The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
proofread my paper
redfenix
Aka'd as rfixRegistered User regular
Aka'd as rfixRegistered User regular
just kiddin, i just think it's kinda interesting.
But, if you see and typos, etc, feel free to let me know.
be warned, it's a hell of a tl;dr.
Anyway, video game-related research papers ftw.. sorta.
But, if you see and typos, etc, feel free to let me know.
be warned, it's a hell of a tl;dr.
Serious Fun: Video Game Ratings and the Government
The Electronic Software Rating Board (ESRB) is an industry-driven organization that exists to qualitatively rate computer and console video games in the United States and Canada. Additionally, it maintains
guidelines for proper advertising procedures and for practices relating to online privacy, though these will not be discussed here. Having been created in 1994, the ESRB is a relatively new organization, instituted
by the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA), now the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) (ESRB 2007). The creation of the ESRB was in response to increasing pressure from the United States government, particularly concerned members of the U.S. Senate. Senators Joseph Lieberman and Herb Kohl facilitated the pivotal hearings regarding video game violence in 1992-93 that resulted in a mandate for the existence of such content oversight. The committee required that the industry had a year to provide a ratings system for games, or the government would provide one for them. After various specific companies tried to implement a ratings system, the industry collaborated to propose what would become the ESRB (Jonathan 2007).
According to their website, the ratings of the ESRB are as follows:
o Early Childhood
• Titles rated EC (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.
o Everyone
• Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
o Everyone 10+
• Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
o Teen
• Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
o Mature
• Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
o Adults Only
• Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
o Rating Pending
• Titles listed as RP (Rating Pending) have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)
The rating process has evolved and developed over the life of the ESRB, including both approaches to ratings decisions, as well as internal processes. Raters are given recorded footage of the most questionable content of the game, being the strongest deciding factor in the end ratings result. Over a thousand games are reviewed each year by the ESRB, with a total of 1,285 titles being evaluated in the 2006 calendar year (ESRB 2007). There has been extensive controversy regarding the ESRB and its ratings over time, and the social and legal ramifications are extensive. Lawyers, senators, and several governors have become publicly involved with the complex issues surrounding games and game ratings. Entire journalistic websites are devoted to the topic, such as www.gamepolitics.com as well as many articles at www.escapistmagazine.com.
In addition, the ESRB hired full-time raters as of early 2007, because, as President Patricia Vance notes:
Having full-time raters will allow for each one to have greater experience actually reviewing content and recommending ratings, given the increased amount of time each one would spend doing it. This would provide each rater with a greater sense of historical parity for ratings, not to mention helping them to be more attuned to pertinent content and how it should be considered from a ratings standpoint. The full-time raters would also be responsible for play-testing final versions of the game, time permitting, which would allow for ESRB to play-test a greater number of games than it currently does. We'll have more information available about these changes at a later date (Sinclair 2007).
By relating this to administrative law, it can be observed that this kind of decision is at the heart of administrative rulemaking, as outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, Subchapter II, section 553 (APA 2007).
The difference between the ratings of M and AO is of particular concern, though the disparity between T and M has also been under public scrutiny as well. Control of sales, including enforcement by the use of fines in relation to ratings has been of particular concern with legislative bodies. The situations regarding Bethesda’s “The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion†(TES IV:O), and Take Two’s “Grand Theft Auto†series, as well as their “Manhunt†series are particularly infamous.
Due to controversial content in the game ‘Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (GTA:SA)’ there was a fervent and terribly uninformed response from many sources, not least of all from members of the government. The publisher, Rockstar Games, had coded nude sexual acts into the game, but later suppressed the code away from the actual user’s experiences. Because the information was still in existence, curious game modders (those who modify preexisting software) created a patch that would re-add the hidden information. Although a player would have to actively seek out such content, the developer was taken to task over it, regardless of Rockstar’s insistence that modifying the game in such a way was violating the user’s agreement for the game.
Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton responded by imploring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to "take immediate action to determine the source of graphic pornographic and violent content appearing on the GTA:SA video game.†as well as to “determine whether an AO rating is more appropriate than the current M rating for the GTA:SA video game given this new, alarming content." Additionally, she also asked that the FTC "examine the adequacy of retailers' rating enforcement policies." Continuing in a crusade-like manner, Sen. Clinton also attempted to draft legislation on the federal level that would "prohibit the sale of violent and sexually explicit video games to minors" by making the sale itself a federal offence, carrying a mandatory $5000 fine (Feldman 2007).
As mentioned by Curt Feldman, this reaction is precisely what the ESA has been wary of since the inception of the ESRB: government intervention. Even Patricia Vance, President of the ESRB, was cautious of hasty changes in policy, noting: “We urge all parties not to rush to judgment until all of the relevant facts, some of which are highly technical and complicated, have been established. Any second guessing at this point would be premature and inappropriate as this investigation continues.†This is extremely reminiscent of what Ken Warren discusses in regards to administrative oversight. As he mentions on multiple occasions, unless an organization is acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner, any review will likely defer to the expertise of the organization. In this case, that is exactly what happened, as no federal offence or $5000 fine was implemented.
In the summer of 2007, a similar event occurred with the re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Due to player-made modifications not previously in the game, and therefore not created by the game developer, the rating was upgraded from T to M. The content in question, again, was nudity. The player-made mod pack changed the base characters in the game to anatomically correct characters. Despite that no action by the developer resulted in the mods, they were held responsible for the result. In an official statement from Patricia Vance, she claimed,
I think there is a misperception among some of the gamer community that we're off doing our own thing. We are a self-regulatory body; we are governed by the industry, but in terms of monitoring the industry, assigning ratings, enforcing guidelines, we operate quite independently from the industry. The alternative is to have another regulatory body of some kind do it, and not have it as a self-regulatory body but have either a governmental entity or some consumer advocacy group of some kind. I think those alternatives...are a lot worse...Politics don't impact us one iota with respect to how we do our job (Zenke 2007).
Vance is obviously aware of the ESRB’s need to do a sufficiently thorough job in rating games, not only for the consumer awareness, but for the industry to remain at arms length from political entities, particularly the U.S. Government. In addition, she seems to be trying to make a case that the ESRB is unaffected by external influences, which is impractical, and inaccurate. When approached under through the eyes of systems theory, no organization is removed from its environment. If this were true, then the stance taken by the rating of games with user-made content would stay the same. Indeed, that is not the case.
In a complete reversal of opinion regarding content in modded games, the Electronic Software Rating Board maintained an M rating for Manhunt 2 on the PSP. This was despite the occurrence that, less than 24 hours following the release of the game, some savvy players hacked the game to re-add all the content that would have made it an AO game. Unlike the GTA:SA and TES IV:O, the President of the ESRB tried to make the distinction that the content had been revealed wholly beforehand, and that:
Once numerous changes to the game's code have been made and other unauthorized software programs have been downloaded to the hardware device which circumvent security controls that prevent unauthorized games from being played on that hardware, a player can view unobscured versions of certain violent acts in the game. Contrary to some reports, however, we do not believe these modifications fully restore the product to the version that originally received an AO rating, nor is this a matter of unlocking content (Alam, Factor. 2007).
This is not immediately acceptable however, as the process of rating and re-rating has been kept too secretive. Common Sense Media (CSM), which is a “website-based guide designed for parents with regard to children's exposure to entertainment and culture†attacked the ESRB’s methods regarding lack of disclosure. According to the article about the re-rating process for Manhunt 2 by Paul Rice, CSM states: “By failing to explain their decision and, in turn, provide the transparency that consumers need if they are to trust the ESRB's ratings, the board threatens to undermine [itself]."
Additionally, the argument could be made that if a the ESRB is so completely independent from its industry constituents, then Manhunt 2 would be a shoe-in for consistent rate handling, due to its gratuitously violent nature. Manhunt 2 is so controversial, that is it outright banned in the United Kingdom, as well as in Ireland. Instead, this self-proclaimed independent organization chose this possibly pivotal title to reverse its oft-defended position (Chalk, BBFC 2007).
In later cases in other states, such legislation was indeed found to be unconstitutional, and resulted in damages by the state that were paid to the gaming community. The circumstance of its inception puts the Electronic Software Rating Board in an unusual position of not being explicitly held within the purview of a particular statute, and not directly under the supervision of the U.S. Senate, or an intermediate agency. Despite its independent nature, the ESRB and both its policies and organizational outputs are still affected by state and federal actions, special interest groups, and consumers.
Within the realm of administrative law and political systems, the activities of the ESRB are not exempt. As a public agency, however statutorily independent it may be, the organization has an entrenched place in society. It can be usefully analyzed through the lens of systems theory, as explained by Ken Warren:
…models help to simplify, accelerate, and refine the discovery and learning process. The study of administrative law to real administrative behavior…systems theory provides the learner with probably the simplest yet most revealing analytical framework or model on how participants…relate functionally to one another (Warren 6).
So, in employing this framework, the actor is the ESRB, the outputs are game ratings, and the inputs / environmental influences are varied and numerous. Those influences include, but are not limited to: The U.S. government, state governments, special interest groups such as the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence (MAVAV), Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA), and vocal constituents such as gamers and/or their families.
Insofar as administrative law is s a focus of effect upon the ESRB, there is yet more evidence of influence by government bodies. In the state of California, a bill written by the State Senator Leland Yee in 2005 was eventually found to be unconstitutional. Judge Ronald Whyte found the bill to violate basic First Amendment rights, further strengthening the stance that video games are indeed acts of defensible artistic expression. In addition, he stated:
The evidence does not establish that videogames, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related activities…The court, although sympathetic to what the legislature sought to do by the Act, finds that the evidence does not establish the required nexus between the legislative concerns about the well-being of minors and the restrictions on speech required by the Act (Chalk, California 2007).
Due to the ruling, the Entertainment Software Association is seeking damages in total of $324,840 for legal costs. According to the article by Andy Chalk, this will “bring the costs awarded to the industry in First Amendment defenses to nearly $1.9 million, spread across eight other jurisdictions that had attempted to pass similar lawsâ€(ESA seeks 2007). Illinois was one of the other jurisdictions to attempt a similar law, in which Governor Rod Blagojevich spent roughly one million dollars of misappropriated funds attempting to support the unconstitutional legislation (Chalk, Failed 2007).
In addition, Louisiana was another location where the state senate became embroiled in the attempt to legislate morality. Due to Roy Burell and Jack Thompson, under the proposed law, the following reasons would make it illegal to sell or rent a game to a minor:
o The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence.
o The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors.
o The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
In response to the bill, the ESA and Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) filed an injunction, followed by a permanent block of the bill by a Louisiana judge.
(here’s where I talk about Jack, i'm not quite done.)
The Electronic Software Rating Board (ESRB) is an industry-driven organization that exists to qualitatively rate computer and console video games in the United States and Canada. Additionally, it maintains
guidelines for proper advertising procedures and for practices relating to online privacy, though these will not be discussed here. Having been created in 1994, the ESRB is a relatively new organization, instituted
by the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA), now the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) (ESRB 2007). The creation of the ESRB was in response to increasing pressure from the United States government, particularly concerned members of the U.S. Senate. Senators Joseph Lieberman and Herb Kohl facilitated the pivotal hearings regarding video game violence in 1992-93 that resulted in a mandate for the existence of such content oversight. The committee required that the industry had a year to provide a ratings system for games, or the government would provide one for them. After various specific companies tried to implement a ratings system, the industry collaborated to propose what would become the ESRB (Jonathan 2007).
According to their website, the ratings of the ESRB are as follows:
o Early Childhood
• Titles rated EC (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.
o Everyone
• Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
o Everyone 10+
• Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
o Teen
• Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
o Mature
• Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
o Adults Only
• Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
o Rating Pending
• Titles listed as RP (Rating Pending) have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)
The rating process has evolved and developed over the life of the ESRB, including both approaches to ratings decisions, as well as internal processes. Raters are given recorded footage of the most questionable content of the game, being the strongest deciding factor in the end ratings result. Over a thousand games are reviewed each year by the ESRB, with a total of 1,285 titles being evaluated in the 2006 calendar year (ESRB 2007). There has been extensive controversy regarding the ESRB and its ratings over time, and the social and legal ramifications are extensive. Lawyers, senators, and several governors have become publicly involved with the complex issues surrounding games and game ratings. Entire journalistic websites are devoted to the topic, such as www.gamepolitics.com as well as many articles at www.escapistmagazine.com.
In addition, the ESRB hired full-time raters as of early 2007, because, as President Patricia Vance notes:
Having full-time raters will allow for each one to have greater experience actually reviewing content and recommending ratings, given the increased amount of time each one would spend doing it. This would provide each rater with a greater sense of historical parity for ratings, not to mention helping them to be more attuned to pertinent content and how it should be considered from a ratings standpoint. The full-time raters would also be responsible for play-testing final versions of the game, time permitting, which would allow for ESRB to play-test a greater number of games than it currently does. We'll have more information available about these changes at a later date (Sinclair 2007).
By relating this to administrative law, it can be observed that this kind of decision is at the heart of administrative rulemaking, as outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, Subchapter II, section 553 (APA 2007).
The difference between the ratings of M and AO is of particular concern, though the disparity between T and M has also been under public scrutiny as well. Control of sales, including enforcement by the use of fines in relation to ratings has been of particular concern with legislative bodies. The situations regarding Bethesda’s “The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion†(TES IV:O), and Take Two’s “Grand Theft Auto†series, as well as their “Manhunt†series are particularly infamous.
Due to controversial content in the game ‘Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (GTA:SA)’ there was a fervent and terribly uninformed response from many sources, not least of all from members of the government. The publisher, Rockstar Games, had coded nude sexual acts into the game, but later suppressed the code away from the actual user’s experiences. Because the information was still in existence, curious game modders (those who modify preexisting software) created a patch that would re-add the hidden information. Although a player would have to actively seek out such content, the developer was taken to task over it, regardless of Rockstar’s insistence that modifying the game in such a way was violating the user’s agreement for the game.
Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton responded by imploring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to "take immediate action to determine the source of graphic pornographic and violent content appearing on the GTA:SA video game.†as well as to “determine whether an AO rating is more appropriate than the current M rating for the GTA:SA video game given this new, alarming content." Additionally, she also asked that the FTC "examine the adequacy of retailers' rating enforcement policies." Continuing in a crusade-like manner, Sen. Clinton also attempted to draft legislation on the federal level that would "prohibit the sale of violent and sexually explicit video games to minors" by making the sale itself a federal offence, carrying a mandatory $5000 fine (Feldman 2007).
As mentioned by Curt Feldman, this reaction is precisely what the ESA has been wary of since the inception of the ESRB: government intervention. Even Patricia Vance, President of the ESRB, was cautious of hasty changes in policy, noting: “We urge all parties not to rush to judgment until all of the relevant facts, some of which are highly technical and complicated, have been established. Any second guessing at this point would be premature and inappropriate as this investigation continues.†This is extremely reminiscent of what Ken Warren discusses in regards to administrative oversight. As he mentions on multiple occasions, unless an organization is acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner, any review will likely defer to the expertise of the organization. In this case, that is exactly what happened, as no federal offence or $5000 fine was implemented.
In the summer of 2007, a similar event occurred with the re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Due to player-made modifications not previously in the game, and therefore not created by the game developer, the rating was upgraded from T to M. The content in question, again, was nudity. The player-made mod pack changed the base characters in the game to anatomically correct characters. Despite that no action by the developer resulted in the mods, they were held responsible for the result. In an official statement from Patricia Vance, she claimed,
I think there is a misperception among some of the gamer community that we're off doing our own thing. We are a self-regulatory body; we are governed by the industry, but in terms of monitoring the industry, assigning ratings, enforcing guidelines, we operate quite independently from the industry. The alternative is to have another regulatory body of some kind do it, and not have it as a self-regulatory body but have either a governmental entity or some consumer advocacy group of some kind. I think those alternatives...are a lot worse...Politics don't impact us one iota with respect to how we do our job (Zenke 2007).
Vance is obviously aware of the ESRB’s need to do a sufficiently thorough job in rating games, not only for the consumer awareness, but for the industry to remain at arms length from political entities, particularly the U.S. Government. In addition, she seems to be trying to make a case that the ESRB is unaffected by external influences, which is impractical, and inaccurate. When approached under through the eyes of systems theory, no organization is removed from its environment. If this were true, then the stance taken by the rating of games with user-made content would stay the same. Indeed, that is not the case.
In a complete reversal of opinion regarding content in modded games, the Electronic Software Rating Board maintained an M rating for Manhunt 2 on the PSP. This was despite the occurrence that, less than 24 hours following the release of the game, some savvy players hacked the game to re-add all the content that would have made it an AO game. Unlike the GTA:SA and TES IV:O, the President of the ESRB tried to make the distinction that the content had been revealed wholly beforehand, and that:
Once numerous changes to the game's code have been made and other unauthorized software programs have been downloaded to the hardware device which circumvent security controls that prevent unauthorized games from being played on that hardware, a player can view unobscured versions of certain violent acts in the game. Contrary to some reports, however, we do not believe these modifications fully restore the product to the version that originally received an AO rating, nor is this a matter of unlocking content (Alam, Factor. 2007).
This is not immediately acceptable however, as the process of rating and re-rating has been kept too secretive. Common Sense Media (CSM), which is a “website-based guide designed for parents with regard to children's exposure to entertainment and culture†attacked the ESRB’s methods regarding lack of disclosure. According to the article about the re-rating process for Manhunt 2 by Paul Rice, CSM states: “By failing to explain their decision and, in turn, provide the transparency that consumers need if they are to trust the ESRB's ratings, the board threatens to undermine [itself]."
Additionally, the argument could be made that if a the ESRB is so completely independent from its industry constituents, then Manhunt 2 would be a shoe-in for consistent rate handling, due to its gratuitously violent nature. Manhunt 2 is so controversial, that is it outright banned in the United Kingdom, as well as in Ireland. Instead, this self-proclaimed independent organization chose this possibly pivotal title to reverse its oft-defended position (Chalk, BBFC 2007).
In later cases in other states, such legislation was indeed found to be unconstitutional, and resulted in damages by the state that were paid to the gaming community. The circumstance of its inception puts the Electronic Software Rating Board in an unusual position of not being explicitly held within the purview of a particular statute, and not directly under the supervision of the U.S. Senate, or an intermediate agency. Despite its independent nature, the ESRB and both its policies and organizational outputs are still affected by state and federal actions, special interest groups, and consumers.
Within the realm of administrative law and political systems, the activities of the ESRB are not exempt. As a public agency, however statutorily independent it may be, the organization has an entrenched place in society. It can be usefully analyzed through the lens of systems theory, as explained by Ken Warren:
…models help to simplify, accelerate, and refine the discovery and learning process. The study of administrative law to real administrative behavior…systems theory provides the learner with probably the simplest yet most revealing analytical framework or model on how participants…relate functionally to one another (Warren 6).
So, in employing this framework, the actor is the ESRB, the outputs are game ratings, and the inputs / environmental influences are varied and numerous. Those influences include, but are not limited to: The U.S. government, state governments, special interest groups such as the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence (MAVAV), Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA), and vocal constituents such as gamers and/or their families.
Insofar as administrative law is s a focus of effect upon the ESRB, there is yet more evidence of influence by government bodies. In the state of California, a bill written by the State Senator Leland Yee in 2005 was eventually found to be unconstitutional. Judge Ronald Whyte found the bill to violate basic First Amendment rights, further strengthening the stance that video games are indeed acts of defensible artistic expression. In addition, he stated:
The evidence does not establish that videogames, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related activities…The court, although sympathetic to what the legislature sought to do by the Act, finds that the evidence does not establish the required nexus between the legislative concerns about the well-being of minors and the restrictions on speech required by the Act (Chalk, California 2007).
Due to the ruling, the Entertainment Software Association is seeking damages in total of $324,840 for legal costs. According to the article by Andy Chalk, this will “bring the costs awarded to the industry in First Amendment defenses to nearly $1.9 million, spread across eight other jurisdictions that had attempted to pass similar lawsâ€(ESA seeks 2007). Illinois was one of the other jurisdictions to attempt a similar law, in which Governor Rod Blagojevich spent roughly one million dollars of misappropriated funds attempting to support the unconstitutional legislation (Chalk, Failed 2007).
In addition, Louisiana was another location where the state senate became embroiled in the attempt to legislate morality. Due to Roy Burell and Jack Thompson, under the proposed law, the following reasons would make it illegal to sell or rent a game to a minor:
o The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence.
o The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors.
o The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
In response to the bill, the ESA and Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) filed an injunction, followed by a permanent block of the bill by a Louisiana judge.
(here’s where I talk about Jack, i'm not quite done.)
Anyway, video game-related research papers ftw.. sorta.
redfenix on
0
Posts
SE++ Map Steam
Just not about your paper.
we had
a forum
for help and advice
or
for writing
enter
Not especially.
And even if I did care, there are avenues of exploration much more interesting than "class paper posted on an internet forum"
SE++ Map Steam
if
only
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
SE++ Map Steam
wicked burn at the end
Now, I enjoy playing video games quite a bit myself, know plenty of people who do as well, and I tend to follow controversy surrounding them in the news.
To the media, the situation is win-win: video games are a monumental and rapidly growing force in the entertainment industry, more money is being thrown at it than ever before. And what better way to bring in viewers than to create controversy around a popular topic?
Unfortunately, as often happens, the media either does this with no supporting evidence, or presents a heavily skewed viewpoint that correlates with their aims. By blaming video games on the violent actions of certain persons, the media is skewing the truth way too much.
Soon after the Columbine shooting, reports came out that one of the killers referred to video games in his diary. Specifically, he wrote “It'll be like the LA riots, the Oklahoma bombing, WWII, Vietnam, Duke and Doom all mixed together. ... I want to leave a lasting impression on the world.” Quick on the draw, the media ignored most of the sentence and went for the hot topic - Duke and Doom. Both are violent video games. The news snatched it right up, proclaiming that the killers “trained” on those video games, and that they were practically the cause of the shooting itself, as if turning innocent young boys into killing machines full of hatred. They conveniently ignored the shooters’ unusually developed interest in guns and even more disturbing, Nazi imagery and teachings.
This grab for attention comes with all such tragic events in recent memory. The beltway snipers were said to train on how to operate their weapon in a game called Halo, the very notion of which is ridiculous, as pressing a button to fire a fictional weapon in a fictional world is nothing like shooting a real gun, let alone one pointed at a living human being.
The Virginia Tech massacre was followed by reports that the shooter had Counter Strike, another popular online shooting game, installed on his computer. So? Counter Strike is played by over 200,000 players daily from all around the world. The presence of it on his computer means nothing.
Video games, to the discontent of some people, are part of the household these days. A LOT of people player video games, adults included, but children especially due to growing up in a time when video games are so readily available and popular.
According to a study recently done by the Massachusetts's General Hospital’s Center for Mental Health and Media, only six percent of young teens sampled have not played any video games in the past six months.
The study becomes more interesting as it touches upon M-rated games. These are games rated for ages 17 and up, and typically have substantial elements of violence and sexuality in them. According to the study, two-thirds of boys ages 12 to 14 and one in four girls reported playing violent video games “a lot”.
Now, these are games that those children probably shouldn’t be playing, just as they shouldn’t be watching overly violent movies. But since violence has permeated our society so much, those children would have been exposed to it one way or another. So are they having a significant adverse effect on the children? Not according to the study, no. In fact, they found that many of the children play those video games to manage their feelings, including stress and anger. They are more likely to play the game to get their anger out rather than engage in a physical conflict with a classmate.
Taking a step back and looking at the situation as a whole, we can see that violent video games are more readily available than ever, and yet youth violence on the whole has declined. Clearly those children playing video games are not turning into violent psychopaths.
The media then, wrongly places blame on this form on entertainment, singling it out from all the others, when in fact it is no different. Obviously, people who are violent by nature would not be alleviated by video games, but the industry as a whole should not be blamed for the actions of a few sick individuals who clearly had problems and who clearly drew heavier inspiration from other sources of violence, not the least of which is our own history. Just like rock and roll in the 50’s was considered the music of the devil, the condemnation of video games is a modern day witch-hunt.
ew.
SE++ Map Steam
that was terribl...
SE++ Map Steam
When she asked what it was, we told her it was the only way we had proper bibliographies.
it is stale and predictable.
my speech is rockinnn
no, sex with me is quick and disappointing, followed by extreme awkwardness
your speech lacks flavor.
it lacks pizazz.
it lacks flair and razzle dazzle.
What.
You mean I could have had flawless bibliographies all this time?
I haven't even had any papers this semester and I still wish I had heard of this.
darn kids today
it's the required college speech course, most people's speeches are daft and boring
i wrote this one as a rant and it's all the better for it
I've been using it since 8th grade.
Just google it, since I can never remember the address. Basically, you type in the info and it formats it for you.
but it is not ranty enough.
also worst burn ever.
sorry, but F- Fari.
See me after class
I should see if I have the Batman college essay saved on this computer. It's a thing of beauty.
EDIT: Nope, it's on the school computers and I can't email it to myself from there anymore. I'll type it up again, it's still in my bag.