I really didn’t want to get into the violent video games debate because quite frankly I felt that the topic had been beaten to death. However, time and time again I read the defense (for games) that goes something like “Parents need to take control and pay attention to the ratings” or “People who commit crimes because of a game already have problems to begin with” I react to each of these statements in a different way but in both cases, I think, the people who make these comments are overlooking some things.
To say: “It’s the parents” is missing the point. Take a look at my last blog entry where I commented on the Devin Moore shooting. It's not parents, in that situation, who are suing the makers of GTA; it is the families of the dead police officers. To blame GTA is not entirely unjust. The “kid” was 18 years old and he specifically cited videogames as his motive. This is the beginning of a great threat to the industry because age is not really a factor anymore. We assume that only children are supple enough to be molded by the influence of videogames but what cases like this show is that, violent video game related crimes have only been a factor among children and teens simply because that has been the dominant age of gamers. However, as games reach a larger consumer base, their influence has greater opportunity to grip the minds of older individuals who are more capable and potentially more deadly. And in fact nearly every major developer is targeting the 18-24 demographic. It is one thing to prevent a child, in his formative years, from being exposed to violent videogames but what about older gamers? What sort of identification do you request at the retail counter to inspect the mental integrity of the consumer?
To say: “The people who commit those crimes were already criminals" is right on target but, so much so, in fact, that these people fail to realize the profound nature of what they have just said. Indeed, there is no system to prevent criminals and lunatics from buying videogames. Beyond this, I fear that it isn't only violence in games that poses a problem. It is also the suspension of reality in very realistic simulations. If you’ve ever played Tetris for an extended period of time and later found yourself visualizing the falling blocks as you piece them together in your mind, you'll know what I'm talking about. I have spoken to many a gamer that’ve had dreams about their favorite game or find themselves, after playing a very realistic simulation, actually feeling like they are "in" that game's world. I believe circumstances like these are a testament to the weakening of the mental ability to distinguish what is real and what is not as a result of playing video games. I do agree that only persons with mental instability would allow that separation to be broken but with that being said, let me also state that 57.7 million people in the United States have mental disorders and 20.9 million of them are adults with mood disorders, which is just the sort of thing that would lead to shooting a police officer. These people are perfectly capable and have the legal right to purchase and play any videogames they wish. So when I think about the industry trying to market videogames to a more massive audience I am faced with mixed feelings. On one hand, this will generate more revenue for developers to create games with higher production value. It may even get my girlfriend to take more of an interest in gaming. On the other hand, when games are marketed towards children, we can control their sales more easily. In turn parents can control their children and also provide a stasis of morals in the child’s life. When games begin to reach adults as well, any sort of control over the gamer is lost entirely.
Unfortunately there aren’t any studies available that offer strict conclusions about the questions I have raised here. Seems like conclusions, in general, are hard to come by when you're talking about violence. Now that’s not to say that there isn’t an argument to be made for games as an outlet to release anger or perhaps engage in violence in a virtual environment as an alternative to real-life violence. I guess it's too bad T.I. didn't know all about that.