Violence in Video Games (AKA the "Ignore Jack Thompson" Post)
Just saw a quick post by Gabe on Penny Arcade talking about our favorite anti-violence crusader Jack Thompson. I'm personally no fan of Mr. Thompson, and definitely think he's misguided on the issue of violence in games. In fact, I wouldn't even draw attention to him except I think that Gabe summarized quite well how we as game consumers and an industry should think about dealing with misguided folks like Jack. To quote:
"So how do you fight Jack? Well first off all you don’t fight him directly. He’s like the fucking Candy Man. Mention his name and you give him power. Arguing with him is a waste of time. Jack or someone like him will always be there beating their chest and begging for air time. You’ll never change his mind. What you can change is the validity of his arguments and we don’t do that during a televised debate. We do it through our actions as a community. Last year we took some of the money that came in for Child’s Play and we helped to fund a project called HOPE. What is HOPE? Well, here is their mission statement:
HOPE gives chronically ill children the opportunity to escape stresses inherent in their conditions by providing distraction through gaming and comfort via peer contact. Through our virtual world we are able to ameliorate depression, reduce perceived pain, and improve the quality of our patients’ lives.
Arguing on TV with someone like Jack Thompson seems kind of stupid now don’t you think?
All we have to do, is not be who he says we are."
Bolding my emphasis.
You really can't argue with that. From my personal perspective, it's simple. Let the game ratings do their jobs and inform parents of potentially adult material in games. And ask parents to step up and actually consider the ratings before buying a game for their kids.
My biggest issue with the ratings system today is that most parents don't seem to consider it. There's lots of (often conflicting) data about the effect violence in games may or may not have on children. What gets me riled up, though, are quotes like this: "90% of teenagers say that their parents never check the video game ratings before allowing them to rent or buy computer or video games. (Walsh, et al.)"
<sigh>
No rating system, be it voluntary or governmentally enforced, is going to work if the gatekeepers are asleep at the gates. That said, before I start getting angry emails, let me be clear that I know there are plenty of parents who do take these ratings seriously - and we collectively commend you! Unfortunately there have been way too many studies that show you're in the minority. While some great technical steps have been taken with concepts like console parental controls (and parental controls in Vista), it's still up to the parents to choose to enforce them as they personally see fit. It may well be that some parents are fine with Mature content for their children, and that's totally fine in my opinion. My fear is many parents haven't made that explicit decision.
Personally, I'd be in support of a rating system that legally required retailers to verify proof of age before being able to sell [M]ature titles to someone. We do this for film, alcohol, cigarettes, and other forms of "adult" entertainment, right? While I'm not generally a big fan of regulation, some content may well be inappropriate for children. And the logical person to make the decision as to appropriateness (at least until a child is of age) is the parent. Seems reasonable to me... but I'm sure that's not generally a popular viewpoint. Younger gamers (call them <18) wouldn't like the requirement of bringing in an older person to purchase the content (and invite inquiry into why their role was required), and I suspect a lot of folks in the industry would disagree with me since it could negatively impact sales. That said, my gut is that's the direction we as an industry are going to have to go if rating systems are to have any teeth.