Political Cartoon on Video Games (Yeeouch)

[Pie4Foo]

Penny-Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com) is (currently) hosting this political cartoon on their site:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/docs/policar.jpg

Tycho and Gabe in turn made the subject of video game violence their subject of the update and comic. Their update focuses heavily on the ERSB's rating system which is intended to be interpreted in parallel with the movie industry's ratings.

I want to write more, but my lunch break is over...

[quatoria]

The funny thing is, most of the cartoons by the same artist are both incisive and funny as hell. I read the back archive after being shown the Frankenstein toon yesterday. He really dropped the ball on this one.

[scharmers]

Horsey is actually a pretty good cartoonist, but every once in a while he'll run with the herd. A rebuttal letter in the next day's P-I rightly put the blame where it belongs -- the parents and guardians who let their kids play these games unmonitored (i.e. the old, old syndrome of letting the TV be the babysitter, except that this time it's the computer).

I mean, you could toss ANYTHING into this argument -- having the kid watching porn, becoming a sexual preevert. Having the kid pounding down Budweisers, becoming an alcoholic. Etc. Again, the question is -- where are the PARENTS during these activities? (The obvious answer: drunkenly molesting children at video arcades).

--scharmers

[Lum]

Screw all the moralizing, when do I get my white coat and the chance to play with the bodies of dead things?

[JP]

I'd love to disagree or agree with the guy, but the cartoon doesn't really make any real statements - it's not clear what's monstrous about what the game industry does to kids. Does it lull them into glassy-eyed passivity? Does it desensitize them to violence and make them capable of killing? The Frankenstein metaphor makes for a cute sound bite (or image bite, as it were) but there's no actual ideological thrust to it whatsoever.

The Penny Arcade rebuttal, on the other hand, is a direct-hit facial stab.

[Matthew Gallant]

Does it lull them into glassy-eyed passivity? Does it desensitize them to violence and make them capable of killing? The Frankenstein metaphor makes for a cute sound bite (or image bite, as it were) but there's no actual ideological thrust to it whatsoever.
Perhaps it makes them into misunderstood and scorned creatures who eventually kill their creators on boats trapped in icy waters?

[Erik]

Or maybe if you play games long enough, you eventually get to meet Abbott & Costello. On a more serious note, the most potent Frankenstein metaphor may be that after too much time spent playing videogames, you'll be rejected by even undesirable women, like ones pieced together from corpse parts.

[Andrew Mayer]

Unfortunately, the lack of a clear message is why this cartoon is so effective.

It's "insert your worst fear here".

[Charles]

That comic would most likey appeal to one Rahim Jaffer, MP of Edmonton's Strathcona district, who once circulated a flyer comparing game developers and pedophiles.

Edit: I probably spelled his name wrong, but it's the least he deserves.

[Rob de los Reyes]

I realize this is kind of a lawyer-dork thing to point out, but the First Amendment right the courts keep pointing to isn't that of the "Industry" but of the children. The question hasn't been whether developers can make these games, but whether minors are allowed full access to them. That fact screws up the cartoonist's metaphor, but I take it he's less interested in the precision of his metaphor than in making a point about the (mis)alignment of American values. Anyway, it's an easy enough mistake to make since the "Industry" has brought the lawsuits rather than individual children, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.

[Jason McCullough]

Horsey's this wierd mix of suburban kid-panic moralizing and old-line liberal.

[ydejin]

A rebuttal letter in the next day's P-I rightly put the blame where it belongs -- the parents and guardians who let their kids play these games unmonitored (i.e. the old, old syndrome of letting the TV be the babysitter, except that this time it's the computer).

The problem with this approach is it assumes that there is a competent caring parent/guardian that will monitor the kid. Personally I'm not worried about kids with caring involved parents. I'm worried about the kids with the parent that doesn't care and isn't involved. Those are the kids that are most likely to have problems from watching/playing things that are not age-appropriate. And unfortunately there are many uninvolved parents. It is in society's best interests to put policies in place which will limit those children's access to age-inappropriate games/movies if their parents fail to take action.

I personally fail to see what is wrong with having the ESRB rating and having retailers enforce the ESRB just as movie theaters voluntarily enforce the MPAA ratings.

[Jason McCullough]

Ah, but any censoring here will have to be voluntary (just like the film industry, which doesn't really bother checking 90% of the time). It's not constitutional for the government to require it.

[ydejin]

Ah, but any censoring here will have to be voluntary (just like the film industry, which doesn't really bother checking 90% of the time). It's not constitutional for the government to require it.

I saw "American Wedding" this weekend and the couple in front of me got carded. I was rather suprised as they certainly looked over 17 to me. I think checking IDs may vary depending on the movie. I would be suprised for example if a movie theater didn't check for ID on NC-17 movies (not that there are many of those).

Besides are you sure that unlimited First Amendment rights apply to children? (Any lawyers out there that can confirm either way?) The law requiring libraries to place filters on web-browsing computers located in children's sections was approved by the Supreme Court wasn't it?

[Gladguy]

The problem with this approach is it assumes that there is a competent caring parent/guardian that will monitor the kid. Personally I'm not worried about kids with caring involved parents. I'm worried about the kids with the parent that doesn't care and isn't involved. Those are the kids that are most likely to have problems from watching/playing things that are not age-appropriate. And unfortunately there are many uninvolved parents. It is in society's best interests to put policies in place which will limit those children's access to age-inappropriate games/movies if their parents fail to take action.

I personally fail to see what is wrong with having the ESRB rating and having retailers enforce the ESRB just as movie theaters voluntarily enforce the MPAA ratings.
I agree 100% with your comments on uninvolved parents, but considerably less so on the cop-out of passing the responsibility from these dirtbags on to "society" at large.

I'm being a bit facetious -- just a bit, mind you -- but maybe it's actually "in society's best interests" to require some form of qualification for the right to become a parent? To quote the immortal words of the sage Keannu: "You need a license to catch a fish, and a license to drive a car, but any asshole can be a father."

Or maybe I have the quote wrong... was it "Whoa...?"

[ydejin]

I agree 100% with your comments on uninvolved parents, but considerably less so on the cop-out of passing the responsibility from these dirtbags on to "society" at large.

I'm being a bit facetious -- just a bit, mind you -- but maybe it's actually "in society's best interests" to require some form of qualification for the right to become a parent? To quote the immortal words of the sage Keannu: "You need a license to catch a fish, and a license to drive a car, but any asshole can be a father."

Or maybe I have the quote wrong... was it "Whoa...?"

Well, as scharmers' original quote said we should "put the blame where it belongs -- the parents and guardians who let their kids play these games unmonitored". That's technically correct -- it is the parents' and guardians' fault and they should be blamed for their poor parenting. The problem is once we're done blaming them, we're still stuck with the results of their bad parenting. I don't really want to move the responsibility of parenting from the parents. What I think we should do is emphasis that parenting is parents' responsibility but to have a backup plan for dealing with kids with irresponsible parents -- which in this case means following the ESRB and not selling games to kids that aren't in the appropriate age range.

I hear you on the parenting license thing. I'm all for sterilizing everyone at birth and not de-sterilizing anyone until they can pass a parenting exam and prove that they can financially support a kid. I do realize this will never work in reality (and that it's facist), but it would go a long way to solving many of our society's problems.

[Gladguy]

Damn Nazis... made fascism so unpopular with all the cool kids. :twisted:

While forced sterilization is a fine idea, I can certainly see it not going over too well with some of the more left-wing minded folks among us.

However, while I'm not totally up on the details, I do believe the Chinese -- not fascists, mind you! -- have an interesting method for controlling population. Take the concept of heavy fines and instead of using it for population growth control, use the concept to ensure only licensed individuals procreate. Too young/poor/stupid to pay the fine? No excuse. Unpaid fines result in jail time. Heh. Try and knock up your toothless 15 year old cousin from behind bars, John-Boy.

Legislation should not be used to remove rights and privileges from those who responsibly enjoy those rights and privileges. Legislation should be used to remove from our society those who abuse those rights and privileges. Responsibility needs to be transfered back to the individual and away from the state.

/rant

[Jason McCullough]

Law requiring libraries to place filters on web-browsing computers located in children's sections was approved by the Supreme Court wasn't it?

It actually required it on all library computers receiving federal funding. It's kind of a separate issue, though, as the government is the provider in that case.

You might be able to get a legally enforceable ratings system for children through (it'd be hard; it's effectively an obscenity law thing), but you certainly can't block 18+.

Oh, and can I point out that it's really really hard to imagine a case where a kid who wouldn't have shot up that K-mart, if only he'd been forbidden to play GTA? I mean, if you look at the kids everyone's worried about here - innocent, doe-eyed white suburbanites; I don't catch see a lot of worry that GTA is driving inner city black children to deal crack and drive-by old ladies - the ones who do commit these horrible, "video-game inspired" violent crimes are all so fucked up they're ticking time bombs. If it wasn't a "violent game", it'd be a kaleidoscope, or some fool thing.


Take the concept of heavy fines and instead of using it for population growth control, use the concept to ensure only licensed individuals procreate.

They actually let anyone have a kid, they just cap the number at 2; your suggestion is more restrictive. You're seriously driving up the Nazi-O-Meter here.

:D

[ydejin]

Oh, and can I point out that it's really really hard to imagine a case where a kid who wouldn't have shot up that K-mart, if only he'd been forbidden to play GTA? I mean, if you look at the kids everyone's worried about here - innocent, doe-eyed white suburbanites; I don't catch see a lot of worry that GTA is driving inner city black children to deal crack and drive-by old ladies - the ones who do commit these horrible, "video-game inspired" violent crimes are all so fucked up they're ticking time bombs. If it wasn't a "violent game", it'd be a kaleidoscope, or some fool thing.

I know as gamers we're supposed to think that games have no influence on people's behavior. But honestly, that just doesn't make sense to me. Companies pay large sums of money for 30-second commercials because they know that they can influence buying decisions. If 30-second commercials can influence behavior, for sure playing 40-60 hours of a computer game is going to have an influence. I'm not saying that most people are going to turn into violent maniacs from playing GTA. But yes there are people who as you say are "fucked up ... ticking time bombs" and the chances that they will be set off by GTA or Doom 3 is much higher than the chances that they'll be set off by a kaleidoscope.

Does that mean I believe in censorship? I don't know, I honestly don't know what the answer is. As previously stated, I do think we should limit game sales by age group (and if some 12 year old's parents want to buy him Doom 3 so be it). But for us to claim that violent games have no effect on people ... that just seems like some bs party line that we're all repeating because we don't want our violent games taken away. It makes no sense to me from an intellectual perspective.

Violent games do have some effect on at least some people. How much of an effect that is I don't know. But to claim there is no effect just seems intellectually dishonest to me.

[Rod Humble]

Vincent Price makes video games????

COOL!

[Gladguy]

ydejin, I don't think we're saying games have no effect on people. Clearly they do, or Tyjenks wouldn't have more than 4000 posts on some obscure internet message board.

The real issue here is, IMO, abdication of personal responsibility and a general societal failure towards taking an active part in the upbringing of children. While I may spout off on extreme Fascist ideas like involuntary sterilization and other means of improving the gene pool, my feelings tend to be more Libertarian: do whatever the hell you want, just so long as they don't impinge on my rights and privileges. If you're of the age of consent, you can make your own life decisions: You wanna smoke? Go ahead. But don't smoke near me. You wanna play violent video games/watch violent movies/listen to violent music? Go ahead. Just so long as you don't go off on a murderous rampage and kill my family.

As parents, we have responsiblities to our children, and to society. We must raise those children according to established societal "rules" of decency and proper behaviour. I play games with my 4-year-old boy, but nothing with a T rating (well, except for The Hulk :wink:). I explain to him often that games are just that -- games. I don't have a worry that my boy will go nutty with an Uzi some day at school. I believe I have a responsibility to my son to teach him the difference between right and wrong, and teaching him those values will uphold my responsibility to the community in which I live.

The ESRB, for all their bullshit, does a great job. I don't expect the pimply faced geek behind the counter at EB, or the part-time granny manning the cash at Wal-Mart to know that they must ask for ID when selling T- or M-rated games. If they do, then great. I do expect parents to take a more active role in the upbringing of their children.

Government's role should not be to legislate against the content, but to fund parental education programs to teach people about the responsibilites of being a parent! Games certainly do have an effect on kids, but it's the parent's responsibility to guage that effect and act accordingly. Placing the blame on "the gaming industry" only impinges on my rights -- as a clear-thinking adult -- to fire a rocket launcher up someone's ass.

[Aeek]

Placing the blame on "the gaming industry" only impinges on my rights -- as a clear-thinking adult -- to fire a rocket launcher up someone's ass.

I suspect such a game would be banned in Australia due to it combining sex and violence.

[Jason McCullough]

My point was that the kind of person who can be influenced to commit crimes by a fucking video game is the kind of person who can be influenced by just about anything.

[Tom Chick]

I don't expect the pimply faced geek behind the counter at EB, or the part-time granny manning the cash at Wal-Mart to know that they must ask for ID when selling T- or M-rated games.

Why not? They should know better, just like a convenience store clerk knows not to sell them cigarettes and the chick selling tickets at the multiplex knows to card some people for R-rated movies.

The gaming industry is being taken to task -- rightly so! -- for not having the same standards. As you say, the ESRB is doing a great job, but that's no reason to let retailers off the hook.

-Tom

[ydejin]

My point was that the kind of person who can be influenced to commit crimes by a fucking video game is the kind of person who can be influenced by just about anything.

I would argue that video games are actually rather unique. Both movies (and TV) and video games are able to influence subconsciously much more than other forms of media. Movies and TV because they present realistic images. Video games more than movies and TV because they provide a high degree of interaction and a level of immersion even greater than that found in movies and TV. Also video games tend to be played repetitively for long periods of time (at least they do when I'm playing them :? ).

A comic book, for example, is unlikely to trigger someone to go off the deep end. Books and music may have some effect, but again I think the effect of these media pale in comparison to that of a video game.

[Boss]

Someone would have to prove the behavioural link between games and non-games activities. There are certainly times when you play a game for extended periods and start "seeing" game things in your everyday life. I recall playing Super Monaco GP on the Sega Genesis so much that I wanted to properly hit the apex of every curve in my car. It was a conscious effort to avoid doing that. So it's kind of easy to see that games can have some effect on your behaviour outside of the game world. Obviously, you're in control of your own actions, but maybe with younger kids that get exposed to certain kinds of games, they can't separate the two types of behaviour and end up doing something they shouldn't because the game "trained" them to think that way.

Someone would really have to study this phenomenon in detail to come up with any kind of link. Proving it in a court of law is another thing entirely. I'm not saying that all games make our kids into cold-blooded killers. Far from it. I'm just saying there may be some behavioural characteristics that are affected by long term exposure to certain types of gameplay in large chunks of time at each sitting. For parents, the choice is an easy one. Pay attention to what your kids are playing and limit play time accordingly. Too much of a good thing is never good for kids.

[quatoria]

Yeah, I remember playing Carmageddon so much that I really wanted to run people down in my car. Uh, I mean, I remember, uh, hearing about that happening to, uh, a friend of mine.

[Boss]

Heh...it's not ridiculous to admit something like that. Sometimes we play games way too much and they make us think dumb things. The problem is, there may be some folks that may not have the ability to stop themselves before they do the dumb thing themselves!

In that case, you really can't say the game made them do it. What you can say is that a history of behavioural pattern in a game might have blurred the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. People do crazy things like convince themselves that mass suicide will get them onto a passing comet. It's not so hard to believe they'd play a game and convince themselves that they can go do that same thing for real.

[quatoria]

Those people are morons. Sooner or later, something will set them off, whether it's a game, a movie, or a delicious fudge sundae.

[Rob de los Reyes]

Besides are you sure that unlimited First Amendment rights apply to children?

If what you mean here is "can we treat children differently than adults for free speech purposes?" the answer is yes, but it's complicated. Free speech is constantly regulated for both adults and children. Whether or not speech is regulated in a particular circumstance or for a particular group depends on the interplay of the type of speech at issue, the goal or purpose of the regulation, and the scope and method of the regulation. It's tough to get into this without doing a whole big boring lecture, but it's that interplay that makes it OK to keep kids out of strip joints and (generally) in enforced school uniforms.

[Matt Perkins]

Yes, parent should be held responsible for what their kids watch and play. But just like anything else, when the parents can't/don't take a hand in the development of their children, we shouldn't throw the kids to the dogs. As a society, we need to be more caring of others. Including our children.

Yes, it's completely ludicrous that people are backing the companies that say the ESRB ratings shouldn't be enforced at the time of purchase. These same companies are the ones making money from the lack of enforcement now.

Yes, playing realistic violent video games can make you desensitized to violence. For instance, after playing a LOT of GTA I was driving down the road and for a brief second considered stopping and finding another car. :) It wasn't a real thought, not something I was going to do, but it popped into my mind because that's where my mind was, that's what I was currently being influenced by.

Video games, just movies and TV and music and everything else around you, influence. If we don't teach people and especially children how to do with this, we are failing.

[Jason McCullough]

My point was that the kind of person who can be influenced to commit crimes by a fucking video game is the kind of person who can be influenced by just about anything.

I would argue that video games are actually rather unique. Both movies (and TV) and video games are able to influence subconsciously much more than other forms of media. Movies and TV because they present realistic images. Video games more than movies and TV because they provide a high degree of interaction and a level of immersion even greater than that found in movies and TV. Also video games tend to be played repetitively for long periods of time (at least they do when I'm playing them :? ).

A comic book, for example, is unlikely to trigger someone to go off the deep end. Books and music may have some effect, but again I think the effect of these media pale in comparison to that of a video game.

Rather than argue with this: you know this is pretty much the exact argument, word for word, that people used when television came around? Books are ok, but those comic books are so influential! And tv!

And I'm pretty sure "they're more immersive" wouldn't hold up in court.

This isn't a popular opinion, but I don't think retailers should be faux-regulating themselves any more than the government is. If parents are so damn concerned that their kids are consuming filthy media, maybe they should talk to them about it.

Being blocked from viewing stuff as a kid because I was "too young" seriously pissed me off. Damn it, I wanted to see The Day After!

[Kevin Perry]

I found the movie Quills to be an interesting treatise on objectional content and its effects on those who consume it. Interesting, because I believe the movie doesn't take a stand, but shows a broad if flawed spectrum.

[Lavoris]

Let's not make the mistake of ignoring the forest for the trees. The fact that this cartoon even exists should be cause for our concern. The artist is making the point that the First Amendment argument might be fallacial when applied to computer games. There are many, many people who have no idea that forums such as this one exist, who [might] believe that all computer gamers are hell-bound, and who might possibly see this as a catalyst for something to be done (and who have a LOT of money to spend on causes they believe in).

All of the posts debating the issue are great, but I wouldn't be surprised if [computer, video, handheld, whatever] games become the next scapegoat for societal wrongs, much the same as violent movies, handguns, tobacco, SUVs, fast food...regardless of the merits of the claims, sooner or later, "electronic" games (trying to encompass the whole gamut) will probably be put on trial in the court of public opinion. Can you imagine a jury in Florida deciding on a $10 billion judgement against EA because of a game's content? I can.

Instead of patting each other on the back about the demerits of the opposing side's argument, we should be figuring out how we will deal with it when the time comes.

One last note: If you read this post and come to the conclusion that I think that game content should be regulated / limited / whatever, then you are an idiot. This post is about maintaining the rights of game companies (however large or small) to keep producing whatever games they like.

Edit: punctuation.

[Machfive]

I used to think violent video games didn't influence behavior one bit. But that all changed one day.

I had gotten back from the bar and was hanging out at a buddy's house, and he broke out GTA3. Long after everyone else had passed out, and I was still nursing a vodka on the rocks, I was sitting there, bleary-eyed, killing prostitutes and jacking cop cars.

I spent 4 or 5 hours playing the game, eventually switching to non alcohlic beverages, until I was sober enough to drive home.

A block out of his neighborhood, I noticed a cop car in the oncoming lane, and thought to myself, "Hrm, I've got a baseball bat in my trunk. That cop car sure would handle a lot better than this thing I'm driving."

I was about to pull a U-turn and ram the cop car when reality set in and said, "You're not playing GTA3 anymore, retard."

And from that day on, I never combined alcohol and video gaming.

The lesson here kids:

There isn't one. I'm just rambling incoherently.

[Robert Sharp]

Shouldn't this be in the politics forum?

At any rate, the First Amendment seems pretty vague in some ways. It says Congress can't make laws preventing free speech (basically). But that doesn't mean the govt. can't put other kinds of pressure on the industry. Besides, we aren't talking about censorship here. The games can be made. We are talking about restricting access to them, like we do with porn, guns, etc. I have no idea if games influence children. The studies aren't yet conclusive either way. Gamers who say there is no way games influence children are being just as stubbornly dogmatic as the people who say they must be influencing them. There's just not enough evidence either way. And the people who say games are bad for children are not saying games necessarily cause kids to be violent. They are saying that games CAN cause children to do bad things. There is a HUGE difference. So arguments such as, "I played games as a child and I am not violent" carry no weight. They miss the point. Smoking causes cancer, but that doesn't mean everyone who smokes will get cancer.

I'm not saying that I think games cause children to be voilent. I am saying I am not sure either way yet. What I do know is that children can be very impressionable. I wouldn't let my children (I don't have any) play GTA, at least until they were in their teens, and then it would depend on how mature I felt they were. It's almost impossible to monitor your children all the time. Maybe preventing the sale of games to minors will help parents monitor their kids...or maybe it will do nothing. In either case, I don't think it hurts to try. I certainly don't trust parents to make informed decisions about their kids. Most of them don't even know their own kids, much less what is good for them.

I also don't think that restricting video games from children will have any real affect on what we as adults will be able to purchase. The rating system for movies may have affected a few movies early on, but I don't even notice it nowadays. There is no dangerous slippery slope here. It isn't a censorship issue.