If you haven't already heard, read or seen this on the internet, a recent episode of the Alan Titchmarsh show launched a discussion about violence in video games. Now we've heard all the attacks on gaming in this area before: the study that no-one can remember the name of, the games getting into the hands of children, the age certificates being misunderstood. All of which, we can all agree, is complete and utter bullshit.
But I never expected to see all of these thrown in such force by a panel of "experts" on a British television show which is popular amongst elderly ladies. So why don't you come along, dear reader, and pick apart the claims and accusations. I will warn you though; the outlandishness is more to anger rather than humour the average person.
Well where do I begin! You can already tell from the first line when horticultural fanatic Alan Titchmarsh calls the bestselling game of 2009, and one of the biggest entertainment launches of all time "Call of Duty 2: Modern Warfare." Then we go through the usual topics that have been covered to death in the last decade, and have been thoroughly disproven. He starts with certificates and games being regulated in a more relaxed way to movies, which Tim (editor of CVG) rightfully makes the fact that they are regulated under the BBFC, the same as movies are.
"But they're at home." Alan proclaims at this point, which stops Tim dead in his tracks with a very confused "I'm sorry, what?" Turns out that dear old Mr Titchmarsh has skipped over the fact that films are released on DVD and eventually shown on TV; he decided to directly compared game regulation to being allowed in the cinema, even saying at one point that "well you can't stop children coming into their house." So what, he says children can't watch adult movie content at home? He had a point, and damnit he was going to make it!
Except, a simple answer. Adult content always gets into the hands of children; its not something that was created around the birth of videogames. Example, I watched the first American Pie and Halloween when I was 9 years old. Granted, I never looked at boobs and very tall men in the same way for a couple years; but I can't say that it's ruined me psychologically, or the fact I played Manhunt when I was 13 turned me into a violent murderer. Children like to see themselves as adults, and the way they see themselves as adults is doing adult things. Sometimes its a beneficial learning experience, and at other times its damaging; but you can say video games fall somewhere in the middle of the two polar extremes. And if you give it a little thought, it does come down to the parents on this. For those who, like Titchmarsh, say that the rating system is non-existent or confusing, lets have a look at the cover of GTA IV shall we?
As we can see in all it's red glory, there in the bottom left is an "18" certificate. And we flip over to the back:
And focus on the bottom right there:
Hmm...now I don't know about you; but I'm failing to see the mystery surrounding this certification of the game. Plus if you use common sense, its a GTA game! Last time I checked, that usually stands for a significant amount of content of an adult nature.
Holding this archaic view of games as a whole being just like that pong machine you used to play on occasionally, rather than seeing the grander scale of evolution into a platform where coherent stories can be told and adventures engaged is beyond ignorant. The same as you'd look into a new movie before your child watches it, do the same with videogames. Don't put yourself in the dark and then cry foul.
Then we move onto Kelvin Calder MacKenzie, who used to be at the helm of The Sun. To be fair to him, he does refer to something that actually DID happen. But as is to be expected from the magical murdoch circus, all is not as it seems. He made a reference to the Murder of James Bulger in 1993, claiming that one of his killers, John Venables, was influenced by violent videogames. To use something like this as a discussion point so outrightly just seems wrong to me to begin with. But to use it and alter one of the points to aid your argument is just downright inhuman. To correct the story, Venables said he was influenced by so called "video nasties;" The Evil Dead being an example of what he was on about.
So, of course, I've saved the most aggravating (and wrong) panelist for last. Enter Julie Peasgood (yes I chuckled at the surname), daytime presenter, handing out sex advice on pre-watershed TV. For a start...why is she here? If anybody is qualified to discuss behavioural psychology, she isn't one. Then she goes on to say that video games promote racism, sexism, and enforces a low self esteem; using a reference to a "recent American study" that she can't remember the name, author and publishing date of...how convenient!
Theres many studies that look into the link between behavioural violence and video game violence; but the closest one we could find to what Julie was 'referring' to is "The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility,
aggressive behaviors, and school performance." Douglas A. Gentile (the writer) concludes that violent video games heighten violent tendencies in children who already have strong violent tendencies. Games heighten adrenalin levels, not violent tendencies.
To further take mrs Peasgood off this moral soapbox...anybody ever heard of Martian Gothic?
Yea that's the one, a PC game released in 2000. Rated 'M' in America (their version of an '18' certificate) for its violent content. Quick review: it's an original concept, executed rather poorly. Turns out Peasgood had a speaking roll in Martian Gothic...bit of a mixed statement your throwing our way right there Julie.
"I am categorically against violence for entertainment."...so long as the cheque clears...
Sorry for the rather long outburst there. Fortunately, there are others with me on this one. Click here for a forum of disgust for the extremely bias nature of this "debate," including a response from ITV in the bottom third of the page.
So, what have ITV (hopefully) learned from this? It all rolls into one point: get people who actually know about video games to talk about them. There is a clear uneducated perspective here that demonises Tim Ingham, presenting him as something reminiscent of a cheating individual on the Jeremy Kyle show. Bring somebody on that has studied the area, not somebody who doles out sex advice! Because of this, the show turned into something I'd only expect to see on Fox News.
There really isn't anything left to say that hasn't already been said in the last decade of debate about this topic. The facts and concise arguments are presented to contradict the points made by people against violence in video games, and yet they keep cropping up. Can't they just step up and admit that these games have an amoral tone that they, in their value system refute against? That's not significant grounds for you to change an £4.47 billion industry; but thats grounds for you to be a parent, read the certificate and set boundaries for your own child.
This is only my opinion, so I'd love to hear what you think. I know I'm extremely biased for videogames, seeming as they've been in my life since my Commodore 64 at 4 years old, so lets discuss!
0 comments:
Post a Comment