Sometimes, we here at Digital Trends have strong opinions. And when that time comes, we take to the Internet and fight. For this week’s debate, we’re taking on the discussion surrounding the HR 4204 bill, which wants to put warning labels on nearly all video games. Our own Amir Iliaifar and Ryan Fleming go head to head.
Amir |
I’ll start by saying I’m a huge gamer. I’ve been playing videogames for over 20 years and no, I haven’t ever committed an act of violence beside throwing my controller across the room during a very intense Ninja Gaiden 2 boss battle (he was super cheap, FYI). Embarrassing anecdotes aside, I believe video games — like any art form — have the ability to touch, inspire, and influence.
There’s a whole debate on whether videogames are actually art. I happen to believe they are, and like any form of art, be it literature, paintings, film, or music, it has the ability to inspire people to do some pretty crazy things. In 1985, a man named Leonard Lake abducted a 19 year-old girl, held her prisoner in a makeshift bunker near his house, and subsequently raped and tortured her. Lake was said to be utterly obsessed with a book by British author John Fowles called The Collector. Two other men have also claimed the book was inspiration for their violent acts.
I have read The Collector, and never has it crossed my mind to recreate any aspects of the book. But while I don’t believe games, or books, or films for that matter cause (the key word here being cause) people to commit violent crimes, I do think there can be a correlation between violent images/lyrics/games and violent or aggressive behavior. Jump on Xbox Live and listen to the idiotic, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc remarks made by a large number of gamers and tell me that isn’t aggressive or violent behavior.
Do I believe video games should be banned? Hell no. But I don’t see the harm in making consumers aware that there are some potential negative effects of playing violent video games. Where I disagree with the recent labeling proposition introduced by Reps Joe Braca (D-CA) and Frank Wolf (R-VA) and their “Violence in Video Games Labeling Act” is the need to label virtually all games; it should be reserved for games that are deemed explicitly violent by the ESRB and the bill’s wording should be retooled.
Ryan |
This is bill is nothing more than political grandstanding from lawmakers looking to score points with voters in an election year. They attempted a similar thing in California by trying to classify games in the same way they do porn, and the Supreme Court ruled against it.
The thing is, the warning is just wrong and misleading. For every study showing a direct link between gaming and aggression there are two that say the exact opposite—that gaming can actually relieve aggressive tendencies. Go ahead and Google it; you will instantly find plenty of scientific studies that at the very least cast enough doubt on the proposed warning label’s accuracy. It seems hugely irresponsible of some hackneyed politicos desperately trying to remain relevant to put such an incredibly damning label on a product they obviously don’t understand or appreciate.
The law would also force that label on all games, not just violent ones. So beware – don’t let your child play Barbie: Jet, Set & Style!, for it may be a gateway to MURDER!
About The Collector being a focal point of a few nuts, the same was true of Sallinger’s Catcher in the Rye, and yet there are no warning labels on books. You can’t regulate crazy, and if it weren’t a game or a book, it would have been music, movies, or puppies—or any one of a thousand other catalysts that set those guys off. As for XBL’s penchant for young idiots, that is true, but it isn’t just gaming. Read any Yahoo article and weep.
Amir |
I agree that the bill currently is somewhat misleading. As I said, it should be less ambiguous in the proposed warning labels wording. I also think it’s dumb to label anything other than games that are explicitly violent. So don’t worry Ryan, you can play Barbie: Jet, Set & Style! to your heart’s content! However I don’t see any inherent harm in informing consumers, mainly parents, that prolonged exposure to violent games COULD have negative effects on their children’s behavior. While I still believe video games need to be protected, especially when it comes to freedom of speech, they are intrinsically different from other forms of art because of their interactivity. It’s one thing to watch someone stab another in a film and another to actually control that act via a virtual character.
As for the bill being “nothing more than political grandstanding” I can’t speak to that either way, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But given that it’s backed by both a republican and democrat, I don’t see how either party will score political points over the other. I also think it’s awfully hubristic to think a lack of scientific consensus automatically deems something wrong. Look at homosexuality: researches said it was a mental disorder well into the 20th century. In fact, in 1952, when the American Psychiatric Association published its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, homosexuality was included. Even the World Health Organization listed homosexuality as a mental illness in 1977 — only to be removed later in 1990. My points is, just because there is no consensus, doesn’t mean it isn’t real. Do I think we need to place warning labels on everything? Of course not, but the interactivity of video games certainly begs consideration.
And why would this label be so damning? If anything it might spur parents to…gasp…talk to their children about the games they play. I highly doubt a warning label will stop people from playing violent games, (you know, because it works so well with cigarettes) but it might get them to think critically about their behavior in relationship to gaming both good and bad. Gamers need to grow up and realize that there could very well be a correlation between the games they play and violent and aggressive behavior. Not in all, but in some. It’s not the end of the world — and it doesn’t take away any legitimacy from the medium, no more than those crazies did with Salinger’s or Fowles’ work.
Ryan |
You are making my point for me. It was because of political and misguided morale objections to homosexuality that allowed it to be classified as a medical issue. There were no real, lasting studies done, just as there were no real lasting studies done linking gaming to aggression. In both cases it was people in power crashing down on something they did not understand or like, so they tried to make it seem dangerous–unlike cigarettes, which have repeatedly been proven to have a correlation with your health.
Art is typically borne of entertainment, and entertainment can’t grow and progress if it isn’t allowed to push the envelope. Going backward is not an option. The gaming industry is still in its infancy, and yes, many of the games today are developed purely for financial means, not art. But the same is true for movies, and just like with film, each big budget flick makes it easier for developers to create a game that is truly art. If a bill is passed that creates a culture of fear around gaming, and suggests horrible (and unfounded) consequences for playing video games, it could stunt the gaming industry and create a stigma.
It’s happened before. It wasn’t too long ago that people were burning rock n’ roll records, claiming that the devil was present in the sound of electric guitars. Ginsberg’s Howl led to an obscenity trial. Monty Python’s Life of Brian was banned in some areas. All of those things succeeded despite the protests against them, and yet all of the warnings and objections led to a great deal of pain, suffering, and hatred.
This law doesn’t inform, it is meant to terrify. Parents shouldn’t have to be scared and shamed into talking to their kids about violent games any more than they should need a warning label on a range to tell them not to let small children cook without supervision.
Amir |
Yes- there have been many mixed studies and I’m certainly not going to argue that. Neither side can claim to have a definitive answer as to the effect of video game violence. But while some studies have yielded mixed results, there have also been studies that have failed to find significant links of smoking to lung cancer even though the majority of us realize that there is indeed correlation AND causation between smoking and lung cancer.
A simple warning label which states that VIOLENT games MAY lead to violent or aggressive behavior is really not out of line. Yeah we might not know for sure, but there is no harm in being safe. I also think it’s unfair and cynical to say that this law is only meant to terrify. I don’t think that’s the case at all and find it a convenient way to disregard a very plausible negative aspect of violent games.
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing in favor of banning video games or slapping warning labels on everything — just explicitly violent games. I’m merely advocating that both consumers and parents be proactive about video game violence and the effects that it may have. It’s really simple, talk with your kids about the games that they play. Hell – just talk to them about the stuff they are interested in general! With that being said, I fail to see how encouraging dialogue between parents and their kids, be it video games or anything else they show interested in, is in any way shaming.
Ryan |
There is a huge difference between the Surgeon General of the United States issuing a health warning on cigarettes—which many, well-funded researches have shown to cause health problems—and two Congressmen taking it upon themselves to decide that they will issue warnings based on easily refutable, opinionated studies that haven’t been verified.
People tend to read headlines more than actual stories, it’s human nature, so putting that label on a game won’t lead to discussion, it will lead to people believing that games WILL lead to aggression. Maybe not for everyone, but for enough that it will prejudice some about the industry. It would also open the door to further constraints on gaming the next time a politician wanted to appear to be a strong family values proponent.
This bill is unnecessary and sensationalistic. If either Congressman really cared, or had a modicum of responsibility, they would have commissioned a legitimate study on the effects of games and aggression. I’d be interested in the results myself. There is already a warning label of sorts on games now—the ESRB rating. If a game is rated M for mature, parents should be aware of that and talk to their kids because of it. There is no need—and no proof to justify—a Draconian warning that suggests video games will hurt your brain. It is a bad bill from the bottom up.
And instead of over reacting on Teen rated games and up, how about people just dont buy it for there children if it is such a “Problem” for them instead on trying to put there beliefs on all of us.
It depends on the parent I would think?
labels will be the same effect as they have on music; none. that said:
“- there have been many mixed studies and I’m certainly not going to argue that. Neither side can claim to have a definitive answer as to the effect of video game violence. ”
The Null hypothesis is there is no harm., And if you can’t get any good study to show data otherwise, then the Null Hypothesis stands. You’re statement indicates that you really have no clue how science works. A such, please stop referring to studies until you understand what that means.
“But while some studies have yielded mixed results, there have also been studies that have failed to find significant links of smoking to lung cancer even though the majority of us realize that there is indeed correlation AND causation between smoking and lung cancer.”
That sentence just hurts the brain.
“there have also been studies that have failed to find significant links of ”
So now you are cherry picking a group of studies? sigh. Again, just stop.
This is just another stupid bill that is probably made by some ” High class person ” who dosent probably know how video games even work, and takes a few bad people and judge the whole gameing community. Much like S.O.P.A.
Look at the back of the game and that will tell you just ablut all you need to know,Dud!.
Don’t vidya games already have rating labels?
i think cigarette labeling proves that adults completely ignore good advice. this labeling is a good tool for parents when considering the purchase of a game for their kids.
there’s nothing to debate; there is no rational argument for letting kids have unrestricted access to violent video games. while most parents will blithely abrogate themselves from any responsibility, some take it seriously and they do have a right to regulate what their minor children are exposed to. anyone who relies on their own personal experience to justify an argument that impacts the public in general is a fool. and it doesn’t matter what studies say; what matters is that parents have a tool to help distinguish what they want their kids exposed to. reading a couple of 30-somethings put forth arguments from a personal perspective in a debate on an issue that is utterly irrelevant to adult users of the product is ridiculous. and a little embarrassing. for them.
We don’t need new labels we need smarter people
This just strikes me more as argument that the rating system has failed horribly in terms of game sales. If we are so concerned about exposing children to horrible violence because it might, one day, maybe, cause them to act out the things they played…maybe we should be more concerned about how they are getting access to those violent games in the first place?
Yes, it’s never going to happen. I played tons of insanely violent M-rated games in middle school…but I also never hurt anyone or acted out violently because of playing them.
Slapping on another warning label may make politicians and “concern groups” feel better…but that’s about the only thing these will do.
I respect Amir’s point that warning labels might be good to “play it on the safe side,” but I think if you carry that mentality through to everything, you would literally have to put warning labels on EVERYTHING. Just watch the health segment of the local news, there’s a new study about some ordinary thing possibly causing cancer every other week. If we labelled them all to “play it on the safe side,” we would stop paying attention to the labels because they become totally meaningless. Look at California’s “this area contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.” I see these at gas stations, grocery stores, parking garages, hotels, you name it. I hesitated the first time I went to California because I had never seen one before… then promptly began ignoring them all because they put them on everything to be safe. Same goes for video game violence warning labels, and as Ryan points out, there could be many more caustic byproducts of that campaign, too.
Video games are what people blame when they can’t explain why someone did something. Oh, he went on a shooting spree, and he also plays COD, that must be why. It’s hard to believe, but people did unthinkable things before violent video games.
I think instead of warning labels of what a video game might cause, that we should treat games like movies. Give it a rating (which we already do), and clearly explain why it has that warning. Give game buyers the information they need to know, and let them decide if they want to take part in that game (I can only imagine what that label would look like on Grand Theft Auto).
Ultimately I think games do a great job already and relaying this information. If a parent buys a kid “Modern Combat”, or Mass Effect 3, which has a violent scene on the cover, and is then surprised that the game is violent, how is that the game makers fault?
I think we’d be better off requiring that people pass a competence test before becoming parents than we would slapping warning labels on anything that might turn an imbalanced teen into a psychopath.
Ummmm… There has never been, as far as I know, a correlation between violent video games and real life violence. In fact, I recently read a study that suggests the opposite. Violent video games are used as an outlet for emotions, and do not necessarily carry out to real life! When I kill a dragon is Skyrim, I don’t go out and try to find a dragon to kill irl. I don’t go beating hookers after I play GTA.
“But wont somebody think of the children?!!?!?” People need to get off of it, and stop trying to make up excuses for being a bad parent. If you don’t want your children playing video games, than make them go outside and play. Don’t try to justify it.
Plenty of psychologists and experts would disagree with you though. Not saying they are right…but there are those that take a hard stance on the other side of the coin.
Those examples are always resting in the “correlation is not causation” camp, in my opinion at least.
which is pretty much where I am. Video games are an outlet. The same as movies, or books. Why don’t we talk about how violent movies or shows cause kids to be more violent? In a culture where we glorify violence, it amazes me that we are so worried about video games. Why not be more worried about what’s on the TV? You can turn the TV on at any given time of the day and see someone getting shot, decapitated, punched, etc. But You can’t see one naked body, because that’s crossing the line. ;)
I mean hell.. By the time I was 10, I knew how to load and fire an RPG-7. Field strip and fire an AK47, and M16 amongst other guns without ever even seeing one in real life. And that wasn’t because of the 8 bit video games I was playing…
I can remember having a conversation with my mother when I was about 12. We were watching a movie, and I said “Oh, that’s an M240″. She asked me how it was loaded, and I told her. She asked me the caliber, and I told her (7.62 or .308 for us westerners). She then just looked at me and asked “how do you know this”? I told her “TV”.
A few, not ‘plenty’ and non of them have any actual good studies to back them up. Anecdote and cherry picked and then put on stage by people who want to cause a stir for ratings.
So if we start labeling video games with warning labels should we do the same for books? Movies? Magazines? How about warnings at the beginning of television shows that violence and other shennanigans shown may incite similar behavior? Warning labels on candy bars and soda that warn of the dangers of sugar and tooth decay?
I’ve said it clearly in the original article’s comments section, but to repeat myself:
“Violent games do not create Violent people. Aggressive people enjoy Aggressive games.”
The Aggressive people who enjoy Violent games are not created by the games they play. The games appeal to them because they already embrace the Violent outlet that the game will provide.
On the other hand, not all Aggressive people are openly violent, or even confrontational. They are however, “Passive Aggressive”. For example, some of the most non-violent people that I know personally, also play games of extreme violence. Like “Resident Evil” and “Battlefield 3″.
Not true, while aggressive games don’t cause people to be inherently aggressive. Studies have found that prolonged exposure to violent and aggressive themes has an effect on people’s willingness to act out in ways they wouldn’t normally.
As I said, they are preconditioned to be potentially violent before they play the game, not conditioned by the game itself. Circumstances surrounding the violent acts that _may_ follow an aggressive person’s actions are what causes the violence to occur.
Thus my point is that while someone who is exposed to violent media may therefor gain the idea or basic knowledge surrounding the act is portrayed, they are just as likely to commit an act of violence as they were before being entertained by the media in question.
Citation? and by citation I mean a link to a good study, not some blowhard yanking anecdotes out there butt.