What Does a Violent Game Ban for Kids Really Mean?
There’s an issue floating around right now in the gaming industry that’s the subject of much controversy. It’s about the merits of a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors, something 72% of polled adults support. Currently, the ESRB ratings are merely a suggestion, and stores use their own discretion whether or not to sell games to minors. This often prevents kids from buying games on their own, but many get their hands on M-rated games anyway.
I’m currently stuck in an in-between age between being a teenager and being a parent, as currently half of my 2004 high school graduating class seems to have kids already. I can see both sides of the issue, and I wanted to talk a little bit about it here.
I grew up in a very strict household when it came to entertainment choices, and suffice to say, I was allowed nowhere near games that could ever be construed as violent or offensive. I had to return Shadows of the Empire because when you shot Stormtroopers, they laid on the ground dead instead of disappearing. I couldn’t play Final Fantasy VIII because you summoned “demons” to help you fight. I was even once threatened with a ban on Super Smash Bros. because of the laser pistol sounding like a real gun. Even when I was ten, I had to draw the line there.
So what did I do? I staged my own little private rebellion. I would sneak over to my friends house and play Mortal Kombat for hours on end. I spent an entire weekend glued to the purported child-mind-warper that was Grand Theft Auto III. I even had my friend buy me Perfect Dark, and we would play it in my house with my door closed and the volume muted, ready to change the channel the moment we heard footsteps outside.
Violent sure, unfortunately I was never good enough to actually figure out how to do this move.
Despite my well-intentioned parents’ best efforts, I actually grew up playing a large amount of violent games, spurred on by the fact that I wasn’t allowed to play them, and that they were incredibly fun and exciting at the time. Nowadays when I’m curb stomping soldiers in Gears of War with so much blood on the screen I can barely even see, I don’t even bat an eyelash.
But one thing a history of violent gaming did not do is corrupt me. Ask anyone, I’m a normal guy, and am very patient with no anger issues or lingering psychological defects. Games were just that to me, games, and despite the fact I may be desensitized to fictional media violence or sex at this point in my life, I’m no way immune to either’s effect in real life.
The facts are clear, 99.99999% of those who play violent games will never grow up and go on a killing spree. Those that do, and also happened to play violent games, did not do their atrocities BECAUSE of these games. Clearly, there were already massive issues there and the fact that the media looks for a scapegoat in the form of Doom (in the case of say, Columbine) is just laughable. I remember an interview with the Virginia Tech killer’s roommates. The reporter asked them, “Was he ever playing any violent video games?” They both said, “No, never, he mainly was just typing in Word on his computer all day.” The reporter prodded further, “You’re sure, he never played any violent games? Not even when you were gone maybe?” Even the roommates, shaken after the tragedy, looked annoyed. Such posturing is laughable, but also sad and desperate.
Yes, I’m sure this was the driving force behind the deaths of 13 people.
But despite my past history, and my present sanity, I do see the counterargument here as well. There are SOME kids who should not play SOME games. If I were a child today, I would perhaps be playing Halo for an hour or two a day during the summer, before my parents would yell at me to do chores or go outside. But there are some kids today who would spend their entire summer playing the game all day every day, with parents who just don’t give a shit and are just happy their kid isn’t bothering them.
These proposed bans would not affect this latter class of family. The kind of parent who would let their kid overdose on video games almost on purpose, is not going to care at all about a rating system, or what content the game holds. And while I will maintain that casual play of violent games, even by underage people, will rarely produce negative effects, I’m not sure the same is true of kids whose entire lives revolve around the game.
Trust me, if you play something intensely enough, it will change your behavior. Go on a marathon winning streak and you’ll be a cocky f*cker, trash talking your opponents and thinking you’re the shit. Go on an equally long losing streak and you will be furious, cursing up a storm and ready to throw your controller through a wall (and sometimes even doing so). Granted, this is not the exact result for everyone, but it is usually the case for someone who would play a game 6-8 hours a day.
Not for everyone.
The converse can be true as well. You may not go emotionally overboard, instead you may withdraw and lose emotion entirely. Just get lost in a virtual bubble where minutes meld into hours, and all your friends no longer have names and faces, only a Gamertag and Gamerscore as you blankly stare at a screen for the better part of your day.
The key here is moderation, and subsequently parenting. Too much of anything is bad, and this is especially true of video games. I’ve found myself being sucked into games to the point where it was effecting other parts of my life. I pulled myself out of that as I was old enough to realize how harmful it could be, but a young kid has neither the self control or the knowledge to do that if left unchecked.
In the end, I say go ahead with the ban, though I say so for mainly selfish reasons. Sure, my ten year old self would hate such a philosophy, but it’s not like I could even go to the store to buy a game without my parents being there in the first place. And frankly, I’m quite tired of getting trash talked by thirteen year olds over Xbox Live, and there are so many of them there and in other online avenues, it almost makes the game unplayable. When the only multiplayer was local multiplayer in my living room, it was fine for my friends and I to yell at each other and be immature. But now that all the world’s kids are now online, it’s much less fun when it’s a high-voiced stranger being a total asshat online.
I’m also tired of constantly LOSING to twelve year olds, who don’t have jobs and can just spend all day training their tiny little reflexes to get way too good at this shit.
In reality, I don’t think a law will change very much. Most stores already have policies in place where they won’t sell games to minors. You can charm the cashier sometimes (I sold a kid Grand Theft Auto IV at Best Buy once because he was four days away from turning 17), but usually employees are threatened with losing their jobs if they don’t comply. It’s not a law, but it sure as shit is pretty enforceable. And the parents who don’t care will continue to not care, as many of them were probably buying these games for their kids already, and letting Master Chief raise them instead of doing it themselves.
Pass the thing, see if I care. I’m a grown up now, and you kids can fend for yourselves like I did if you really want to play these games.
I actually agree with your post here and I own my own company selling video games. Go with the laws of age restrictions (here in Switzerland it is a debate too). It doesn’t hurt the sales nor does it really change a thing in the whole picture.
Nice article, Paul. I tend to agree with your sentiments.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in a Gamestop and overheard the same conversation:
Clerk: “Ma’am, just to let you know this game is rated ‘M’ for violence and language, it’s not recommended for kids under 17.”
Mom with 11 year old kid: “It’s fine.”
Some parents simply don’t give a shit. That’s really all there is too it.
The thing I don’t like about a ban is that they are trying to inject regulation when it should be happening naturally in the home via parents.
The thing I DO like about a ban is the fact that (as you mentioned) some parents aren’t all that great with the concept of child development and determining what’s appropriate at what age.
Yes, the kids will find ways to sneak in a violent game or dirty movie but that’s kind of the point. When that happens, first of all, it’s kind of fun; the thrill of maybe being caught. But more importantly is that if you have restrictions or expectations then young people learn that there is a real conflict between what is right and what is wrong – or what is good and what is best – or what is permissible and what is beneficial. Have to deal with that conflict will (hopefully) make them better at making decisions in the future regarding relationships, career, school, etc.
As a parent myself, this is a very important subject that I am concerned about. While I’m gaming on MW2, I always think “Is this the type of behavior that I want to expose my kid to? The swearing and trash talk and the ‘Tycho’s rule’ stuff?” The bottom line is that eventually (I hope) when my daughter gets into gaming I can pass on sportsmanship and ethics BEFORE she gets online. But also teach her about the low side as well (meaning the trolls).
During the last PAX expo, Stepto from XBL enforcement gave a REALLY good panel on what is being done about some of the ‘seedier’ stuff going on on XLB and how they enforce it.
The panel can be heard in it’s hilarious entirety here: http://majornelson.com/archive/2010/03/28/pax-east-panel-enforcement-on-xbox-live-tales-from-the-din-part-2.aspx
But also (and this is most important) he goes into how it’s ultimately up to us (meaning the parents) to teach our kids the RIGHT way to game. And to report bad behavior when we see it. I think enforcing the ratings system is a good thing. It might not cure the overall problem, but if it wakes some parents up to what their kids do online- then I’m for it.
You hit the nail on the head with this article Paul. Funny, because I was considering writing about this very topic. As a lawyer, I’m always interested in the legal ramifications of any gaming regulations. Anyway, like you said, I’m pretty sure the enforcement of game ratings will have a minimal effect on accessibility.
And thank you for pointing out the nonsense that is blaming violent video games for real life violence.
From what I understand, the issue isn’t selling games to kids, the issue that people are having is the degree of punishment the person who sells the game to kids gets, it makes selling drugs to kids look ok.
George Carlin did a great piece on this subject in his first book “Braindroppings”.
i really agree with this article. i had the opposite upbringing than you did. my parents did not censor anything, really. my dad would sometimes tell me to cover my eyes during sex scenes in movies, but there was really no censorship. i grew up to easily discern between reality and fiction because i was exposed to it.
the issue is parenting. as a parent, you should be able to know what your child can handle and control it to some extent. if not, that’s your problem and you should be held accountable (AS WELL AS THE CHILD SHOULD).
I played mortal combat etc. on the genises growing up (and then golden eye for hours on end once N64 came out).
violent games (as stated) don’t cause any problems. but then again except for very rare days i’ve NEVER been able to sit and play games for 8 hours at a stretch after… maybe 3 or 4 hours MAX I have to turn the system off and do something else just to take a break or whatever.
But yea kids (hell I have some friends in their 20’s) will spend 10 hrs straight playing a game and yea that definently can be unhealthy.
But if this law comes into effect won’t it just prompt parents to buy games for their kids anyways? (as most of them do now if the kid is under 17 or whatever).
So really I don’t see alot changing. As the xbox 360 HAS a parental guide lock (so u can make it so juniors account CANNOT play M rated games… however obviously nobody uses it or is even aware of it).
The most ridiculous part of this entire situation is that a ban would only affect the children whose parents don’t want them to play the game already. I bought my first game (with my own money) when i got a job, i was sixteen. Before then, it was up to my parents to get games for me, it’s not like i could walk into a store and put down $100 (Aus dollars) for the latest COD when i was 12.
While I agree with most of this article (Mainly about parents actually parenting) I can’t stand behind a law that is wrong. Video games are just the latest piece of media to come under fire as the reason for youth violence, before that both movies and music have been been put up on the altar. Yet neither of those have ever been this close to being regulated by the government. That is what this law will do, it will open up the entire video game industry up to government regulation. First it will be at the store level. You wrote that you sold GTA IV to a kid who was four days from turning 17 correct? Well if the law passes guess what, you just lost your job and possibly incurred a hefty fine. The law will make it so that police officers can use underage individuals as sting agents just like they currently do (in New Mexico at least,) for the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. And whose to say that they stop there? After all if we let them regulate how video games are sold to us maybe they can start to control what’s put into them, or more procisly what isn’t allowed in them.
No, this has gone on with other forms of media. Don’t you remember when 2 Live Crew’s “As Nasty As They Wanna Be” was banned in Broward County, FL? The case went all the way to the Supreme Court.
@ Paul: Grat article!!!!
@ Terry: Tottaly agree with you, thats what I wonted to say!
@ Parents: I’m not a parent myself but I think that you should always let your kid play or train some kind of a team sport! That was a big part about me growing up and that was something that made me the man I am today!
A very good article Paul. Being well past the age where these regulations would effect me I think I do share your attitude, as personally a regulation such as this wouldn’t have any effect on me personally. I do think that for children of a certain age, parental decisions should play a part in deciding what content should be consumed by their children. As you noted before it really will only have two effects. A) A kid who’s parents find the content of a particular game wont be able to buy it. B) The kids who can’t buy these games will develop just as you did the important life skills of lying to their parents and finding ways to play them on the sly. (Has anyone ever done a study on the correlation between being able to play violent video games as a child vs. the decision to become a lawyer or politician?)
One thought. Madision brought up the case of 2 Live Crew. I don’t know if you can draw a direct comparison to these two situations. If memory serves, in the 2LC scenario the issue did not focus around the sale of the album to underage listeners but Broward County’s decision to not allow its sale at all. That I think certainly falls into the vein of censorship. As the 2LC was prevented from expressing themselves in any form. Not just to underage listeners. That I feel is a 1st amendment violation, as it was a blanket clamp down based around the content of the groups work. On the other hand in the case of restricting video games sales to minors a developer is not being restricted in their ability to present the message and content they want to an intended audience. The restriction that they face is in who they can directly sell that message to. The maker of a game can still put in as much blood and boobs as they want. They just do so with the expectation that their target audience falls into a particular age bracket. I think that this wont lead to “censorship” because I imagine that the people who make COD or whatever know that their main audience is not comprised of the 10 and under crowd, nor do I think they bank on them for their lively hood. Even if their products end up being consumed by underage players I would imagine that in most instances the person holding the purse strings is outside of the problematic age range.
I think that however, that the video game industry does need to shoulder a bit of the burden here. The ideal situation for any entertainment industry I believe is self regulation not governmental regulation. Irresponsible marketing can be very much to blame, but it is not simply isolated to the video game industry. For example, way back in the day due to the marketing and rating bestowed on the movie “Kindergarten Cop” my cousin and his entire kindergarten class were taken to see that movie. Which if you’ve seen it you know how bad of an idea that was. I think that video games need to be just as conscious about the way that they market themselves to avoid similar flaps. Funny to note however, that the man behind the California legislation in question stared in the movie I just mentioned.
Do I envy the kids who fall below the age range who legitimately are mature enough to purchase products like this on their own? No. I don’t. I know personally how annoying it was to be told I couldn’t buy hip-hop tapes because of the parental advisory labels that they started to use following the 2LC flap. If anyone reading this site worked at Record Theater in Buffalo NY. Sorry for all those nasty thoughts I had about you when you wouldn’t let me buy Ice Cube’s “Predator” album.
I brought up 2 Live Crew and probably shouldn’t have referenced the Supreme Court case, as that dealt with First Amendment issues. Aside from that, though, I thought the discussion was relevant since the album featured the now immediately recognizable “Parental Advisory” label on it, thanks to Tipper Gore & Co. So it’s kind of the same thing – a warning label, of sorts, that prohibits the sale of the media to anyone under a certain age.
Thanks for picking up on that distinction.
And “Predator” is one of my all-time favorite rap albums – I still listen to it quite a bit, especially at the gym.
More tax money wasted on a worthless venture. Your article proves the point. Any kid with any kind of brain and figure out how to get his hands on whatever he wants, be it porn, violent games, what have you.
Games should be treated exactly like films or any other medium; under a certain age it should be upto the parents or guardian.
The problem is not fining shops for saleing games to minors…which is just fine, imho.
The problem is in order to do so the US has had to redefine games as not having the same freedom of speech laws as films.
The the problem here, a crazy double-standard.
” If memory serves, in the 2LC scenario the issue did not focus around the sale of the album to underage listeners but Broward County’s decision to not allow its sale at all. That I think certainly falls into the vein of censorship. As the 2LC was prevented from expressing themselves in any form. Not just to underage listeners. That I feel is a 1st amendment violation, ”
Indeed.
Restriction of who you can sale it too is not restriction of speech.
Banning a thing from being sold out-right is quite a different thing altogether.
I agree with most of what has been said. I think that 16 would be a better age than 17… Considering most can drive and have jobs at that point, I think it would also be a good age for Movies/TV/Games to be “regulated” at.
However I am currently living in South Korea and when a game is rated ‘M’ (as SC2 was about to be), it restricts parents from allowing their children to play the game. (It was a huge deal for the Koreans and SC2 because that would mean many kids would not be able play it). Your gamer ID is tied to your SSN and if parents are caught letting their kids play under their ID there is legal ramifications for it. I think the Korean rating system is different than the ESRB.
With that style of system, it would really kick the thirteen year olds off of the rated ‘M’ games and force developers to consider what they really want to put into a game and how that rating might affect sales.
Just my 2 cents…
I am gonna cut to the chase here….. you can see with the evolution of games and parenting have changed.
For games they have been getting more detailed and realistic, as to where parents don’t want to do there job for the most part. Parenting is so much easier when all the stuff you have to discuss with your kids is an extinct threat. My biggest problem is i played mortal kombat when it first came out on console, my father told me one statement about videogames and movies that has stuck,”Remember this isn’t real life, it’s just pretend.” That statement alone is more than what most parents are doing. I very much so plan on letting my children play and watch whatever they want (except disney and porn for their fantasized ideal on love or lack of), and yes I do plan on teaching them the right. I don’t care if this ban goes through cause if so and my child wants to play gta20 i will buy it for them, if there is a change in personality then I know what to do, BE A FUCKING PARENT!
It’s the ridiculous causation/correlation theory that ignorant American politicians use.
It’s like this:
Gun crimes in America are immediately defended by the NRA as “guns don’t kill people…”. The NRA, and politicians, will say that the gun is not to blame.
Drunk driving deaths are never blamed on booze.
But video game violence is absolutely to blame for the .01% of people that happen to kill people and play Game X.
It’s pathetic that Americans cannot see this.
As an American, I am ashamed of my fellow citizens.