“Games have a greater potential for harm to the average viewer because of their interactive nature”

Do you hate this argument as much as I do? Perhaps not, because I reeeeeally hate this contention that seems to be based on several layers of assumption.

But then do you happen to agree with the statement? If so why? What ground’s do you have to believe this? Perhaps you’re just ill-informed, if not ignorant.

In this piece I seek to provide my insights as to the validity of this key argument held so close to the protectionist right, that it may as well be considered faith. I say faith because, at least to me, there appears to be a leap in logic concerning what ‘interactivity’ actually means, between the right-leaning conservatives and the leftist ‘anti-censorship’ line of thinking.

Right now in Australia, we are in the midst of a political discussion over the suitability of introducing an R18+ classification for video-games. I won’t bore you with the details of the debate, that’s a different article, but to say that obviously we are currently without such a classification rating despite that option being available to other entertainment products rated by the Office of Film & Literature Classification (OFLC) such as film.

Advocates against the introduction of an R18+ classification for video-games like use a choice term phrase that, when examined, doesn’t really hold much water but is never the less provocative to the uninformed masses; ‘Murder Simulators’.

To them, any game that depicts an act of violence is instantly labelled as such despite the level of gore, the context of actions & any examination of how these virtual activities translate to the player through interfacing with the standard game-pad controller. 

At this point I’ll unfortunately need to subject you to dictionary definitions. Boring, yet necessary as examination of terms’ highlight the hyperbole spewed from the mouths of such advocates.

Murder – “the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime.”

So what? You might be thinking. Well, immediately we see the first folly in their using such terminology. Murder takes into account the context of actions committed. Justifiable, not justifiable, premeditated or spontaneous.

Interestingly, the same voices tend to support our troops deployed in foreign countries carrying out combat missions and alike. Would they consider civilians or even enemy combatants killed in such actions as murder? Not likely.

The same is true for most video-games. You aren’t an out-of-control psychopath with a chip on his shoulder ready to take it out on unsuspecting victims; you’re a character doing their part in completing an objective.

To go off on a tangent for a brief paragraph, this actually upsets me. The idea that people claiming the high-ground of ‘social conscious’ are more concerned with the virtual depictions of conflict than those perpetrated by our nations armed forces in reality while deployed overseas. I guess the only conclusion I can draw is they seem concerned only with what’s going on in our own backyard.

Simulator – “a machine for simulating certain environmental and other conditions for purposes of training or experimentation.”

For the purposes of training or experimentation! Basically, this tells me they don’t believe games are a legitimate entertainment medium. While certainly there are games available that takes on the mantle of ‘edutainment’, yet the vast majority of what’s available on retail shelves is built for and intended as entertainment.

Obvious right, but what’s more this takes us back to the definition of ‘interactivity’. Because you can do therefore you are doing right? Wrong. I’d like to have you examine the standard game-pad (xbox360 selected below due to fandom). What conclusions can you derive from its design alone?

It doesn’t appear to be shaped like a weapon, doesn’t have sharp edges, doesn’t hold a clip of ammo and doesn’t provide a chamber. What then is such a contraption used for? Conditional actions based on context depicted by sequences unfolding in the software being executed. Wha? Wha? Wha?

Buttons; a controller is the medium which interfaces the player between what’s happening virtually and how they are able to ‘interact’ with that depiction. Is someone going to argue that pressing a button can teach me how to load a weapon? Or jack / hotwire a car? I think not. A developed mind should not have difficulty distinguishing between what’s required to undertake the real action being mimicked and merely pressing a button.

Therefore, obviously, describing games as ‘simulators’, given existing & standard control schemes, just doesn’t hold any weight in academia.

Of course, the argument then becomes ‘well maybe they don’t teach you how to perform a specific action, but they expose you to depraved depictions of violent actions!’ True, games can provide entertainment in the form of acts of violence; in fact it’s far from uncommon. But so to does film – cinema & TV. Again, rated by the same classification board these forms of media are provided an R18+ rating option.

‘But these are proven to have significant effects on children’s behaviour’. Well this is partially true. In a recent aggregation study, of which the local media have recently been keen to latch onto:

Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behaviour in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta Analytic Review (2010).

Professor Craig Anderson from the Department of Psychology at Iowa State University contests that through his review there is evidence that video-games are linked significantly to an increase in violent behaviour.

 I highlight significantly because it’s a term that can easily be taken out of context by those reading related media report’s who are not statisticians or research scientists. The term is used to describe a value greater than 0. In the scale presented in Professor Anderson’s report, the absolute end values were -1.0 and 1.0 respectively. The study found that increases in the symptoms for violent behaviour rose by .018 after having played a videogame; where I come from a near 20% is no grounds for alarm.

 However, in the end even this report it’s partly a tangent from the issue. As nobody debates the potential for games to increase aggressive behaviour signatures amongst its audience, in the same way competitive sports would.

 Professor Anderson himself concedes that a ‘normal’ and ‘stable’ child isn’t going to become a mass murderer simply by playing a few violent games, where he says that ”If you have a child with no other risk factors for aggression and violence”, going on to say “and if you allow them to suddenly start playing video games five hours to 10 hours a week, they’re not going to become a school shooter”

 His position can be described as anti explicit content, not anti R18+. In fact, his beliefs are better serviced by the introduction of the higher category as it provides parents more useful information to ensure unsuitable games are kept from children.

 Which by the way were 100% of the sample size for his report. Participants were all 16 years or younger, how can we possibly correspond this reports findings to the discussion of suitability to sell adult games to an adult audience.

 In closing, do me a favour; go back and read the initial statement that precedes my thoughts on the subject. Having covered all this ground, do you still believe you can sell me on the belief that games hold a greater potential for harm?

It’s time for these hysteria generators to tone down the hyperbole and start talking in real terms about the affects of videogames on a younger audience. Then let’s all sit down to determine the best course of action to ensure the more extreme content does not come into the possession of  an unsuitable demographics, like say those between the age of 15 & 17.