A Gamer Speaks Out Against Gamer-Haters
A lot of attention has been given lately among videogame news outlets to the current rantings and ravings of the psychotic neo-con lawyer, Jack Thompson. As a fan of videogames and a life-long gamer, I feel compelled to argue a logical case for and against the ideas that this nutcase is presenting to powerful people in the mainstream media and higher circles of government.
When Mr. Thompson isn't yelling at those who oppose his oft-misplaced critiques of the game industry (see Mr. Thompson's comment that "all you gamers ... [are] on drugs"), he does, on occasion, bring up valuable and insightful points about the harm that can come from excessive gaming by young children - particularly in the instance of young gamers playing violent video games. What hinders his argument (and there are many things that do so), though, is the ridiculous conclusion to which he comes at the end of his line of thought on the matter: the dismantling of the ESRB, banning the sale of M- and AO-rated games outright, and, essentially, censorship of the game publishers or developers.
As with any component of the entertainment industry, the video game sector provides a valuable contribution to society and popular culture; in this instance, taking the form of interactive media that can, in many ways, do more than simply give a gamer the opportunity to kill police officers or prostitutes (as Jack Thompson might have you believe is the only thing games provide).
It has been shown, through studies done by doctors and psychologists, that the required skills needed to play games on some of the handheld platforms (the Nintendo Gameboy, in particular) assist in the recovery of hand-eye coordination of stroke victims and those suffering from other injuries affecting those motor skills. Gaming can also help those who require extensive control over hand-eye coordination for life-saving measures. It has also been shown that people who play video games over extended periods of time (what some critics might call "extensive" or "dangerous" amounts of time), are better able to process visual data - faster than non-gamers and more efficiently. Without extensive research, it seems to me that Mediascope has a rather comprehensive list of studies based on the effect that has been shown from various types of gaming.
In support of some (some) of Mr. Thompson's ideas, it's worth noting that, though the conclusions seem to conflict frequently, studies have shown that there is a correlation between the amount of time a younger gamer (mainly children age 15 and under) spends playing video games and their performance in school - an adverse affect, with scores and attention waning among those who spend more time outside of school playing video games. Other studies have shown that violent games seem to evoke a stronger emotional response from younger players. As it stands, this seems to be in line with the notion that some games are meant for everyone, and some are meant solely for adults or older teenagers - a notion, I would point out, that is a defining principle behind the ESRB.
However, deviating from the rather rigid discourse taking place in the mainstream media, I am neither for the dismantling of the industry as a whole nor the wholesale censorship of every game (or any game, for that matter) that is published. What I believe is that if the industry wants to avoid long, lengthy legal battles with the political movers-and-shakers (Sens. Clinton and Lieberman) or conservative zealots (Jack Thompson), the ESRB game ratings system needs to be more stringently applied and enforced.
A game can be published however the designers want - with tons of sex and extreme amounts of gore and violence - but they need to be fully aware that a game with lots of sex and violence IS COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN. The equivalent of a rated-R movie. And so the game must be labeled as such (M=rated-R, AO=NC-17 is the current equivalent). But that's not enough - retailers (both brick-and-mortar and online) must be willing to card underage gamers wishing to purchase M- and AO-rated games. The system only works if it's enforced, and it has to be enforced at the retail level.
Accountability for the sale of M/AO games falls upon those who fail to properly adhere to the logical system in place. Hidden content, like the "Hot Coffee" mod for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which was not obviously accessible to the ESRB ratings committee/panel, is something that the game developer must acknowledge responsibility for - they deceived the ESRB and the public. However, upon the game being re-rated to AO, the responsibility for the sale of the game to minors belongs to the retailers - they are the last link and truly the only place in the process where the ratings code can actually be enforced.
Outside of this chain, though, is the most important element - the Parent. Parents can no longer (nor should they have ever) acceded responsibility for their children to the government or unaccountable faceless organizations. The ratings system truly fails if the parents don't know what their children are playing (or watching, or listening to, for that matter). It's impossible to know everything about your child; it's hard enough getting the basics out of them, especially if they are a teenager. But parents have to make the effort - after all, if the child is under 18, you've got a right to go in their bedroom; you've got a right to ask them where they're going; you've got a right to ask them who they're hanging out with, or what they're playing, or how they're doing in school. More than that, parents have a responsibility to ask those questions. Because parents, along with teachers, are the guides for children, leading and following and walking alongside as their children develop into adults themselves.
So what is the solution to Jack Thompson, Hillary Clinton, "Hot Coffee," school shootings and teenage violence? There is no solution - but there are most definitely good ideas and bad ones. A good idea is to promote responsibility and accountability for one's actions. A good idea is to teach the difference between appropriate and inappropriate means of solving conflict. A good idea is to shield younger children from inappropriate content in movies and video games, while making them aware of the reasons for withholding that content. A good idea is to enforce policies mean to protect our youths. A good idea is to be ourselves personally accountable for protecting our youths.
A bad idea is to censor our entertainment industry. A bad idea is to simply cover our children's eyes without explaining why they cannot be exposed to the questionable content. A bad idea is to leave the protection of our children to others. A bad idea is to misdirect public attention with accusations of ill-intent towards the industry. A bad idea is to ignore the issues that have been raised over the broken systems meant to help parents protect their children.
Jack Thompson might be onto something - children are vulnerable. But that doesn't mean that we should forfeit our own right to entertainment. It simply means we have to make sure that the children are exposed to the right entertainment.
For an interesting interview with Jack Thompson, go here to Chatterbox Video Game Radio. Just note that Mr. Thompson is rather mellow here and has been more ... explosive ... elsewhere on the net.
When Mr. Thompson isn't yelling at those who oppose his oft-misplaced critiques of the game industry (see Mr. Thompson's comment that "all you gamers ... [are] on drugs"), he does, on occasion, bring up valuable and insightful points about the harm that can come from excessive gaming by young children - particularly in the instance of young gamers playing violent video games. What hinders his argument (and there are many things that do so), though, is the ridiculous conclusion to which he comes at the end of his line of thought on the matter: the dismantling of the ESRB, banning the sale of M- and AO-rated games outright, and, essentially, censorship of the game publishers or developers.
As with any component of the entertainment industry, the video game sector provides a valuable contribution to society and popular culture; in this instance, taking the form of interactive media that can, in many ways, do more than simply give a gamer the opportunity to kill police officers or prostitutes (as Jack Thompson might have you believe is the only thing games provide).
It has been shown, through studies done by doctors and psychologists, that the required skills needed to play games on some of the handheld platforms (the Nintendo Gameboy, in particular) assist in the recovery of hand-eye coordination of stroke victims and those suffering from other injuries affecting those motor skills. Gaming can also help those who require extensive control over hand-eye coordination for life-saving measures. It has also been shown that people who play video games over extended periods of time (what some critics might call "extensive" or "dangerous" amounts of time), are better able to process visual data - faster than non-gamers and more efficiently. Without extensive research, it seems to me that Mediascope has a rather comprehensive list of studies based on the effect that has been shown from various types of gaming.
In support of some (some) of Mr. Thompson's ideas, it's worth noting that, though the conclusions seem to conflict frequently, studies have shown that there is a correlation between the amount of time a younger gamer (mainly children age 15 and under) spends playing video games and their performance in school - an adverse affect, with scores and attention waning among those who spend more time outside of school playing video games. Other studies have shown that violent games seem to evoke a stronger emotional response from younger players. As it stands, this seems to be in line with the notion that some games are meant for everyone, and some are meant solely for adults or older teenagers - a notion, I would point out, that is a defining principle behind the ESRB.
However, deviating from the rather rigid discourse taking place in the mainstream media, I am neither for the dismantling of the industry as a whole nor the wholesale censorship of every game (or any game, for that matter) that is published. What I believe is that if the industry wants to avoid long, lengthy legal battles with the political movers-and-shakers (Sens. Clinton and Lieberman) or conservative zealots (Jack Thompson), the ESRB game ratings system needs to be more stringently applied and enforced.
A game can be published however the designers want - with tons of sex and extreme amounts of gore and violence - but they need to be fully aware that a game with lots of sex and violence IS COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN. The equivalent of a rated-R movie. And so the game must be labeled as such (M=rated-R, AO=NC-17 is the current equivalent). But that's not enough - retailers (both brick-and-mortar and online) must be willing to card underage gamers wishing to purchase M- and AO-rated games. The system only works if it's enforced, and it has to be enforced at the retail level.
Accountability for the sale of M/AO games falls upon those who fail to properly adhere to the logical system in place. Hidden content, like the "Hot Coffee" mod for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which was not obviously accessible to the ESRB ratings committee/panel, is something that the game developer must acknowledge responsibility for - they deceived the ESRB and the public. However, upon the game being re-rated to AO, the responsibility for the sale of the game to minors belongs to the retailers - they are the last link and truly the only place in the process where the ratings code can actually be enforced.
Outside of this chain, though, is the most important element - the Parent. Parents can no longer (nor should they have ever) acceded responsibility for their children to the government or unaccountable faceless organizations. The ratings system truly fails if the parents don't know what their children are playing (or watching, or listening to, for that matter). It's impossible to know everything about your child; it's hard enough getting the basics out of them, especially if they are a teenager. But parents have to make the effort - after all, if the child is under 18, you've got a right to go in their bedroom; you've got a right to ask them where they're going; you've got a right to ask them who they're hanging out with, or what they're playing, or how they're doing in school. More than that, parents have a responsibility to ask those questions. Because parents, along with teachers, are the guides for children, leading and following and walking alongside as their children develop into adults themselves.
So what is the solution to Jack Thompson, Hillary Clinton, "Hot Coffee," school shootings and teenage violence? There is no solution - but there are most definitely good ideas and bad ones. A good idea is to promote responsibility and accountability for one's actions. A good idea is to teach the difference between appropriate and inappropriate means of solving conflict. A good idea is to shield younger children from inappropriate content in movies and video games, while making them aware of the reasons for withholding that content. A good idea is to enforce policies mean to protect our youths. A good idea is to be ourselves personally accountable for protecting our youths.
A bad idea is to censor our entertainment industry. A bad idea is to simply cover our children's eyes without explaining why they cannot be exposed to the questionable content. A bad idea is to leave the protection of our children to others. A bad idea is to misdirect public attention with accusations of ill-intent towards the industry. A bad idea is to ignore the issues that have been raised over the broken systems meant to help parents protect their children.
Jack Thompson might be onto something - children are vulnerable. But that doesn't mean that we should forfeit our own right to entertainment. It simply means we have to make sure that the children are exposed to the right entertainment.
For an interesting interview with Jack Thompson, go here to Chatterbox Video Game Radio. Just note that Mr. Thompson is rather mellow here and has been more ... explosive ... elsewhere on the net.
posted by Dave at 6:05:00 PM
1 Comments:
I agree with in every point said here. -Dan
P.S. You are missed
Post a Comment
<< Home