Achievement Unlocked: Enlightenment

Achievement Unlocked: Enlightenment
In 1947, the first ever interactive electronic game was created. It was a missile simulator using analog (as opposed to digital) circuitry to control a cathode ray tube beam and position a dot on a screen. While primitive by today's standards, this game was the spark that began the roaring fire that is the videogame industry today. However, like all cultural movements, the gaming world would soon fall inside the crosshairs of critics, and the regulation of the content of games would become a hot debate topic throughout the world.

Videogame censorship controversies tend to sound like a broken record, because most conflicts arise from the concern that exposure to violent content in games can harm minors. The rationale here is actually quite logical; these games depict violence towards other human beings, so if children play them, and actually control the actions of one of the fighting characters, they will become predisposed towards violent acts. Some proponents of videogame censorship take it a step further, claiming that games are actually training children to kill. Lt. Col. David Grossman, who is an author specialized in what he calls “killology” or the psychology of killing, claims that violent videogames, and in particular first-person shooters, are “murder simulators” that train children how to use weapons and also desensitize them to the act of killing. Less extreme allegations against the use of violence in videogames is that violence serves as a crutch for creativity. Those who make this argument claim that developers are unable to invent original, innovative, and fun activities for a player, and instead simply give the player a gun and tell them to kill as many monsters as they can find.

If videogames encourage people to behave aggressively, then why aren't gamers, and in particular gamers who play violent games, out killing one another right now? Quite simply, videogames serve as a safe outlet for our violent tendencies. As humans, we are naturally violent, as evidenced by timeless children's games like Cops and Robbers and Cowboys and Indians in which children assume the roles of belligerent characters, “shooting” one another. Violence in videogames is just another way of expressing the natural urge to fight without inflicting actual harm on another human being. Using the same principle as punching a pillow when angry or frustrated, we “take out” our anger in videogames. Every alien or zombie that we shoot, beat, run over, incinerate, or otherwise destroy is a release for our pent-up frustration. In fact, between 1994 and 2000, the years in which the videogame industry experienced some of its biggest growth, juvenile violent crime arrests dropped by 44%, and young adult violent crime arrests dropped by 24% (Thierer). While this is not necessarily concrete evidence in and of itself to disprove any possibility of a link between aggressive behavior and violent video games, it should give one pause before condemning videogames for violent crimes committed by minors. Furthermore, despite numerous studies conducted by hundreds of organizations, including the United States government, there has never been any conclusive evidence to prove a causal relationship between videogame play and aggression. The most often-cited examples of aggressive behavior allegedly inspired by videogames are school shootings, but in a study conducted by the U.S. Secret Service, only 12% of those who were involved in school shootings were also attracted to videogames that depicted violence, whereas 24% read violent books, and 27% were attracted to violent films (Vossekuil). Some have argued that this is more a question of access, as it is cheaper to check a book out of a library, or go see a movie, than it is to purchase a game system and violent games, but recent generations have experienced a decline in interest in recreational reading and instead turn to interactive entertainment such as video and computer games. The majority of children now have relatively easy access to videogames whether the systems are owned by a parent, a friend, or themselves.

Even more outlandish than the notion that videogames desensitize us to violence, is the claim that they train us to become killers. I have never heard of a game that actually teaches you how to operate a weapon, beyond “Press the X-button to reload” or “Click the right thumbstick to activate the scope and zoom in.” These instructions are worthless if you try to apply them to a real gun. For example, reloading any weapon is much more complicated than simply pressing a button, and unless the gun is shaped like a controller, I doubt many gamers would understand how to operate it efficiently. I, for one, wouldn't know the first thing about operating an actual gun despite years of playing first-person shooter games. What makes this argument even more ridiculous is the fact that videogames are completely false representations of actual conflicts. Contrary to what this argument may claim, videogames are not turning our children into super-soldiers who can operate any weapon the moment they touch it and can instantly heal any wounds they have by running over medical kits.

Why are there so many reported incidents in which games seem to be the inspiration for aggressive activity? The reason is simple, and was the same one that Hitler used to kill millions of Jewish people in Europe during the Holocaust; videogames are a scapegoat. Just as Hitler blamed Jews for all of Germany's problems in the day, so also now are videogames being targeted as cause for violence now. In the case of the Columbine High School Massacre, the videogame Doom was blamed because the shooters were both fans of the game, even though their original plan was to blow up the school and they only started shooting when their explosives failed to detonate. In 2002, two men killed and injured dozens in the Beltway Sniper Attacks, allegedly being inspired by the game Halo: Combat Evolved despite the fact that in no portion of the game do you ever fight against human beings, and you also never kill any innocents. In 2003, a 16-year-old named Dustin Lynch was arrested and charged with aggravated murder because he had been “obsessed” with the videogame Grand Theft Auto III where this kind of act is an integral part of the game; however in the game you do not get “rewarded” for the action, but rather get chased and punished by the police for your heinous crime. Although it is possible to outrun and escape the police in the game, the fact remains that you are not encouraged to kill, but rather discouraged. In Leicester, UK, a 17-year-old brutally stabbed a 14-year-old with a claw hammer and a knife after being supposedly “obsessed” with the videogame Manhunt even though the only violence the player does in said game is out of self-defense. While it is true that videogames are often home to deviant ideas, ideas alone are not the sole factors in deciding a person's actions. People are blaming videogames in an attempt to escape harsh judgment, and in the process they are essentially making videogames into the new insanity plea.

Not only do videogames provide a release for aggressive tendencies, but they actually have several positive effects. The videogame industry is responsible for billions of dollars of revenue in the United States alone, and the vast majority of the videogames being sold are “violent” games. Should games fall under a censorship law that would ban all Mature and Adults Only games from retailers, the economy will take an enormous blow, sending it into a major repression. For example, if the game Halo 3 had been banned from sale in the United States, then on its opening day alone $170 million dollars would not have been spent, and pre-orders comprised over $1.7 million. Both of these figures shattered previous entertainment media sales records, even topping opening-weekend releases for blockbuster movie franchises such as “Spiderman” and “Harry Potter”, and this is all because of just one game. It may be countered that the sale of guns or drugs have a substantial impact on the economy as well, but entertainment is one of the biggest industries, if not the biggest, in American society, and videogames comprise a large portion of entertainment sales.

Videogames aren't just beneficial economically, but they bring people together socially as well. At first, one might be confused as to how sitting in front of a TV for several hours can be considered “social,” but most games in this generation feature online multiplayer, allowing players to come in contact with other gamers all over the world in order to compete. It's not just in-game either, the majority of players also participate in online forums, discussing the game, its community, and the consoles on which the games are played, but also branching off into subjects as diverse as culinary arts and international politics. Seth Killian, a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Illinois, wrote an article about videogame violence, and in his article he refers to the videogame world as a whole as being not only diverse, but extremely close-knit thanks to the connections the use of online chat rooms and message boards allows. Not only do these gamers play against one another all over the world, but they also exchange ideas and form friendships with people they would otherwise never have met. The social aspect extends into real life as well. Videogame tournaments are not rare occurrences, and can range in size from a dozen entrants in a local tournament, to thousands of players in international tournaments that are most often “entirely grassroots, sponsor-less, player-produced productions. Those who can, help out as translators; DJs and stage crew geeks set up the lights and sound; and people with arcade experience keep the equipment in good repair. Everyone's a player, no one is paid, and all the entry fees go directly into the prize pool” (Thierer). In this way videogames don't just encourage the interaction of diverse cultures, but take it a step further and promote international cooperation.

Games have even been proven to stimulate creativity and often challenge the mind with complex, multi-dimensional puzzles of various difficulties. In a recently-released videogame, Assassin's Creed, players assume the role of a Crusade-era assassin who gets assigned 9 targets to assassinate in the interest of bringing about peace, with each assassination involving a complex investigation and careful planning. This is much different from standard-fare “run-and-gun” motifs of most games, and actually challenges the player to carefully plan and execute stealthy missions. Not only do these puzzles stimulate the players creativity, but the storyline itself is extremely deep and delves into philosophical issues such as morality and freedom. Even standard shooters have elements of puzzles, forcing you to find ways to open doors or allowing you to implement a variety of strategies for any given situation. There are even several instances in which games are being developed and used as tools for training and simulations. Surgeons can now practice very fragile operations safely via games, and the game can monitor their performance and detect areas for improvement. Pilots can learn and practice maneuvers that can be implemented should any specific scenario arises while flying, and again the game can “score” these men and women and identify strengths and weaknesses.

Despite all the benefits of videogames, there are still many proponents of videogame censorship. These people range from fast-food workers to politicians, but they are all equally ignorant of the negligible negative effects of games and would seek to have any game they consider “violent” or otherwise “explicit” banned from sale in our country. This is wrong. Videogames are a medium of expression, the same as books and movies, and as such are protected under the First Amendment. This means that games are well within their rights to express any ideas and content their developers put into them, and are protected by constitutional law against being censored. Nor does it matter how deviant the material in a videogame is. In 1969, the Supreme Court observed that the guarantees of the First Amendment are:

''‘not confined to the expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by a majority’ .... Nor is it relevant that [such] materials ... are arguably devoid of any ideological content. The line between the transmission of ideas and mere entertainment is much too elusive for this Court to draw, if indeed such a line can be drawn at all.'' Stanley v. Georgia

This clearly states that regardless of the “social worth” of videogames, they are all protected under the First Amendment.

Even if games didn't enjoy First Amendment rights, the videogame industry has already taken responsibility and provided the tools for parents to judge what is and is not appropriate for their children. In 1994, a labeling system for the videogame industry was created and the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was established as an independent, self-regulatory organization for computer and videogames as well as other entertainment software in America. The ESRB reviews games and assigns them a rating using “five different rating symbols and over 25 different content labels that refer to violence, sex, language, substance abuse, gambling, humor and other potentially sensitive subject matter” (Thierer). This is a model of industry responsibility, as the ESRB labels provide a rating label for a game, including concise descriptions as to the reason for the label itself, allowing parents the ability to effectively deem whether a particular game is appropriate or not for their child.

Now that the industry has taken responsibility, the only group left to do the same is the parents of the children. In a free society as diverse as ours, it is ultimately the parents responsibility to monitor and control what their children are exposed to. Parents have the right to decide what their children play, and no government policy should ever compromise that right. Similarly, adults can choose for themselves whether they deem a game “worthy” of their time based on their personal convictions using the ESRB rating system.

Videogames provide us with alternate worlds and stories that do everything from educate to entertain, yet there are some who would seek to seal us off from these wonderful opportunities and experiences because a few of the messages in these games may disagree with their personal views. So while videogames are here to stay, the question arises, will future games broaden our horizons? Or will they be restricted to being mere portrayals of meaningless, restricted ideas for the sake of being inoffensive? Videogames offer us the ability to transcend from our actual lives and explore endless possibilities, and can even bring us face-to-face with ourselves, but if videogames fall victim to censorship laws, they will leave us with only disappointment and will effectively shield us from the harsh truths of real life. Videogames themselves may not be realistic, but the ideas they contain, as well as some aspects of the games themselves, are as real as you or me, and as Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals once said, "People are unlikely to become well-functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it."

Thierer, Adam. “Regulating Video Games: Must Government Mind Our Children?” Cato.org 2 May 2008 .
===Vossekuil, Bryan; et al. (May 2002). Safe School Initiative Final Report. U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education. 3 May 2008 ===

About the Author
This essay was written for an English class in my freshman year of college. It clearly states my views on videogame censorship and supports them with evidence.

--Sangheilioz 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[User Page: Sangheilioz]