To violence in videogames, we say what?
September 20th 2006 11:22
What do we say? Well, I suppose the question here is, dear reader, what do you say? Violence in videogames is almost as old as videogames itself.
It is unfortunate that I am now to bore you with all the usual rebuttals against all the extremely old argument point’s presented in this article against violence in videogames or the ability for them to completely take control or at the very least persuade ones thoughts.
While I have written a lengthy article on the matter already, I feel I should in light of the recent news story tred back to the old subject. However before I begin I should point out the fact I will not be playing this game, and that I also did not find much entertainment in the likes of most if not all excessively violent videogames I have played. I am not biased towards this because of my age or the degree I am studying (games technology of all things), in fact my favorite game of all time is Super Mario Bros., and that’s saying something.
I will strip down the article’s bias down. I won’t be stripping it down paragraph for paragraph, but I will take out enough quotes from the article to properly rebuttal its key points.
To begin, the article states in bold:
***
“A COMPUTER game about playground bullying is about to be unleashed on thousands of children around Australia despite widespread outcry.”
***
First of all, it is not a computer game, it is a Playstation 2 exclusive game. Obviously the writer of this article is not very well versed in this games history other than it being about something violent.
***
“It is a message educators and counsellors desperately do not want to be taken seriously by students in schools around NSW.”
***
But the question here is, is this game targeted at children? Its been given an ‘M’ rating, which means no one above the age of fifteen should play it. If they are concerned with high school kids playing it and getting the wrong message then they should be taking this up against the rating review board, not against the game developers who simply submitted it to be rated. If they believe despite the ratings children will still be able to gain access to these games then they really should be taking this up with the children’s parents/guardians who allow their children to play such games either passively or in full knowledge of the fact.
***
“Education Minister Carmel Tebbutt said last night she would write to Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock expressing concern that children would be exposed to the game.”
***
If our oh so wonderful Education Minister is worried this game will be exposed to children then she should see to it that it is not exposed to children. This game is not targeted at children to begin with, if however children are getting their hands on it and presuming being the education minister she has a right to intervene then it is indeed her responsibility to prevent them from allowing the game from being distributed to children. She should not be writing letters to our oh so wonderful Attorney-General expressing her concerns. She is the authority on the matter of stopping children from obtaining violent media if she believes strongly enough. It is however not in her right to ban a game just because it might cause minor headaches to her as she tries to work out ways to not allow children from getting the game. There are people over 15 who will play the game, and I wouldn't be too surprised if the majority of people who play the game will be well on their way to their 30's.
To end this wonderful article, our good education minister pulls off a killer,
***
"Anything that promotes violence should not be promoted or accepted."
***
Oh really? Soooo, should we not vote for the government for which you belong to because it promotes the idea of war? War is violent after all. Though I sincerely doubt the game is promoting violence so much as showing a fictional scenario and putting you in the middle of it. Perhaps Harry Potter also promotes violence with its fierce magical battles perhaps it also promotes sorcery too because of its magical elements.
This has been an all to generic and painful article, but I had to write it.
It is unfortunate that I am now to bore you with all the usual rebuttals against all the extremely old argument point’s presented in this article against violence in videogames or the ability for them to completely take control or at the very least persuade ones thoughts.
While I have written a lengthy article on the matter already, I feel I should in light of the recent news story tred back to the old subject. However before I begin I should point out the fact I will not be playing this game, and that I also did not find much entertainment in the likes of most if not all excessively violent videogames I have played. I am not biased towards this because of my age or the degree I am studying (games technology of all things), in fact my favorite game of all time is Super Mario Bros., and that’s saying something.
I will strip down the article’s bias down. I won’t be stripping it down paragraph for paragraph, but I will take out enough quotes from the article to properly rebuttal its key points.
To begin, the article states in bold:
***
“A COMPUTER game about playground bullying is about to be unleashed on thousands of children around Australia despite widespread outcry.”
***
First of all, it is not a computer game, it is a Playstation 2 exclusive game. Obviously the writer of this article is not very well versed in this games history other than it being about something violent.
***
“It is a message educators and counsellors desperately do not want to be taken seriously by students in schools around NSW.”
***
But the question here is, is this game targeted at children? Its been given an ‘M’ rating, which means no one above the age of fifteen should play it. If they are concerned with high school kids playing it and getting the wrong message then they should be taking this up against the rating review board, not against the game developers who simply submitted it to be rated. If they believe despite the ratings children will still be able to gain access to these games then they really should be taking this up with the children’s parents/guardians who allow their children to play such games either passively or in full knowledge of the fact.
***
“Education Minister Carmel Tebbutt said last night she would write to Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock expressing concern that children would be exposed to the game.”
***
Do not Buy this game for your children!
To end this wonderful article, our good education minister pulls off a killer,
***
"Anything that promotes violence should not be promoted or accepted."
***
Oh really? Soooo, should we not vote for the government for which you belong to because it promotes the idea of war? War is violent after all. Though I sincerely doubt the game is promoting violence so much as showing a fictional scenario and putting you in the middle of it. Perhaps Harry Potter also promotes violence with its fierce magical battles perhaps it also promotes sorcery too because of its magical elements.
This has been an all to generic and painful article, but I had to write it.
| 127 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Joy
However, it should be the parents' responsibilities to know what their children are playing. They shouldn't blindly buy games for their children, nor should they let games that children get as gifts go unnoticed.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I mean, if they have access to it, and they choose not to play -- great! But if they have access to it, and they choose to, well that's great to.
An unsocial personality is simply the price you pay for hours of fun. It's up to you whether you want to pay that price.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Joy
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
But one thing that could be suggested is that indulging a fantasy doesn't make you a more dangerous person.
Or, at any rate, that the evidence is not clear on the matter. For instance, there's some evidence that the contrary is true -- that indulging the fantasy is cathartic, and makes you a less dangerous person.
So, in the realm of thinking... There is a question whether you should ever self-censor.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Legally Brunette
My Wedding
Having said that, all kids are different and some mature a lot later than others. Like certain *boys* that I know who are like 30 but have the brains of a 12 year old...
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
however the real problem is when can we determine if a child is mature enough that he/she wont be adversely affected by the medium to which he/she is exposed to. The law is no more than a benchmark, should parents be educated on such matters?
Comment by Cinico
Small Business Scope
On the other hand - there is the question of proximity. There are a lot of games out their about wars etc that children/teenagers play - but a war is something that they are not likely to experience and they can't cause a war, nor can they get their hands on guns (hopefully) etc. With a game about bullying it is a situation they can re-enact in the schoolyard.
So is there a difference between games that are out of the child's realm of reality (eg. war, ghosts etc) and those that they more than likely witness in the schoolyard?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
The problem with 'Bully' is that children might aspire to it, like they do to become a pokemon master for instance.
It certainly is not made for children, the games design is far too complex for a 10y/o to comprehent anyway however it will still affect them negatively perhaps in a more literal sense than other violent games because it may very well create worlds that are familiar to the child.
I still believe it is the parents duty first and foremost to guide their kids, no one knows them better than the parents, the rating board doesn't substitute a parents opiion as it is just a rough guideline.
however parents might need to be educated on such matters to better understand the situation, perhaps through pamphlets and the like.
Comment by Damo
Here goes my 2 cents.
I have 5 children ranging from 16 to 7years of age and this issue about violent video games I have had to contend with personally. Certain games I do not allowq children,particualry the younger ones play. One game called "Warriors" I have confiscated as punishment for rough behaviour. Difficult to draw a line between what is stupid fun and what is trying to justify violence. My line is immediately drawn when the kids start to act out the worst behaviour of the game.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I'm glad you are looking into what your kids are playing and there really should be more parents like you. it probably is particularly challenging finding games that both the 7y/o can play and the 16y/o enjoys, however I have found personally that most games I play that revolve around pointless violence are simply not entertaining and I have been playing computer games for years. I think its because I enjoy games for the gameplay aspect andnot its content, becasue of that I think these violent games only succeed because of their violence, so those who enjoy it probably have poor taste. Because of that whatever the 7y/o likes the 16y/o should also enjoy but not vise versa because it is probably the violence aspect that is affecting the decision of what the teen likes to play (please note I'm barely older than your eldest
Comment by Little Angry Doll
Falling Haiku Leaf
Inner West Life
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Little Angry Doll
Falling Haiku Leaf
Inner West Life
Comment by Anonymous
Mario Party for instance, sounds kiddish and colorfull but is indeed a fun game to play up to four people, it's not "violent" and there people up to 20~30y/o who still play that game.
There is alot of non-gore-violent games available, and some of them are alot more fun than these, it depends up to personal taste, my friends laught at me when they saw me playing Kingdom Hearts (A Square-enix game made thogeter with Disney that mix the wolds of Final Fantasy series and the Disney movies)
Just because the colorfull looking and because the disney characters on the game, the game is targeted for children, but the game's story is a bit complex for a kid to understand, and that make the game even better for a adult ou an teen to play this game.
There is violence (fantasy violence) but no gore.
Children should not play games like Bully, Warriors, GTA, Half Life, Halo, Hitman, Medal of Honor, Eternal Darkness, and stuff like that, because it's no children game.
A BIG problem of people that don't know about the "game world" is that they still think that games are only for kids, most people still think that videogames are not played by teens and even adults, and all games are intended for children, this is the case of this Dr. Jean Healey.