Forum > Anti- "killer game" rally in Germany
Interesting insight, thank you. This whole issue is something I tend to be quite flippant about on the show, generally because I don't want to get too 'heavy' on political matters in our otherwise lighthearted format, but I feel like I ought to make my own feelings on it all a bit more clear.
On Highschool Shootings: I absolutely maintain my view that 'Some People Are Just Crazy'. Jon will correct me if I am wrong I'm sure, but I think GTA IV, the interactive crime-filled murder-spree sold something like 10 million copies, which is a lot of people who didn't think 'Cool! I'm off to do that IRL!' It may be that violent games aren't especially helpful for certain rare personalities who are already troubled enough to be contemplating such acts anyway, but for most, these games are cathartic and useful outlets. That someone can simply snap and do such things shocks and apalls most normal people, and is hard to understand, so it can be easier simply to latch on any exterior superficialities that differ between the perpetrator and our own, and often computer games is one of those differences. Enter Mainstream Media, stage left.
On Video Game Ratings: I wholeheartedly support these. Consumers should know what to expect and be able to informed choices. For some games, blood, guts, swearing and other 18+ aspects are often there for their own sake, and do little to enhance actual gameplay. Ratings allow parents who may not otherwise know what their children are doing to have some degree of supervisiory veto and lets video game stores to play their part too. Store clerks should be properly trained and if they flout these ratings, should be held accountable. Internet ordering muddies things a bit and no system like this is foolproof, so much relies on parental supervision for it all to work. Parents should be involved in their childrens pasttimes anyway, which is easy for single, childless me to say; "I blame the Parents", but still holds some water, I believe. Ratings systems should be universal, simple to understand and based in common sense, rather than regional, piecemeal and based on political vote-winning. (i.e. Australia having no 18+ category) I'm a bit mistified why the existing film classifications can simply be applied wholesale, throughout the world.
On Violence: All stories derive from conflict, but a degree of abstraction is no bad thing. I don't need to see innards flying about to enjoy a test of gaming skill against humanoid opponents. Doing imaginary bad things to imaginary bad people can be fun and satisfying at times though, although I hope I have enough of a sense of perspective to always remember that these are just games, at the end of the day. The key word there is Imaginary. Games I like are those in which the violence is a means to an end, but not the sole point of the exercise.
On Jack Thompson: A figure of fun certainly, but with his heart in the right place. It's not what he is trying to achieve, which as I understand it, is to prevent the sale of violent video games to Minors in the US; we already have this kind of legislation in place in the UK and it works well enough as far as I can tell. It is his abrasive, populist and confrontational way of going about it that winds me up, and possibly damages the more considered, reasoned and less media-happy work of more measured campaigners to get something useful done. I suspect if he just calmed down a bit, stopped triyng the sue the hell out of everyone and getting on TV so much, he could probably work within the system to get what he wants done. I don't want nine-year-olds to be playing the game of the Saw movie, and neither should you. I may be misunderstanding the man entirely though - I'm prone to that a lot.
Van Hemlock
I was very interested reading both your posts here.
This topic has come up a few times on the VH podcast and I've always been impressed that Tim has always avoided making it an "us versus them" issue. Highly admirable and sadly rare.
I'm slightly put off by some of the podcasting and blogging community attacking Germany for banning certain violent games (and the UK for that matter). One thing is becoming more and more apparent to me is that no-one really knows what effects there are (long term and short term) on video game violence. Both sides seem to be quoting scientists have proven links or disproven them. But if the governments of Germany, Australia or the UK choose to ban certain games and similar then the onus is really on the people of that country to make their feelings known to their government.
(It's not for the MOG couple to blast and condescend the UK for banning Manhunt 2.)
If the politicians can make political gain by bloody-mindedly attacking the games industry, I'm sure somewhere down the line some smart few will make gains by vehemently supporting it. And I don't think that will help either.
Tim, unsure of a line in your post. Are you suggesting that if the movie industry can support a worldwide certification system, then the games industry should be able to also?
mchris
Although I understand the technical reasons why people in America are so against legally enforced age ratings I can't say that I really understand the reasoning behind it. 9 year olds should not be playing 18 games, and I agree with Thompson on that. I also think that by being a figure of comedy through his actions he's hurting both sides of the argument and part of holding back games being accepted in the same way as films are.
I really don't believe in banning games though, just as I don't believe in banning films. My DVD collection contains several films that were banned on release, and all of them have since been cleared after being looked at objectively and attitudes have changed. The act of banning something makes it far more powerful and means people who would otherwise not care will actively seek it out just because it was banned. If Manhunt had no big fuss and ban then it would have passed into history unremembered, banning it ensured that it would take a place in gaming history.
I agree that it's not really our place to blast other countries for their policies, but it's important that people give their impressions of what the policies look like to outsiders. I disagree with the American and Australian system and I suspect I'm in a minority in actually having looked at what the German system is and why so many games don't get released there. Both Germany and Australia have a games industry saying that they're being damaged by the government policies, people need to stand up and say that this is a problem.
The real problem with this latest German event is that it does look bad to the rest of the world. It's far too easy to joke about the similarities as we did and that's the problem, the event was always going to bring those comparisons. I suspect that the final turnout was lower because of this, people who would have agreed stayed away because of it.
I really don't believe that violence in games makes people violent. Violent people are violent and games may set them off. Or films. Or books. Or comics. Or the news. Or spilling their pint. If you start to ban or restrict items because of these people then you really have to look at banning a whole load more things and that just isn't going to solve the problem.
Now it's violent games that are bad for the kids. Before that it was D&D. And Rock and Roll. And penny dreadfuls. And theatre. People always want to blame something for the perceived corruption of the youth and when games are properly mainstream it'll be something else.
Jon Shute
mchris, indeed. I'm not sure if the movie ratings are exactly worldwide, but most countries have a recognised system in place which everyone in that jurisdiction understands instantly. Several PC games I own have the BBFC '18' symbol on them, in addition to PEGi and ELSPA and whatever else.
Perhaps video games are a sufficiently different experience to warrant their own system of ratings and classification, a more subtle one than the ones used for films. Whatever system is employed is fine though, as long as it is clear and transparent, everyone agrees on what each rating means, and consumers get to make the decisions about what they (or their children) get to experience.
I probably need to do some more research and learn a bit more about what systems are currently being used. All of the above may already be the case!
Van Hemlock
A functional and well understood age certification process put into place will still not stop players of certain ages obtaining unsuitable game material via the internet .Either through p2p file sharing or just watching in game clips others have made. So the question is this, after they correctly classify games how then do they do the same with the internet?
Gazruney
One of the features on the xbox (and I assume the PS3 although I've never looked) is the ability to lock out games above a certain rating. If (and that's a big if) parents know what they're doing and set them up right then they shouldn't be able to play games on the consoles.
The PC is different of course. Microsoft have tried several times to make this work, but it's something of an impossible battle.
It's impossible to stop underage people getting hold of content. This was true before the internet, and is even easier now. I think that there's a difference between little Bobby being given Gears of War 2 for Christmas (can I have a chainsaw to strap to my water pistol for my birthday mommy?) and the kid acquiring it and never letting his parents know he has it. Game ratings help one through letting informed choices be made and (quite possibly) hurt the other by making the illicit be something that is wanted purely because it's illicit.
Jon Shute
Sorry, can't remember what show you mentioned this on, feel free to move my comment as appropriate. Just wanted to add a bit more background since I live in Germany and my favourite gamer mag covered this.
The protesters were actually family and friends of the victims of the shooting in the German town of Winnenden, an event which many populist politicians predictably used to try and further their anti-"killer game" agenda. (For the unitiated, "killer games" in Germany seemingly include any game in which one being kills another, running the gamut from Counterstrike to WOW.)
The event was not a burning. People were encouraged to voluntarily bring their "killer games" to the event and dispose of them in a giant rubbish skip. At the end of the day the magazine's journalist counted three titles in the bin. There were far more media than actual protesters, and the most insidious part of the whole thing was that the various broadcasters kept filming the same kid throwing the same game into the bin again and again!
I wouldn't say that the lacklustre public response to this necessarily indicates an endorsement of violence in video games, but it does show a healthy sense of proportionality. People have a lot more important things to worry about right now than an extremely tenous (at best) link between violence in games and violence in real life.