We've embraced "Get out of my face" as the new national mantra. Right-wing nut jobs, left-wing loonies--it doesn't matter. We shout and shoot first, ask questions later.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in the cacophonous debate over sex and violence in computer and video games. The problem is that the opponents have so caricatured each other that it's increasingly hard to envision a realistic way to break the impasse.In the absence of any meaningful conversation, the politicos and morality poseurs know how to fill the resulting vacuum. So it was that California's legislature sent a bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, prohibiting the sale to minors of games that "depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel."
You have to appreciate the irony: A guy who blew away on-screen enemies for a living becomes the guardian of public morality. Oh well, it's California, and we're great at reinventing ourselves out here.
Besides, it's part of a bigger trend. Michigan passed a bill similar to California's, which becomes law on Dec. 1. Elsewhere, Illinois will outlaw the sale or rental of violent or sexually explicit games to minors starting next year.
Lawmakers in Oklahoma and other states say they intend to introduce similar bills in the near future. On the national level, a collection of Democratic and Republican senators wants the National Institutes of Health to carry out a $90 million study to examine how violent media, including video games, affects the development of children. (And who says bipartisanship is a thing of the past? Harrumph!)
This is going to lead to an inevitable power confrontation. With some $25 billion at stake, the global video game industry will fight back. It has enlisted allies in Washington to make sure that nothing so drastic ever makes it to the floor of Congress. And the Entertainment Software Association has gone to court in Michigan and Illinois to block the laws, arguing that they amount to censorship.
But has the industry underestimated the national zeitgeist? Listening to various spokesmen yammer away, I get the feeling that these folks just don't get it. Earlier this year, Doug Lowenstein, president of the ESA, told CNET News.com that this was all part of a "cold, calculating political effort."
His logic? "(The bills have) come from people who have aspirations for national office," he said. "They come from people who are interpreting the 2004 election as a values election, and the Democrats lost on values. One way to recapture values is to attack violent entertainment, especially video games."
He may be right about the political hypocrisy that infects national politics. He also has a tin ear. Games that feature garden-variety prostitutes and knuckle-dragging cop killers qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment. That's about the best you can say for them.
The American Psychological Association in August came out in favor of a reduction in video game violence. It found that "exposure to violence in video games increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive behavior and angry feelings among youth."
Critics say the APA relied on a flawed methodology and that it is just more evidence that the video game industry is being unfairly singled out. Maybe that's true, but it also ignores the unease most middle-of-the-road types feel about the horrid content found in some of the games marketed by the industry.
You can hide behind the protections offered by the Constitution--which is every American's right--and maybe a smart lawyer will win the case. That still doesn't explain why the common denominator of quality has to begin in the gutter--and work down from there. Not that it's lurid but that it's simply lousy.
Surely the best creative minds of this generation can do better.
Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
See more CNET content tagged:
video game, violence, bill, Illinois, Michigan
I am an Adult and don't you dare take away MY RIGHT to watch, play, or read anything to do with violence, game themes that depict shooting, or blood, or sexual content...appears to be headed that way if they get their way on this. Now, I do not have a problem with the limitation of the sale to minors. I do not want my child purchasing a movie or game with adult content. But---> this is pointed at all you political want-to-be's or those that think they need to champion the cause...spend your time and my money fighting causes that produce good results for our country. Leave the parenting to the parents !!
I am an Adult and don't you dare take away MY RIGHT to watch, play, or read anything to do with violence, game themes that depict shooting, or blood, or sexual content...appears to be headed that way if they get their way on this. Now, I do not have a problem with the limitation of the sale to minors. I do not want my child purchasing a movie or game with adult content. But---> this is pointed at all you political want-to-be's or those that think they need to champion the cause...spend your time and my money fighting causes that produce good results for our country. Leave the parenting to the parents !!
Notice that I didn't join the Greek chorus attributing a direct correlation between the violence in games and the violence in society. I'll leave that to the experts. What I did raise for consideration was the abject inanity found in so many games. If you think this stuff constitutes good entertainment, that's your right. You might want to try a novel by Saul Bellow sometime.
Regards
1. all parents are qualified to comment on violent games, whether they play them or not. it's their duty and responsibility as parents. unfortunately, some of them don't fully discharge that chore, especially if they've raised a whiner of a kid ("but ma-a-a-a! all the other kids are getting to do it!")
2. it isn't any of my own kids' exposure to violent games that scares me; that's under my control. it's the kid down the street who rides my son's bus; the kid with a chip on his shoulder that sits across from him in mythology class; the kid who's going to the football game friday night hell-bent to create trouble.
so, whether you like it or not, parents are going to become more and more involved in what they'll permit other parent's children to do. and, if you ever become a responsible parent yourself, you're going to feel the same way.
mark d.
Notice that I didn't join the Greek chorus attributing a direct correlation between the violence in games and the violence in society. I'll leave that to the experts. What I did raise for consideration was the abject inanity found in so many games. If you think this stuff constitutes good entertainment, that's your right. You might want to try a novel by Saul Bellow sometime.
Regards
1. all parents are qualified to comment on violent games, whether they play them or not. it's their duty and responsibility as parents. unfortunately, some of them don't fully discharge that chore, especially if they've raised a whiner of a kid ("but ma-a-a-a! all the other kids are getting to do it!")
2. it isn't any of my own kids' exposure to violent games that scares me; that's under my control. it's the kid down the street who rides my son's bus; the kid with a chip on his shoulder that sits across from him in mythology class; the kid who's going to the football game friday night hell-bent to create trouble.
so, whether you like it or not, parents are going to become more and more involved in what they'll permit other parent's children to do. and, if you ever become a responsible parent yourself, you're going to feel the same way.
mark d.
I've been a video game designer on six projects for four+ years. I've found that the game industry's biggest problem is that they grew up in the years of big business. We didn't create games and have decades of time to perfect our 'art' like music and movies. Games are built by gettnig money from the publishers. Publishers are corporations that have to answer to stock holders. Because of that publishers need a low risk-high reward situation. They know violent games sell, violent games with big IP. EA, the largest independant publisher, has paved the way to show everyone how to make money in games. Take a game, based on a big IP, and schlep out a couple of revisions of it. No not innovate, do not do anything need, do not pass go but definately collect your $200.
The plague has nothing to do with the creative minds, it has to do with the big business of making them.
We need some eccentric millionaire to pour in millions of dollars to a studio who could create something new and fresh and non-violent.
Until then, publishers with their bottom-line in mind will keep feeding the machine until the machine breaks.
I've been a video game designer on six projects for four+ years. I've found that the game industry's biggest problem is that they grew up in the years of big business. We didn't create games and have decades of time to perfect our 'art' like music and movies. Games are built by gettnig money from the publishers. Publishers are corporations that have to answer to stock holders. Because of that publishers need a low risk-high reward situation. They know violent games sell, violent games with big IP. EA, the largest independant publisher, has paved the way to show everyone how to make money in games. Take a game, based on a big IP, and schlep out a couple of revisions of it. No not innovate, do not do anything need, do not pass go but definately collect your $200.
The plague has nothing to do with the creative minds, it has to do with the big business of making them.
We need some eccentric millionaire to pour in millions of dollars to a studio who could create something new and fresh and non-violent.
Until then, publishers with their bottom-line in mind will keep feeding the machine until the machine breaks.
That being said, would you want your kids to play a game where the object was to crash a jetliner into a skyscraper?
That being said, would you want your kids to play a game where the object was to crash a jetliner into a skyscraper?
Mr. Cooper is missing the point. Violence in games and the attempts at legislation have just about nothing to do with developers, retailers, publishers, or even the politicians. The gatekeepers is leaving the door open. Who's the gatekeeper? Mom and dad.
There is no need to enact stiff fines against retailers. Sure, prohibit them from selling to minors, but $1000 a violation? That's punative. Last time I checked, Americans were still capitalists.
While Mr. Cooper's disdainful and judgemental attitude toward his readers is unfortunate (Go read Saul Bellow? You go read Thomas Pynchon! See? I can drop names too.) it underscores the central point. Gens X & Y simply view the media that we call "video games" with completely different eyes. Mr. Cooper is writing from the camp that puts all of the value into the word "game," yet he has no real understanding of what it means. Talking to him about gameplay is like switching to Hindi mid-sentence.
He just doesn't get it. But as an Executive Editor at CNET (kind of ironic), it's his perogative to "not get it" all across the internet.
Again, check out my blog post on this topic: (perm link) http://paradoxiq.com/blog/index.php/2005/10/07/p50#more50
I'd love any feedback via the Comment form.
practice. Watch a small child play - they are very, very imitative.
Play is how we are wired to learn future tasks and to be
socialized within our society.
Every child wants, at a young age, to imitate their parents and
other important figures. Listen to them talk - they actually say
things like 'Not to break things' to a doll not long after hearing
this themselves.
So, yes, problem solving is fun. No argument.
Playacting is also fun, as it puts the person in the situation, and
lets them solve it their way. It also lets them practice the
situation. We thus have to ask how often we want people in the
situations that video games put them in - what practice we want
to have.
As one becomes an adult, your options open up, because you
are presumed to have been socialized, and to have practiced
your eventual life skill enough that the enjoyment function of
play becomes more important. An adult is presumed to be
sophisticated enough to drive, drink, vote, purchase weapons,
and otherwise do things with some degree of risk, and is
presumed to be responsible enough to act accordingly.
I doubt legislation is the best plan, but the alternative did not
seem to be working. From playing them, GTA:VC and Doom 3
were both adult titles. I know a lot of 13 year olds who have
played them, and while you can argue that this is the fault of the
parent, the fact remains that long duration exposure to them
was available to many underage teens.
By comparison, both adult movies and adult books have lower
availability to minors. Most minors can get access, but that
access is limited in space and time - there is a world of
difference IMO between ten minutes furtively peering in a
bookstore, and twenty hours of rapt fascination.
Scott
Mr. Cooper is missing the point. Violence in games and the attempts at legislation have just about nothing to do with developers, retailers, publishers, or even the politicians. The gatekeepers is leaving the door open. Who's the gatekeeper? Mom and dad.
There is no need to enact stiff fines against retailers. Sure, prohibit them from selling to minors, but $1000 a violation? That's punative. Last time I checked, Americans were still capitalists.
While Mr. Cooper's disdainful and judgemental attitude toward his readers is unfortunate (Go read Saul Bellow? You go read Thomas Pynchon! See? I can drop names too.) it underscores the central point. Gens X & Y simply view the media that we call "video games" with completely different eyes. Mr. Cooper is writing from the camp that puts all of the value into the word "game," yet he has no real understanding of what it means. Talking to him about gameplay is like switching to Hindi mid-sentence.
He just doesn't get it. But as an Executive Editor at CNET (kind of ironic), it's his perogative to "not get it" all across the internet.
Again, check out my blog post on this topic: (perm link) http://paradoxiq.com/blog/index.php/2005/10/07/p50#more50
I'd love any feedback via the Comment form.
practice. Watch a small child play - they are very, very imitative.
Play is how we are wired to learn future tasks and to be
socialized within our society.
Every child wants, at a young age, to imitate their parents and
other important figures. Listen to them talk - they actually say
things like 'Not to break things' to a doll not long after hearing
this themselves.
So, yes, problem solving is fun. No argument.
Playacting is also fun, as it puts the person in the situation, and
lets them solve it their way. It also lets them practice the
situation. We thus have to ask how often we want people in the
situations that video games put them in - what practice we want
to have.
As one becomes an adult, your options open up, because you
are presumed to have been socialized, and to have practiced
your eventual life skill enough that the enjoyment function of
play becomes more important. An adult is presumed to be
sophisticated enough to drive, drink, vote, purchase weapons,
and otherwise do things with some degree of risk, and is
presumed to be responsible enough to act accordingly.
I doubt legislation is the best plan, but the alternative did not
seem to be working. From playing them, GTA:VC and Doom 3
were both adult titles. I know a lot of 13 year olds who have
played them, and while you can argue that this is the fault of the
parent, the fact remains that long duration exposure to them
was available to many underage teens.
By comparison, both adult movies and adult books have lower
availability to minors. Most minors can get access, but that
access is limited in space and time - there is a world of
difference IMO between ten minutes furtively peering in a
bookstore, and twenty hours of rapt fascination.
Scott
The reason some of these games are targeted more than others
is because they are successful. The reason they are successful is
because they are good games. Take Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas, for example. This game draws players into a
masterfully told and executed story-driven game, with an
amazingly flexible game mechanic with a unique and compelling
mix of open-world, minigames, puzzles, action and, yes, sexual
content. It sold in droves.
Now take BMX XXX. This game was designed to ride the wave of
controversy right to the cash register. Except the game was
lackluster, uninspired, really quite crap. And no-one cared, and
even less people bought it.
For every Grand Theft Auto, there's going to be dozens of BMX
XXXs, 25 To Lifes, True Life New Yorks and so on that will try
and fail to use controversy to get attention.
Eventually, sex and violence for its own sake will cease to be
appealing for game publishers, and the so-called "problem"
cited in this article will no longer exist.
York."
The reason some of these games are targeted more than others
is because they are successful. The reason they are successful is
because they are good games. Take Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas, for example. This game draws players into a
masterfully told and executed story-driven game, with an
amazingly flexible game mechanic with a unique and compelling
mix of open-world, minigames, puzzles, action and, yes, sexual
content. It sold in droves.
Now take BMX XXX. This game was designed to ride the wave of
controversy right to the cash register. Except the game was
lackluster, uninspired, really quite crap. And no-one cared, and
even less people bought it.
For every Grand Theft Auto, there's going to be dozens of BMX
XXXs, 25 To Lifes, True Life New Yorks and so on that will try
and fail to use controversy to get attention.
Eventually, sex and violence for its own sake will cease to be
appealing for game publishers, and the so-called "problem"
cited in this article will no longer exist.
York."
and their shareholders) aren't listening to lawmakers in
washington (well, christian lobbyists really).
He's TRYing to say that game makers aren't listening to We The
People, but anyone who knows how D.C. works also knows that
very rarely do the needs and desires of The People get put first.
What this is slanted opinion piece is doing in a News section, I
have no idea. He's taking sides with the moral elitists and doing
very little reporting... BAD journalist!
So, in this battle between a small cabal of shareholders seeking
infinite profits and a small cabal of neo-christians seeking a
Stepford Wives society, you're never going to have a truce when
the subject at hand is what the general public is going to
purchase or consume.. regardless of whether it's something they
really want, or the plethora of products that appeal to the 'must
look at the car crash' instinct.
The real conflicts, issues, and potential dialog of this matter are
almost completely outside of everything Cooper just wrote.
Obviously Cooper doesn't get it and surely, he can do better.
and their shareholders) aren't listening to lawmakers in
washington (well, christian lobbyists really).
He's TRYing to say that game makers aren't listening to We The
People, but anyone who knows how D.C. works also knows that
very rarely do the needs and desires of The People get put first.
What this is slanted opinion piece is doing in a News section, I
have no idea. He's taking sides with the moral elitists and doing
very little reporting... BAD journalist!
So, in this battle between a small cabal of shareholders seeking
infinite profits and a small cabal of neo-christians seeking a
Stepford Wives society, you're never going to have a truce when
the subject at hand is what the general public is going to
purchase or consume.. regardless of whether it's something they
really want, or the plethora of products that appeal to the 'must
look at the car crash' instinct.
The real conflicts, issues, and potential dialog of this matter are
almost completely outside of everything Cooper just wrote.
Obviously Cooper doesn't get it and surely, he can do better.
- Serious Games: Just Do It
- by October 8, 2005 10:57 AM PDT
- As a parent with three boys who love games, I feel it is my responsibility to monitor content and time spent playing games. As a person running a company that is primarily grant-funded developing games integrating serious content, I believe developers do have a choice. I agree with another poster that game development companies will create what sells which many believe are not serious games. They could be right but I don't worry about changing their mind. I'd rather devote energy and passion to work with a group of people willing to try something different--identify needs, create serious games that are engaging and educational, evaluate them and see if commercialization is a possibility. Be proactive, not reactive.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (90 Comments)