If a parent thinks that a child can handle the difference between fantasy and reality, as well as right and wrong, then I have no problem with the child playing the game. The problems arise when parents are not playing an active role in a child's gaming habits or they don't take the time to find out a little bit about games before just buying them.

I can also see your point about the behavior of some children online; however, there are some adults out there on XBL and PSN who curse and use offensive slurs just like the same tweenagers that we're talking about here. It's an overall behavioral issue that ideally should be addressed.

Certainly an interesting

Certainly an interesting read, especially since my own country (Australia) is debating the ratings system for videogames. As it stands today, there is no classification for content intended for audiences over 18 years.

The result of this being that a small number of games are refused classification, and others (such as the unapologetically adult Aliens vs Predator) are rated at the relatively innocuous "MA15+" level.

Of course, pundits who are pro R18+ rating claim that parents are responsible for protecting their children, or that retailers should be punished, or that parental locks exist for a reason. Anti R18+ brigades focus on these things being bypassed easily - along with healthy scaremongering (ie "US-style shootings) and strawman arguments (ie "you are demanding for games with rape")

It's refreshing to read an article like this, which outlines the problems with the basic pro-18+ arguments. I believe our game rating system needs a drastic overhaul, but slapping an R18+ sticker on isn't a solution. The whole approach needs to be addressed, perhaps with controls akin to things like cigarettes, alcohol other material intended for adult audiences.

Nice Article...Disagree On Several Points.

I enjoyed reading your article, as this is what I come to GameCritics for is for great, critical reviews and great, critical articles about the game culture. I do agree with you on some points, there are several others that I disagree with you on.

The parents should be shouldering the brunt of the responsibility of what their kids should be and not be playing. You cite a personal experience of a parent being just fine and dandy with purchasing Vice City for her 10 year old son. I've had similar issues when I worked in retail years ago. It's terrible to see parents act like that, but you also did your job as a worker to tell her about the ESRB rating and content of the game. She obviously felt that her son was 'mature' enough or was used to his playing habits or perhaps he did want the game straight away so she bought to shut him up.

It's interesting, I've read some blog posts of mothers restricting their kids playing and gamers will lash out at the mother. It's up to the parent to decide what they should play, and while I don't agree so much with restrictions, that's my place to say as long as the child is put in no physical or even emotional harm.

Retailers have the responsibility of selling the game and help stating what's the ESRB rating and game's content. Many stores have voluntary policies and it's up to them on how to push the ratings awareness. Implementing a $1000 fine on the sale of mature rated games to minors will effectively halt the sale and possible creation of such games. If I was a retailer, I'd be very reluctant to sell those types of games as I don't want the fines imposed. Besides, most Mature rated games don't sell that well, outside of a few major blockbuster hits, that I wouldn't see a dramatic decrease in profit.

Or maybe it would just create a niche market of Mature rated games and retailers would start to section off parts of the store to sell them or niche stores would open up. At least then maybe we could also see more AO games produced.

Honestly, I doubt that any type of restrictions would prevent kids from obtaining Mature rated games. Kids can get to drugs, cigarettes and alcohol pretty easily. And those products care hefty fines and can cause actual physical problems over the long term. The way to stop them is through education. And that is not a 100% guarantee solution either. But it will definitely help.

Besides there is no evidence that violent video games cause kids to act out in violence. There are causal relationships with aggression and playing, but you'll find that same sort of relationship with kids and sports. Aggression is a very nebulous term and just the thought of aggression does not equate to a physical act of violence. And all of the studies are very short term. However if you go by statistics in violence in general, it's been on a downward swing and the level of school shooting is not abnormal, unfortunately, it's due to us being more aware and the media constantly pushing those images as opposed to positive images in favor of video games.

Kids are very smart and we give them little credit for what they are capable of; at least what it seems like from reading on any sort of news site. They definitely need guidance and some rules but they also need to explore, have fun and interact with other kids and adults. Again a kids behavior can probably be attributed to how they are raised. The environment in which a child is raised plays a major factor in their development. On a personal experience; I was allowed to watch R rated movies and play violent video games when I was younger. I loved to play fantasy violence with my friends but I never pulled a gun or attempted to kill anyone. Sure I got into fights, but that was unrelated to video games. I feel that my parents raised me well enough to know what fantasy violence is and to even help nurture a boy's need for fantasy violence.

As far as the game industry is concerned; if a developer feels self conscious about releasing a game with a level about being a Russian double agent shooting up an airport with innocent civilians, then so be it. However taking that stance will severally stunt the growth of the industry especially as we cry foul for Roger Ebert calling games not art. Obviously the definition of what art is is still not defined, however I feel that it should make one feel something. Be it joy, desire, anger, serene, sadness, whatever. Yeah there will be developers out there to push the buttons further for the sake of it, but then there will be developers out there to show those visceral images and hopefully get across a statement.

Great article. You're right

Great article. You're right when you speak about the problem with the parents and the industry, but I think that kids, the really little ones not those 13-16 year old ones, don't have means to deal with all the propaganda regarding video games. As you said, Game Companies make War Looks Fun and is actually tragile. But grown ups can deal with those issues, kids can't.

While you post was

While you post was definitely interesting to read, I'm not sure whether *any* age restrictions would work.

When I was 13 - 14, I had no problems getting whatever game I wanted over the Internet, without my parents knowing anything. (The fact that I knew way more about computers than they did might have helped ^^) Of course, I also played what I wanted then: Quake IV, GTA, Unreal (Tournament) but also more peaceful strategy games.

As of today, I have not been in a single fight, nor have I been influenced in any other way. (Well, I love to program, but I guess that's not bad)

I guess if kids want to play games which are geared towards adults, they should also be treated like adults - you can't claim that you aren't influenced by a game and then use the same game as defense in court. This also extends to sex and porn - in Europe, it's not as bad as in the US, but still very prude.

btw, I'm 17 now - still underage for many games I played years ago.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Code of Conduct

Comments are subject to approval/deletion based on the following criteria:
1) Treat all users with respect.
2) Post with an open-mind.
3) Do not insult and/or harass users.
4) Do not incite flame wars.
5) Do not troll and/or feed the trolls.
6) No excessive whining and/or complaining.

Please report any offensive posts here.

For more video game discussion with the our online community, become a member of our forum.

Our Game Review Philosophy and Ratings Explanations.

About Us | Privacy Policy | Review Game | Contact Us | Twitter | Facebook |  RSS
Copyright 1999–2010 GameCritics.com. All rights reserved.