Tuesday 29th of March 2005
Protest
I’m not at work today. Not because there’s nothing to do, but because there are protesters hanging around. R* hasn’t shut down, but I was told I didn’t have to come in if I didn’t want to – I’m not doing anything that urgent, and I’m a freelancer anyway.
I considered going in. I thought it might be interesting to experience being the subject of a protest, and there are various feelings of defiance – why should these guys stop me working? But when it came down to it, I decided I’d rather sleep in. I was also considering going into the city to check it out – take some photographs, maybe even a little vid. But I see it’s approaching 3pm and I’m still in my dressing gown, so I guess that won’t be happening.
I do get pissed off by these protesters, but it’s really a minor irritation. They’re just idiots. I get angry at the presumably intelligent politicians that want to jump on the bandwagon. Politicians and lawmakers have to deal with many complex issues. I don’t expect or want to be as informed as I expect and want them to be, so if I want to judge them and how representative I think they will be of my views I have to look at their stance on the few subjects I know and have spent some time thinking about. Like violent video games.
Obviously, I don’t have a problem with their existence as I worked on one and am currently working on others (except for today). The people who are against them feel this way for a variety of reasons, varying from the outlandishly ridiculous (They train people to be killers) to the plausible if unproven (Violent video games are bad for children).
I actually agree that not all games are suitable for children, just like not all movies are suitable for children. Goodfellas is one of the great achievements of modern cinema, but I wouldn’t show it to an 8 year old. Society deals with this by rating movies. In Ireland this is legally binding. Not so in the US, where anybody can see anything if they’re accompanied by an adult. Generally, people are happy with this.
Hey, I know! What if video games were rated the same way? Oh wait, they already are. But this doesn’t seem to be good enough. Why is this?
Personally, I think it’s because video games for adults are a relatively new phenomenon and most parents will have no experience of them. For a century people have grown up with movies. We all know what movies are like, and what they can be like. We have all been excited, moved and disturbed by movies, and you don’t have to explain to anybody the effect they can have and that maybe children should be shielded from some of them. But video games are perceived as toys, and toys are for kids, right? The simple fact is that most parents just don’t really believe that it’s possible for a game to be for adults only until they walk in on their child picking up a virtual prostitute.
So they’re shocked, and appalled, and offended. They look for someone to blame. For some reason, they blame the manufacturers. I don’t believe most people would have any sympathy for a parent who rented Goodfellas for their child, and then decided to sue Martin Scorsese because they didn’t think their little angel should be exposed to Samuel L. Jackson’s brains on a mattress.
The movie::video game analogy doesn’t hold up very well on many levels, but I believe it’s valid in this case. Some games are for adults, and some movies are for adults. Kids should not be allowed access to these. This requires (in the US) the parents to make a decision. This does not mean that all movies and games must be made suitable for kids in order to give parents one less thing to think about. My God, that would be a boring culture.
And it is the parents who are the problem. Most video game shops will not sell M rated games to kids. What happens? The kid gets the parent, who buys the game. There is plentiful anecdotal evidence of sales people trying to educate parents, and the parents just not being swayed. They cave to their kids, because they want to give them a treat and they fundamentally do not believe that games can be for adults.
I have personal experience of this. When I was home over Christmas I was talking to an intelligent former workmate who had bought GTA:SA for her twelve year old son as a present. I described to her some of the things you could do in the game, and persuaded her not to give it to him. I spoke to her after Christmas – she had given it to him after all, because the PS2 they had bought him now didn’t have any game to play with it and was useless, making for a very unpleasant Christmas morning. Basically, she didn’t really believe me. I sympathise with her, obviously – that can’t have been fun. But this is the pattern. This is how kids get the games.
I’m under no illusions about the video game companies. They talk about freedom of speech, but really they’re all about making money. They are not altruistic. But why should they be? Pretty much all good art throughout history has been created for profit. Most bad art too, but that’s life. Violent games sell. I actually think that sooner or later some company will make a video game that’s just too violent and the consumers will reject it. There’ll be a backlash, and non-violent games will become more poular. And that’s the way it should be. This should not be a political issue. Nobody’s freedoms are being infringed. Nobody is being harmed.
Anyway, I bring this up because most internet discussions on this issue are populated by illiterate fanboys indulging indulging in flame wars. I thought that by bringing it up here where there is an extremely limited readership I might hear some reasonable dissenting opinions to which I could respond with the mimimum of “OMG u r teh ghey game5 r0XX0r!!111!!One!!!”.
Anyway, I love my PSP. I downloaded the new Dr. Who overnight, and watched it on the train on the way in to work. When it was time to walk, I switched to MP3 mode and put it in my pocket. On the way home, I played a game. Truly, civilization has peaked. We may as well stop now.
I was impressed by the new Doctor. Go Ecclestone! I want Daleks! And Cybermen!


Comment ID: 2676
At 9:36 pm on Tuesday 29th of March 2005, Gerrysan attestedGreat post Anto and to think a few posts ago you didn’t know, what was, a good post.
Gerrysan
Comment ID: 2679
At 10:35 pm on Tuesday 29th of March 2005, Anthony realised it was important that we all should understandWell I was hoping for an argument, but thanks!
Comment ID: 2680
At 3:55 am on Wednesday 30th of March 2005, Nigel testifiedYou’re so like totally wrong! Um, sorry, I know you want an argument but because I agree with you I’m unlikely to prove a good sparring partner.
The Daleks will also fly BTW! That cunning tactic of running up stairs to vanquish them is no longer an option.
Comment ID: 2681
At 7:42 am on Thursday 31st of March 2005, D. impartedYou seem concerned to show that the games do no harm to adults. Surely, the relevant question is what good do they do? I suppose the exercise of intellectual agility and manual dexterity in pursuit of the reduction of ambiguity is one good. Is it vitiated by inviting, allowing or encouraging the player take on the persona and motives of the power hungry and immoral, so licensing degrading passions, if only in ‘play’?
Comment ID: 2683
At 7:00 pm on Thursday 31st of March 2005, Anthony realised it was important that we all should understandIs that the relevant question? I don’t think so. I’m arguing that these games shouldn’t be censored, not that they should be compulsory.
Unless you believe, like Socrates, that anything that encourages unruly passion should be banned. Is that your position? Was that Socrates position? To be honest I’m a little unclear on that. If only I had had the foresight to do a degree in Classical Studies like my cousin, who will never be stumped by questions like this.
Comment ID: 2684
At 4:05 am on Friday 01st of April 2005, D. testifiedWhy would anyone waste their time arguing about whether something that does no good should or should not be censored?
Comment ID: 2685
At 8:42 am on Friday 01st of April 2005, Nigel wanted everyone to knowI studied Socrates in uni and I don’t know if you’re right about that either.
Comment ID: 2686
At 11:01 am on Friday 01st of April 2005, Tom announced< !— spamk : Comment text: ‘4nth0ny,
D00d! 1 pwn u!
I too worked in a video game company, although all I did was keep the UNIX servers for the online store running. I think it all comes down to living in a culture where two parents working is perceived as not only normal but good. Kids are aggressive sponges which constantly need boundaries set. TV isn’t going to do that. Day care is not going to do that. The other kids are not going to do that. It takes a mom or a dad to do it. For one or the other to do that, they have to…you know..be there.
I know, it’s a radical concept.’ matched ((holdem|texas|poker|casino|online|gambl|blackjack|game|free).*){2,} —>
4nth0ny,
D00d! 1 pwn u!
I too worked in a video game company, although all I did was keep the UNIX servers for the online store running. I think it all comes down to living in a culture where two parents working is perceived as not only normal but good. Kids are aggressive sponges which constantly need boundaries set. TV isn’t going to do that. Day care is not going to do that. The other kids are not going to do that. It takes a mom or a dad to do it. For one or the other to do that, they have to…you know..be there.
I know, it’s a radical concept.
Comment ID: 2687
At 2:05 pm on Saturday 02nd of April 2005, Anthony testifiedD: What do you mean by “doing good”? Causing improvement? In what? Do you mean moral good? Do films, books, paintings, music do “good”? Should all media be divided into things that do “good” and things that don’t? By whom?
Oh no! I’ve been pwned! I hate being pwned. It really gets my g04t. Do you think the US economy would survive the sudden self-exclusion of a large proportion of the educated workforce? Failing that, should the government be responsible for ensuring kids aren’t corrupted?
Comment ID: 2691
At 8:30 am on Sunday 03rd of April 2005, D. discoursedDo you have the same problem in understanding what doing harm means?
Comment ID: 2705
At 5:41 pm on Sunday 03rd of April 2005, Anthony postedI have a problem understanding what you mean by it! If you were to elucidate one it might give me a handle on the other.
Comment ID: 2706
At 8:10 am on Tuesday 05th of April 2005, Julian declaredAnthony, we have already summer time! Wake up!
Comment ID: 2710
At 6:53 pm on Tuesday 05th of April 2005, Anthony impartedOops. Ok, Local Anthony Time is now accurate again. Thank you.
Comment ID: 2711
At 1:02 pm on Wednesday 06th of April 2005, Alan felt the urge to writeSome quick conjecture:
I really believe that this is all part of a deeper problem with the human condition in general. Rather than actually confront the real core of problems, people are drawn towards quick and easy solutions. This is illustrated in many more ways than video games facing possible censorship, such as:
1) Drug use, both illegal and legal, as ways of dealing with/solving emotional/psychological complications.
2) Drug legislation. Look at the days of reefer madness and prohibition.
3) Comic book censorship.
4) Movies coming under fire in the early to mid 90’s
5) Gun control
6) And now, video games…
In each of these cases, there were fundamental social problems that brought on these events. However, in each of these cases a surface level scapegoat was targeted and prosecuted, in an effort to alleviate the symptoms of said social problem. In the end, the social problems were not corrected, since the core root of the problem was not attacked. In fact, one could say that in many cases the core social problem was exacerbated and new problems arose, due to these knee jerk retaliatory “solutions.”
We are continually repeating the same mistakes, over and over. In the end, I believe it’s because we, as impatient humans, want an easy solution to a really complex problem.
There’s my relatively vague conjecture.
Comment ID: 2712
At 9:37 pm on Wednesday 06th of April 2005, Anthony professedAs with most things in life, there is an apposite Simpson’s quote.
Bart running for class president: “Martin says there are no easy answers. I say – he’s not looking hard enough!”