Video Games and the Downfall of Mankind

Every now and then, I see a politician, a lawyer, or someone else who claims that video games (particularly violent ones, but in some cases, all video games) are responsible for anything from violent activity to rebellious thoughts. Apparently, the inherent belief is that a situation presented to a person in a video game will desensitize someone to the point where they become a dangerous menace to society.

What I want to know is, how exactly is that worse than the reality of our everyday lives?

Seriously. Unemployment is rising. People are starving. People are killing and fighting every day, and not because a video game made them think it was okay -- governments sell wholesale slaughter, media outlets publicize and glorify it, and everyday people are killing each other over money or love.

In a video game, there are certain conventions. Grand Theft Auto is glorified for giving people the opportunity to run over hookers or shoot up rush hour traffic. What isn't as commonly glorified is the fact that if you misbehave - even slightly - you attract police attention. If you continue to resist and cause trouble, the police presence rapidly intensifies - and doesn't go away until you are arrested or killed, in most cases. Even games that support unlawful behavior provide constant reminders of the consequences of these actions -- reminders that in real life, such things are neither safe nor a good idea.

I've dealt with video games for a very long time, and I play them with the understanding that what I am doing is playing a game -- and that in no way does this, for example, give me the ability to grow superstrong with mushroom power, confront the demons of hell armed with a chainsaw, or search random bystanders for contraband. It's a game -- a form of entertainment, a way in which I can do things that are illegal, immoral, or unsafe in reality without feeling the need to actually ever do them.

While it may be unnerving to realize that many people would rather spend their time dealing with a world they can control, imagine how dangerous it would be if these people chose to exert this control over their employees or their children or neighborhood pets instead of taking it out on a video game. Imagine if every person who was angry enough to pick a fight with someone settled down for an evening of Mortal Kombat instead, or if every person who had the urge to concoct an elaborate wargame involving the domination of other countries merely settled down for a game of Civilizations.  Providing a safe outlet for these feelings of aggression might, in fact, become the key to reducing interest in carrying out these aggressive tendencies in open society.

The second argument raised against video games is usually one of the maturity of the player. The argument usually runs as follows: many video games contain adult content (and, in fact, are labelled as such). Kids could theoretically get hold of these games (assuming they have money, or a parent willing to buy it for them.) Therefore, video game makers are immoral people. For an argument to this, I turn to the entertainment industry as a larger whole.

Movies and television have been struggling with the argument of what is acceptable for family viewing. The topics of sexuality and violence generally are responsible for rating a particular program or feature, and in turn serve as guidelines for who should or should not be watching. The purveyors of this content, in turn, are responsible for ensuring that they provide this content to interested parties without providing it to 'the wrong people' - generally, children. With movies, this is relatively easy - the burden falls upon the ticket taker or retail cashier to ensure that movies requiring parental guidance must be purchased by parents. With television, various technologies exist to lock out programming for a television or otherwise limit children's access to it. These are considered the necessary measures to ensure that children are adequately protected, and it is the parent's responsibility to decide whether to grant or deny access to this material.

Yet somehow, we end up with morally outraged people claiming that video games are the next great threat to their children (right up there with Myspace, rock music, and the Internet). Sometimes their fears sound almost justified -- for example, "Hot Coffee", the mod/series of codes that unlocked a previously inaccessible minigame in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas wherein the main character engages in sexual relations (although no nudity is included) with other characters, brought down a torrent of complaints from parents who'd purchased the game for their underage children when the game was merely M-rated. The rating was changed to Adults Only after this debacle, and Rockstar Games eventually released a version with the minigame entirely excised from the game.

What's often not commented on is the fact that these same people had absolutely no objection to purchasing the game for underaged minors before discovering that a complicated series of hacks available on the Internet (and, in some cases, requiring the purchase of third-party peripherals) could be used to simulate sex (with fully clothed participants). In comparison, you could probably receive more erotic stimulation by typing 'sex' into a search engine, and with much less work. Does anyone else see the peculiarity of getting this upset?

I think if you really want to worry about your kids being desensitized, worry about whether they're watching the news. Worry about whether they're on the Internet. Worry about whether they're talking to other people. Worry about whether they're seeing what's going on in the rest of the world. With so much going on in the greater world, complaining about whether children are becoming desensitized by video games seems almost like a moot point. (And if you're really concerned about that, why not complain about the U.S. Army's propaganda game, America's Army?)