More Reviews
REVIEWS Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D Review
Gamers have gone bananas for Nintendo's 3DS, but can this port of Retro Studios' 2010 Wii game make the jump to your portable?

Pandora's Tower Review
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but swords and chains excite me. Should you climb the towers in Xseed's JRPG/adventure hybrid to save your cursed (and tragically whiny) girlfriend?
More Previews
PREVIEWS The Mighty Quest for Epic Loot Preview
Ah, the joys of destroying your friend's castle and the pains of your friend destroying yours. Alas, such is friendship.
Release Dates
NEW RELEASES Metro: Last Light
Release date: Out Now

GRiD 2
Release date: 05/28/13

Fuse
Release date: 05/28/13

The Last of Us
Release date: 06/14/13


LATEST FEATURES GR Showdown: Are There Way Too Many Remakes And Reboots?
Gamers continually complain about the lack of innovation from publishers and developers, but in this tough economy, it would seem that sequels and remakes are their bread and butter. Are there not enough new IPs?

Tips For Surviving Metro: Last Light's Mutants And Men
On higher difficulties, 4A Games forces players to utilize stealth and combat planning, but with these tips and the right tools, you'll make short work of the opposition.
MOST POPULAR FEATURES Sanctum 2: Exclusive Developer Diary
Designer for Coffee Stain Studios, Armin Ibrisagic, reveals and expands upon their much improved story for the upcoming Sanctum 2.
 
Coming Soon

LEADERBOARD
Read More Member Blogs
FEATURED VOXPOP nick_olsen
Welcome home, Mario; we’ve missed you!
By nick_olsen
Posted on 05/13/13
[ Editor's Note: As Nick Olsen is a writer for Theory of Gaming, this won't be counted in the monthly Vox Pop prize. However, it is very much a worthy read. ] By Nick Olsen Co-founder, Theory of Gaming In 1985 Nintendo started a revolution when it...

MEMBER BLOG

maca2kx maca2kx's Blog
PROFILE
Average Blog Rating:
[ Back to All Posts ]
What's so bad about video games?!
Posted on Wednesday, January 12 2011 @ 11:42:31 Eastern

We hear it all the time: “Doom caused Columbine!”, “Mass Effect is depraved!” and “Oh my god the swearing! My poor, delicate ears!”. As gamers, dodging such attacks is pretty much a way of life; hell, take a look at my previous blog entries to see that I’ve defended games on more than one occasion.  But here’s a twist on the same old theme of ‘games ≠ bad’: what exactly is so bad about video games? I’m not here to argue for or against the wholesomeness of games. We all know that there are people who would gladly see the complete end of the games industry and we know that there are those at the other end of the scale who are fine with anyone killing a hooker on Grand Theft Auto. Then of course we have people who don’t really fit on that particular length of measurement because they still see games as the realm of losers and children. None of these views are particularly helpful and the origin for this is the same reason: lack of understanding. I’ve already frequently commented on the animosity towards video games so this time I won’t be looking at any of the aforementioned groups, instead I’ll be commenting on the lack of understanding itself.
 
Like I said before, this blog entry isn’t about defending games. I fancy doing the opposite this time; what’s the worst unwholesome element of video games? Is it the violence, the gore, the sex, the language, the drugs? Before I start I’d like to mention that I don’t have kids of my own so I can’t comment from experience when I talk about what kids of various ages are capable of dealing with. On the other hand many parents have no experience with video games so in that way we’re two sides of the same coin. If any parents wish to weigh in I’d be more than happy to listen and contribute and I think it’s this kind of collaboration that can seriously help games provide clearer warnings and help parents to become more familiar with game content.
 
Drugs have been around in video games for a long time. Depending on the level of hysteria we have the obvious drug references and drug use in Grand Theft Auto, the military style drug use in Metal Gear Solid (think diazepam), the implied drug use in any game with a health pack and the they’re-definitely-reading-too-much-into-it-now drug use in Mario and Pac-Man. Parents are right to want their children to be shielded from such adult references. After all, most parents wouldn’t be happy for their child to watch Blow (that’s the film about drugs starring Johnny Depp even though it also sounds like it could be porn) so why should it be different if the references are in a video game? Drugs are easy, they don’t appear in games much and even when they do they rarely take an important role in the story. Rarer still do they reflect anything good, rather they are something that needs getting rid of and not a potential for a bonus or reward. At least drugs aren’t often glorified.
 
Another rarity in the video game world is sex. Don’t get me wrong, ‘sexy’ has been a staple of gaming since the colour ‘flesh’ was on the palette, but the carnal act of sex is under represented. There’s the 30 second sex scene in Mass Effect which made Fox News lose its ****, the GTA Hot Coffee controversy and, of course, the game that seems engineered from the ground up to cause revulsion: Rapelay. It’s pretty obvious that Leisure Suit Larry going about his day to day business isn’t suitable for kids but what about the more relationship based aspects as found in the Mass Effect and Fable games? Regardless of how some religious fundamentalists see it, sex is a part of life and games, as art (yes they are), often reflect this. So drugs are almost exclusively an element suitable only for adults (think actual references rather than implied ones) but sex, at least in the context of loving relationships, is ok for slightly older children? It certainly seems that way if you look at the first Mass Effect being rated 12 by the BBFC and Max Payne being rated 15 by the BBFC. Of course there are plenty of other aspects to take into account for those ratings such as the other content in the games and the time they were released (after all, Citizen Kane was, once upon a time, controversial). Still though, out of all the elements of life a loving, sexual relationship is healthier than one peppered with illegal drug use.
 
Sex and drugs in games are pretty cut and dried. Neither are suitable for young children, older children might be able to play through games with those elements depending on their own disposition and their parents’ attitudes towards the content. Where it gets less clear is with bad language and, believe it or not, violence. Many parents don’t want their child to be exposed to bad language which is fair enough. No one wants to listen to slightly squeaky voices repeating processed phrases from Family Guy and South Park and if those phrases are vulgar then it makes it all the worse... just ask anyone who plays on Call of Duty. The real question is which is worse; violence or swearing? Would you be ok with a game which swears frequently but only uses violence occasionally? What about the other way around? Some people say that they don’t mind a bit of shooting so long as swearing isn’t involved and I can understand their point: it’s easy to explain violence is inappropriate and wrong but much harder to stop kids from swearing. There are even idioms to that effect (‘sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!’). Still, when said all at once it sounds very odd that swearing is bad but shooting bullets into people is ok.
 
Even more confusing is the relationship between violence and gore. They go hand in hand but they’re not locked to each other’s wrists. Violence can be found in almost every game – even Mario could be argued to be violent – of course the real violence can be found in games like Call of Duty and Halo. But even these games, which feature the use of guns and the shooting of squishy living things aren’t all that gory. Aside from small spurts of blood from gunshots Halo doesn’t show much gore at all, as in there is no dismemberment and so on. War based shooters sometimes allow messy headshots but many of those games allow gore to be turned off in the options panel. Now, it strikes me that any game which features guns is also going to feature shooting those guns at living things but which is worse: shooting a human in the arm only to have them shake it off and continue attacking; or shooting them in the arm and seeing the natural repercussion, i.e. the arm being shredded and rendered useless? The latter reaction would be removed when the ‘remove gore’ checkbox is ticked but it seems to me that if someone insists on being exposed to violence then they should see the real consequences, to do otherwise seems... misrepresentative.
 
Again, I have no children of my own but I do work and live with games. I am a staunch believer in an age rating system for media, I have explained why in past blogs and my opinions have since matured but the core values have stayed basically the same. A solid, dependable rating system not only gives confused parents a guide to help them choose games for their child but also protects the games industry and gives adults the chance to play mature games which would come under much harsher criticism than they already do if there wasn’t a big M or red 18 in the bottom corner. I don’t think many people would disagree with the necessity of a ratings system but deciding which parts warrant harsher treatment is difficult and a much more personal decision. Swearing is the worst because it’s easy to mimic but sex is the worst because... well, just check out teen pregnancy rates. Oh but violence is the worst because who wants an aggressive, violent child? Then again gore is the worst because it’s the reason films like Saw and Hostel are so reviled. Then again, those things are the best of a bad bunch because they’re relatively inconsequential, part of the natural order of things, easy to dissuade a child from imitating and a reflection of the brutal reality of our aggressive actions respectively. It’s really that easy to flip the reasons around so maybe describing the rating for each major component of a game would be beneficial to the different opinions of parents everywhere.
Comments
  • KingKems
    KingKems

    Joined: Aug 2010
    Posted: Jan 29th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
    I agree with a lot of this. Censoring video games would take away from the true aspects and core gaming experience that gamers like me really expect from games that are supposed to be more realistic, both visually and with the storyline/dialogue. Even in games like Battlefield: Bad Company 2, many times in multiplayer combat, you will hear the soldiers shout things like, "GOT THAT MOTHERF*CKER!" or something like that. I find that to be realistic and pleasing, Anyway, in the end, I just think that parents need to council their children and make better decisions when they buy them video games, IE: do some research about the game before they buy it for their brat, and decide whether or not the kid is mature enough for the material. Anyway, I'm going to go kill some mofos on Battlefield: Bad Co. 2 =)
  • Xarathion
    Xarathion

    Joined: Jan 2007
    Posted: Jan 29th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
    What's so bad about video games? They are a complete waste of time, alongside other vegetable activities such as watching television and the like. ...but I can't just stop playing em! (perspective of an 'artist', who should probably spend more time improving his artistic abilities than trying to get 100% on Super Meat Boy)
  • Completely_Lost
    Completely_Lost

    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posted: Jan 29th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
    Can't argue with any of this really. Most games that are out there have, in some way, violence and/or swearing. Even the Lego games have some violence in them, although exploding Legos may not be violent, but it could be argued that way. Having a bit more strict rating system would be a good thing for parents and grandparents who want to buy a video game for a child, but ultimately it comes down to the parents. And I can not stress that enough, it is the parents job to decide what is best for their children to play and watch. Unfortunately there are people out there who think that it is the job of the game developer to limit their game to suit children even if the game in question was never meant to be marketed to them.
  • Captain_Mallow
    Captain_Mallow

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posted: Feb 1st, 2011 at 6:45 am
    As a parent with two young kids who love video games (they take after their father) I say a parent must know their kids. My10-yr son, loves war movies but will never say a "bad" word. On the other hand, he scares easy at horror. When you know your kid, you know what they can and can't handle. I avoid the most in games or movies the combination of sex & violence. Combining those two elements is troubling for kids just developing their hormones (killing the hookers in GTA IV). It comes to information. As a parent, don't just tell me a game is "M", tell me why. Online interaction is a whole different topic, but that has less to do with video games and more to do with people.
  • maca2kx
    maca2kx

    Joined: Jul 2002
    Posted: Feb 1st, 2011 at 8:35 am
    Xarathion - depending on your philosophical outlook everything can be a waste of time. Completely_Lost - you're absolutely right, it is the job of the parents to decide what their child can play. Unfortunately, many parents see video games as nothing more than the graphically pleasing Pongs of the 21st century. Captain_Mallow - the fact that you can represent either side of the coin I mentioned previously is great. All you said makes complete sense and I love that you take an active interest in what your children are playing.
  • Rinnon
    Rinnon

    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posted: Feb 6th, 2011 at 7:53 am
    I definitely think you're right about a more descriptive rating system. I think the ESRB does a great job, but more detail could never hurt. As always, it falls on parents to know what their kids are doing, and educate them enough so that even when you can't be right next to them all the time, you know they're doing what they aught to.
  • Ehawther
    Ehawther

    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posted: Feb 12th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
    This question can address two distinct fields in my mind; the obvious one is clearly located in domestic sphere (as many comments have covered) and is based entirely on the parent/child relationship. While I do not have kids of my own (yet), without question, video games will be a part of my life and therefore in their lives as well. As a parent what I consume as a gamer may not be appropriate for them because I can clearly understand the differences that exist between an audio/visual experience through an electronic medium and real life. Blood, gore, sex, bring it on (as long as it comes from a "good game.")
  • Ehawther
    Ehawther

    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posted: Feb 12th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
    However, what about the developers who continue to pump out garbage games for the sheer sake of controversy/bloodlust? I'm talking about games like the Soldiers of Fortune series (see the more recent review of Soldiers of Fortune: Payback for the Xbox 360) where a clear effort is made on the developer's part to allow the player to engage in glorified slaughter. As a parent I could prevent that **** from coming into my home, but what is that developer achieving for video gaming as a whole industry by putting a title like that onto the store shelves? This is the second field that your question could address; shovel-ware and low end development with zero intention (other than gratuitous violence/sex/etc.) is what is bad about video gaming in my eyes - this is far worse than a digital hooker getting shot any day.

Post a Comment
LOGIN or REGISTER to post a comment or rate this article.
 
More On GameRevolution