top of page

Falsely accused: Gaming (again)

Writer's picture: [DGP] Badgers[DGP] Badgers


THIS BLOG POST IS ORGINALLY FROM LAST YEAR AND REFERENCES ARTICLES FROM MARCH 2018

If it’s not rap music or tattoos, it’s video games. Trump’s meeting with industry heads and critics of video games is the latest storm cloud on the horizon for the gaming community.

I guess we’ll have to get used to this circus of blame after every mass shooting in the US. Something bad happens and someone in the back shouts “must be video games”.

It’s a modern-day witch hunt. No evidence. No logic. Just some mad preacher screaming fire and brimstone. This time, he’s got an orange tan and real bad hair.

Okay, that’s a bit over the top; President Trump hasn’t said that games are responsible for what happened in Florida. He has suggested that they may be desensitising youth to violence.

But you can bet there will still be a groundswell of public opinion believing that video games turn kids bad. Certain US media has even reported as if that’s exactly what he believes (or at least words it in such a way that it’s impossible to distinguish between the two).

And people don’t seem particularly interested in ever stopping to figure out what Trump actually said.

So what should we take from Thursday’s meeting? The first thing is that we can’t underestimate the power that public opinion is having in the wake of this latest shooting.

Wall Mart and Dick’s sporting goods raised the age of sale to 21. The Florida House passed a rifle safety bill that could be adopted state wide. In a country so fanatical about its guns, these are big events.

If public opinion decides to set its sights on games, evidence might end up taking a back seat for a while. That could spell a lot of trouble for us in the gaming community.

The second is more of a prediction based on what has already happened in the US. If a change comes that is harmful to the games industry and to our community and hobby, it won’t be obvious.

Let me give you an example. In 2005 in California, they passed a law which banned the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18 and required labelling that went beyond the ESRB system they currently use. Doesn’t sound like a bad thing, right?

Wrong. Define violent. Bugger, right? Who gets to decide what violent means? Remember that the people making the law to apply to video games, by and large, won’t be the people who play – or even understand – them.

Given that we do, why don’t we try it. “Violent games are defined as those that display body parts when players undertake combat.” That seems okay… Except that even in Minecraft, zombies drop brains and zombie flesh when killed in combat. I guess this isn’t as easy as it seems.

Do you trust people who don’t know games to get it right?

12 views0 comments
bottom of page