Editorial: Why the Ban on Violent Video Game Sales to Minors Would Be a Good Thing
It would have been bad news for all those individuals under the age of 18 yet another reason to reach adulthood, to buy a video game. That is, if Judge Whyte had decided against the video game industry.
But what if the ban had gone through? In fact, why just California? Picture a world with “adults only” video games: it’s not about what the kids want. What if it created a marketplace with a big enough demand so developers and distributors couldn’t ignore it?
And really, the divide the ban would have created would be huge. The language of the ban defines “violent video games” as follows:
(i) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
(ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors.
(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
Does that mean Halo 2 would be considered violent? Even though it’s not directly part of the game, I’d say tea-bagging your opponent would be deviant, patently offensive, and I don’t know any instance in history where acting like you’re sticking your balls in someone’s face has been mentioned in any literary, artistic, political or scientific notion.
So chances are when you combine the balls in the face and shotgun in the back, Halo would be out, along with a lot of other games, because what polite society considers acceptable is very different than what gamers love. Considering the average age of gamers is 33, what we would be left with is a huge demographic of people who would want something more than that which is suitable for children. The “Adults Only†rating would be given a whole new meaning.
Right now, if your game gets an AO rating, it’s not going to hit the shelves. Take-Two learned this painful lesson with Manhunt 2, and it’s not one they’re going to repeat anytime soon. It’s obvious that the current political climate contributed to the decision, though the content of the game didn’t help. Torture is torture, and it’s pretty twisted to most everyone.
But if the ban had passed, the AO rating would be more than commonplace; it would be on half the games out there, or at least a good third. In the least, the retailers across the country would not shy away from it as they did with Manhunt 2, because it would be just another title amongst the games that would be acceptable for adults to play.
Then what if there was another byproduct of the ban, this one having to do with that “artistic value” that the language mentioned? What if it inspired developers to be more subversive? What if a game were considered so politically and socially relevant that it could ride the lines between being generally considered for adults, but followed guidelines so everyone could buy it?
It would be a game company’s wet dream to produce a video game in a dichotomized world, where it was either for kids or adults, which could be considered okay for both. It would possibly break some records, all things considered.
And apart from the financial aspects, could this Adults Only category cause a shift in thinking for developers to create a game which was for adults, but not necessarily just because it was bloody and crude? I think it could. In fact, I think it would quite possibly create quite a different sort of drive once everything quieted down.
But right now, what we’re dealing with are people who still view video games as only for kids. Video games aren’t art, Ebert says, and that’s not going to change. But is this partially because they’re for kids?
I think separating the kids from adults might produce some really great things. I think that if the ban had gone through, it might have been the first of many steps toward more artistically motivated games, culturally relevant games, and a distinction for video games in general which would give them more credit with traditional critics.
I say, bring the ban on. The adults are ready.
Source: arsTechnica.com
Source: MediaCoalition.org
Source: GamePolitics.com
Source: ESA.com
By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.
7 Comments on Editorial: Why the Ban on Violent Video Game Sales to Minors Would Be a Good Thing
Hutch
On August 10, 2007 at 9:43 am
I think that some things kids shouldn’t see should be restricted. But I also believe that censorship should be done by the parents as some children won’t be affected by violence as much as others. Video games aren’t for kids certainly and I think that the politicians believe that playing is only for kids. Stop making games a scapegoat!
weclock
On August 10, 2007 at 10:26 am
This is something I’ve been telling people for a while. There are things that kids aren’t ready for, and that’s a good thing.
Phil Migrowen
On August 10, 2007 at 7:56 pm
“But if the ban had passed, the AO rating would be more than commonplace; it would be on half the games out there, or at least a good third. In the least, the retailers across the country would not shy away from it…”
You are wrong on that because it simply hasn’t happened for the one entertainment medium which is already banned for minors by law in the U.S.: porn. Just as mainstream retailers do not carry pornographic videos since they are restricted to adults, they would not carry similarly restricted video games either especially since some adult games would conceivably contain the same type of content. It is simply too taboo. Lack of demand or lack of product is not the issue because there is plenty of demand for porn and plenty of product to meet that demand. Simply having more games with an “adults-only” label on the box is not going to get them sold in stores. It would take a massive change in public attitude on the subject, and that type of change usually takes at least a generation to develop.
Jetsetlemming
On August 11, 2007 at 2:18 am
Except that video games are still seen as a child’s media to a good portion of the non-gaming public, and pretty much ALL these politicians. Do you think they at all recognize the concept of adults playing videogames? Not at all. Not to mention that the subversive intent of all these laws seems to be to take away the power the ESRB has and make it a federal board of game ratings. Judging what the “violence” of the law would apply to would be more than looking at T and M ratings. There have been T games such as Jurassic Park and Space Hulk that feature graphic gore and dismemberment, and M games like Leisure Suit Larry and Playboy that have no violence whatsoever. Legislated morality never works, and the end result of a ban on “violent games” for children would end up being just a ban on violent games period. The one and only true outlet for AO and truly adult material is and for a good long unforeseeable portion of our future the internet. I’d bet Valve would let 2k put Manhunt 2 on Steam if they asked nicely and gave them a nice cut. They didn’t have any problems with horribly mutilated and burnt tortured corpses, disemboweled and cut in half zombies, and the biological alteratiosn of the combine and stalkers.
yourfamilygames@gmail.com
On August 11, 2007 at 7:44 am
You make some good points (especially in bringing up the fact politicians always overlook the older demographics of gaming), but I still think the Californian ban is a bad idea.
As flawed as it is with a fuzzy definition between M and AO ratings, the ESRB system should be enough to help enforce this ban. the ESRB system puts the power in parents hands to decide if a game is okay for their kid. We all know in reality, it’s very easy for a minor to obtain an M-rated game, but parents/guardians need to play their part and look out for their kids. If they think their 16-year-old is ready to play some M-rated game, then that’s cool. The flaw in this system though, is that some parents just don’t care. But we definitely should not have government regulation in place of parenting. That’s not right.
The biggest point of this case, too, is not just the 18+ ban was lifted, but videogames are recognized as being protected under the First Ammendment. That’s INCREDIBLE. (The ruling, posted on GamePolitics.com, is pretty interesting to read: ““The government cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person’s private thoughts. First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.—)
I agree with Phil, too. AO is not going to be socially acceptable anytime soon. The best thing you could do about that is give it time. Sad.
Meggo
On August 11, 2007 at 7:45 am
ah, crap. Didn’t mean to put my e-mail as my name x_X oh noes. I take it there’s not a way to edit that?
Meggo
On August 11, 2007 at 8:31 am
Aw, boo, I put my email addy for my name… now I just look silly. :/ Don’t suppose there’s a way to edit that…