IV. VIDEO GAMES

IV. VIDEO GAMES

Note: Unless a distinction is made, my use of the term “video games” includes arcade, home console, PC, Mac, and/or massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs).

PART I

~THE EARLY DAYS

Let us harken back to 1958. William Higinbotham of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory was interested in designing something to enliven the otherwise static exhibits seen by those who visited the lab. The result was one of the first video games. Called Tennis for Two, this rudimentary game was displayed on a five-inch-diameter oscilloscope. It looked something like this:

Then, in the early 1960s, a group of MIT students working with a PDP-1 mainframe computer sought to devise a program that would adequately demonstrate the machine’s capabilities. Spacewar! was born. The game was displayed on a CRT and used graphics comprised solely of ASCII text characters.

For those of you who may be curious, a playable version of the original Spacewar! can be found at http://lcs.www.media.mit.edu/groups/el/projects/spacewar/. It runs as a Java applet on a PDP-1 emulator.

These early accomplishments were subsequently refined and enhanced, and the very first arcade video game was released in 1971 by Nutting Associates. Based on Spacewar!, it was called Computer Space. Housed in a snazzy futuristic-looking molded fiberglass cabinet (which even came in metal flake colors!), it consisted of a “brain box” and a front control panel, with an ordinary 13″ black and white TV set as a monitor. Twenty-five cents yielded a minute or two of gameplay.

For you trivia buffs, the sculpted Computer Space cabinet appears in several scenes in the 1973 movie Soylent Green, as does a shot of a modified version of the game in action as Shirl (Leigh Taylor-Young) plays it in an early scene. You can also catch a partial glimpse of a yellow Computer Space cabinet in 1975’s Jaws, in a brief video arcade sequence midway through the film. Pertinent still shots from both films can be found at http://www.mameworld.net/movies/.

The two creators of Computer Space, Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney, went on to establish Atari the following year. Shortly thereafter, the arcade version of Pong was born. Progress was definitely being made.

~THE FIRST CONTROVERSY

1976 saw the appearance of an arcade game called Death Race, inspired by the Roger Corman film Death Race 2000. Gameplay consisted of car-driving players running over as many stick-figure “gremlins” as possible. When killed, each gremlin would let out a shriek and be replaced by a cross. The rudimentary graphics were anything but realistic, but that didn’t stop protests concerning the game’s premise.

Death Race was condemned by the National Safety Council. 60 Minutes did a story on it. There was general uproar. And the game was pulled from the market.

The public’s memory must have been short-lived, however. The arcade game Warrior, released two years later in 1978, had players killing opponents with swords. Nary a sound of protest was heard.

And how about 1981’s Donkey Kong? Here we have Jumpman (later to become Mario) attempting to rescue his girlfriend from the clutches of a big gorilla named Donkey Kong (DK). As Jumpman tries to ascend to the top of a series of girders, elevators, and conveyor belts, he must avoid the barrels, fireballs, and various other items being flung at him by DK. If Jumpman is unlucky, he dies. If he’s fortunate, he’s able to remove rivets from the structure beneath DK, sending DK falling head-first into some scaffolding.

Then there’s Donkey Kong‘s 1983 sequel, Mario Brothers. In this one, Mario and his brother Luigi must kill a variety of nasties by kicking them. They also have to deal with the hazards of falling icicles and fireballs of assorted colors. The brothers can either work in tandem to defeat mutual enemies, or they can compete by trying to set each other up to be killed.

Do I hear an uproar over all of this violence? Um, nope. The Death Race hand-wringers remained silent. Perhaps they had decided that cartoonish violence wasn’t so bad after all.

~A BRIEF FORAY INTO CARTOON AND TELEVISION VIOLENCE…

Has anyone ever noticed how much violence there is in Roadrunner cartoons? Moreover, each time Wyle E. Coyote is blown up, pushed off a cliff, run over by a train, etc., he reappears in the next frame, relatively unscathed.

I love Roadrunner cartoons. I watched a lot of ’em when I was growing up. I’ve never — not once — tried to drop a safe on somebody’s head. But even if I had, I would have done so without the expectation that my target would get up and walk away after having been squished.

Now, there are those who would argue that by virtue of their interactivity, video games are more likely to have an impact on behavior than are passive activities such as watching television shows and cartoons. This would seem to be a logical position, but my research has revealed a lack of consensus. I invite you to have a look at representative opinions from both sides of the aisle.

A 2003 article entitled The Effects of Television Violence reflects the following:

“Over a thousand academic studies have been completed, with remarkably consistent results: media violence makes our kids more aggressive, less patient, and more fearful of the world around them. Watching violence desensitizes children to actual acts of violence. This is true even of cartoon violence, especially the “senseless mayhem” variety found in cartoon classics such as Tom & Jerry.

“Basically, what these studies indicate is that violent media images tend to make us all just a bit more aggressive and impatient. The effect is more dramatic on children, who mentally process media violence the same way they would actual violence — and can be traumatized by exposure to excessively violent scenes…While the effect on a given individual may or may not be critical, the cumulative effect on our society is dramatic.”

Hmmm. Having watched so many Roadrunner cartoons as a kid, I guess I’m lucky I never dropped a safe on someone’s head (not yet, anyway).

In contrast, let’s look at the article Violent Media is Good for Kids by comic book author Gerard Jones — who, along with psychologist Melanie Moore (who works with urban teens and is a consultant to public schools and local governments) spent three years researching “the ways in which children use violent stories to meet their emotional and developmental needs.”

Jones quotes Dr. Moore:

“‘Fear, greed, power-hunger, rage: these are aspects of our selves that we try not to experience in our lives but often want, even need, to experience vicariously through the stories of others. Children need violent entertainment in order to explore the inescapable feelings that they’ve been taught to deny, and to integrate those feelings into a more whole, more complex, more resilient selfhood.'”

Of their research, Jones states:

“At its most fundamental level, what we call ‘creative violence’ — head-bonking cartoons, bloody videogames, playground karate, toy guns — gives children a tool to master their rage…The world is uncontrollable and incomprehensible; mastering it is a terrifying, enraging task. Rage can be an energizing emotion, a shot of courage to push us to resist greater threats, take more control, than we ever thought we could. But rage is also the emotion our culture distrusts the most. Most of us are taught early on to fear our own. Through immersion in imaginary combat and identification with a violent protagonist, children engage the rage they’ve stifled, come to fear it less, and become more capable of utilizing it against life’s challenges.”

Hmmm. I guess I’m lucky I watched a lot of Roadrunner cartoons as a kid, because it’s kept me from dropping a safe on someone’s head (so far, anyway).

Remember V-Chip legislation (allowing parents to block unacceptable television programming) and the establishment of television ratings? Well, among the Congressional findings mentioned in that legislation (which is part of the Telecommunicatons Act of 1996) is this:

“Studies have shown that children exposed to violent video programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children not so exposed, and that children exposed to violent video programming are prone to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior.”

The above statement is eerily similar what we’ll be hearing shortly in reference to video games. We’ll be seeing more dichotomy of thought, too.

~A SHORT TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE

I was born and raised in Miami. Back in 1977, before I fled the city, I saw one of the first trials televised in Florida. It was a murder trial. Ironically, television was used as a defense in the proceedings.

On June 3, 1977, 15-year-old Ronny Zamora (along with a 14-year-old accomplice) broke into his 83-year-old neighbor’s house, killed her, stole $400.00, and high-tailed it to Disney World in her car. Zamora was apprehended and charged with first-degree murder.

Ellis Rubin, his attorney, claimed that Zamora was a victim of “television intoxication.” Rubin claimed that watching crime shows on TV had rendered Zamora incapable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality. The cop show Kojak was cited in particular.

This defense was unsuccessful, however, and Zamora — who was Costa Rican — was found guilty. He spent 27 years in prison. In 2004, at age 42, he was paroled and deported to Costa Rica in accordance with federal law regarding felons who are not U.S. citizens.

Now, I do have a reason for recounting this tale. Attorney Rubin, when interviewed upon Zamora’s parole, said that considering the studies that have since linked television violence to real-world violence, Zamora never would have been found guilty of first-degree murder today. Makes ya wonder, don’t it?

PART II

~TECHNOLOGY GOES FORTH AND MULTIPLIES

In the years following the release of Donkey Kong and Mario Brothers, technological advances yielded such things as greatly improved home video gaming systems (including Atari’s cartridge-based system), trackball controllers, microprocessors, and arcade games such as Space Invaders and Asteroids.

The 1980s and early 1990s saw development of laser-disk technology, the first 3-D games, still more game console refinements, Pac-Man, and the wildly popular Tetris for PC.

In 1987, LucasArts (the game division of which was then known as Lucasfilm Games) blazed the trail to the point-and-click interface that’s so familiar to adventure gamers today. The company also released an adventure game, Maniac Mansion (IBM, Amiga, Atari ST, Commodore 64, Apple II, NES), built with the SCUMM (Script Creation Utility for Maniac Mansion) engine. This engine was the basis for all LucasArts adventures that followed.

Lucasfilm Games had produced its first adventure game the previous year, in 1986. Based on the motion picture Labyrinth (starring David Bowie, directed by the late Jim Henson, and executive-produced by Lucas), the game — called Labyrinth: The Computer Game (Commodore 64, Apple II) — was released concurrently with the film.

According to an “early history” page in the LucasArts website:

“Technologically, Labyrinth was ahead of its time. A unique, pre-SCUMM ‘slot machine’ text interface was developed to drive the game. Instead of typing in commands as most adventures of the day required, the player would choose a noun and a verb from vertical strips of words to instruct the game on what to do next.”

Gee, not much controversy so far, is there? Nope. But then, in 1992, came…

~MORTAL KOMBAT, AND A VISIT FROM THE FEDS

A fighting game released in arcade, home console, and PC platforms, Mortal Kombat (Midway Games) offered graphic violence the likes of which had never been seen before in a video game. For example, players could rip out a character’s heart or tear a character’s head off with the spinal cord still attached to it. All such acts were accompanied by copious amounts of blood spurting and splattering every which way.

Further, technology had advanced to the point where live action could be integrated into scenes of virtual brutality, lending even more authenticity to the proceedings. That’s certainly a far cry from a hungry little cartoon head gobbling up cartoon dots in a cartoon maze. The realism of Mortal Kombat‘s violence definitely struck a nerve.

At this point in the annals of computer gaming, no attempt had been made to regulate home or arcade versions of violent or otherwise objectionable games. So when Mortal Kombat burst upon the scene, everything was more or less up for grabs.

I remember seeing TV commercials for Mortal Kombat when it was first released. To be honest, I thought the game looked sort of…um…well…forgive me…silly. But then, I’ve always had a rather bizarre imagination, and I’ve been gobbling up horror/sci-fi/fantasy films and books since I was a little kid. By 1992, I suppose I was pretty much accustomed to blood, guts, and disembodied spinal cords. The gore in Mortal Kombat didn’t look at all believable to me.

Although an effort had been made to tone down the bloodshed in some of the home versions of Mortal Kombat, there was still so much public outrage that in 1993, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn) convened hearings to examine the issue. The result was the Video Game Ratings Act of 1994, a piece of draft legislation that fueled the gaming industry’s first attempt at self-regulation. The industry was given a one-year period in which to put an effective ratings system in place, or the federal government would move ahead with its legislation and do it for them. Once again, the spectre of government regulation had reared its head.

~ENTER THE ESA/ESRB

In response to this maneuver, the Entertainment Software Association (then known as the Interactive Digital Software Association) created the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) for the purpose of developing viable ratings for video games. The result consisted of both rating symbols pertaining to age-appropriateness, and content descriptors reflecting game elements that contributed to the rating or that might be of interest to consumers.

The original ESRB ratings were as follows:

Early Childhood (EC) – Age 3+
Kids to Adults (K-A) – Age 6+
Teen (T) – Age 13+
Mature (M) – Age 17+
Adults Only (AO) – Age 18+
Rating Pending (RP) – Rating not yet assigned

ESRB content descriptors are too numerous to mention here; you’ll find a list of current ones at http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp. Note that both descriptors and ratings have gone through some changes since originally formulated in 1994.

On January 1, 1998, the Kids to Adults (K-A) rating was replaced by Everyone (E). Further, an additional ESRB designation was developed when MMOGs became popular. In these types of games, participants can shape and influence content, making ESRB content descriptors impossible. Instead, the software packaging and website are supposed to carry a notice that “Game Experience May Change During Online Play.” (A section on MMOGs appears later in this article, where we’ll see that unfortunately, this notice is rarely displayed.)

In a press release dated March 2, 2005, the ESRB announced yet another new rating category: E10+. Its purpose is “to help consumers more easily differentiate between games that have content appropriate for the whole family and games that are suitable for ages 10 and above…Game titles that carry the E10+ rating might contain moderate amounts of cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes. Games appropriate for all ages will continue to receive an E (Everyone) rating.”

Side note: While researching another part of this article, I discovered that games can be rated E-10+ by the ESRB and contain such things as unqualified Suggestive Themes and Violence.

Another side note: Actually, according to the ESRB Game Rating & Descriptor Guide, the “E” rating does not indicate suitability for all ages, if one takes that description literally. In the Guide, it reads “suitable for ages 6 and older.” Even the “EC” (Early Childhood) rating doesn’t reflect suitability for all ages, but rather “suitable for ages 3 or older.” Yeah — I’m ridiculously picky, aren’t I?

Unfortunately, things don’t always progress as the ESRB has indicated above. For instance, many games carry no content descriptors. I found page after page of such games via ratings searches on the ESRB site. I’m in possession of some of these games and can confirm that no descriptors appear on the packaging. I’ll be saying more about this later.

To compound the confusion, although the ESRB has changed its ratings and descriptors lists several times, some sites that provide full rating/descriptor information still reflect old ones. None of the listings I looked at on other sites carried dates, so folks encountering them without having visited the ESRB site could very well think that such listings are current. This makes me wonder why sites don’t simply link back to the ESRB ratings page rather than republish ratings on their own sites

BTW, in the course of researching this article, I emailed the ESRB with some questions about the ratings system. I sent three messages over the course of a four-week period via the ESRB Game Ratings Consumer Online Hotline web page. I sent the first one without disclosing I was writing an article; however, I did mention that fact in both the second and third messages. None of my inquiries was ever answered, although if anyone from the ESRB sees this article, I suspect I may hear something from them…

~ABOUT THE ESRB RATING PROCESS AND SCOPE OF AUTHORITY

Some of you may not know this, but ESRB raters don’t actually play the games they rate. Instead, game footage is submitted by the publisher and viewed independently by three raters who recommend a rating and content descriptors. If there’s a consensus of opinion, the rating becomes official. If not, the game may be reviewed by other raters until a consensus is reached.

Prior to a game’s official release, its packaging is supposed to be reviewed to insure that its display of the assigned rating conforms with ESRB standards. At this point, the game might actually be played by an ESRB game expert in order to confirm the validity of the rating. This is a random process, however, and many games submitted to the ESRB are never played by anyone.

Furthermore, while the ESRB has authority to impose penalties if it discovers that a publisher has not disclosed material in a game that could affect its rating (see GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS HITS THE FAN, later in this article), the ESRB has no power to enforce its own ratings at the retail level. Moreover, participation in the ratings system by both publishers and retailers is strictly voluntary. Sound familiar?

As far as I’m concerned, the ESRB’s lack of power seriously undermines the effectiveness of its ratings system. At point of sale, ratings become meaningless without enforcement.

Certain retailers do partner with the ESRB in the areas of point-of-sale ratings displays and store policy signage (for those retailers having internal controls in place concerning the sale of inappropriate games to children, and not all of them do). Participation in this kind of partnership as well as the formulation of store policy is also voluntary.

So, who does have the power to penalize retailers for disregarding ESRB ratings? Well actually, no one — unless a retailer is located in an area that has enforceable laws on the books concerning the issue. And as we shall see, such laws typically collide with the First Amendment and, if passed, are generally struck down as unconstitutional on appeal.

Consequently, it’s possible for publishers and retailers to openly sell inappropriate games to children, secure in the knowledge that they will not be penalized for doing so. I’ll be saying a lot more about this later.

Again, I’m struck by a parallel. Remember the Motion Picture Production Code? When adopted in 1930, it carried no legal authority and violators were not penalized. Hence, it was not taken seriously. The motion picture industry only started paying attention in 1934, after the formation of the Production Code Administration which required films to carry the administration’s seal of approval before they could be released, and called for a $25,000 fine for violators.

As we shall discover, the lack of penalties imposed on publishers and retailers for the sale of inappropriate video games to minors has resulted in many of them not taking the issue seriously. Now, I think game developers should be free to express themselves in any way they’d like, and publishers and retailers should be accorded the same freedom. I certainly don’t feel that anyone’s First Amendment rights should be trampled on. But considering the wording of the First Amendment, I see no guarantee of a right to be heard, particularly by everyone — although the court system has accorded this right to the First Amendment in a majority of cases concerning laws to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors. But I’m getting ahead of myself, here. I’ll be saying a lot more about this later, as well.

Getting back to the issue at hand, the ESRB ratings system was firmly in place in 1994 and satisfied the federal government that the industry was capable of keeping itself under control. Unfortunately, some of the worst violence was yet to come.

PART III

~FIRST-PERSON SHOOTERS ARE BORN

At this point, let’s back up a bit. In 1991, Wolfenstein 3D (commonly referred to as Wolf 3D) had been released by id Software. It had taken its title from Muse Software’s earlier Castle Wolfenstein and Beyond Castle Wolfenstein, both released for Atari 800 and Commodore 64 machines in 1983 and 1984, respectively. It was followed by such sequels as Spear of Destiny (1992) from FormGen, Inc., and Return to Castle Wolfenstein (2001)/Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (2003), both from Activision.

From the very beginning, Wolfenstein games have featured Hitler, Nazis, and the like. As a point of interest, both Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Wolf 3D are banned in Germany. Additionally, the official site for Return to Castle Wolfenstein contains the following paragraph, in both English and German:

“Important note for German users – Disclaimer: You are about to enter the Castle Wolfenstein website. The following pages may have content that is forbidden by law in Germany. Activision Germany GmbH is not responsible for the content of the following pages. By entering this site you approve having read this disclaimer.”

The law in question is found in Germany’s Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB), Special Part, Chapter One, Title Three, Section 86a. It forbids the use of Nazi symbols.

Anyway, Wolf 3D broke new ground in a couple of key areas. Not only was it the original FPS game, it was successfully marketed online as shareware, paving the way for today’s game demos, previews, and evaluation versions.

In December 1993, id Software hit even bigger pay dirt with a first-person shooter called DOOM, also marketed as shareware. It spawned an entire DOOM franchise. The latest installment, DOOM 3, was released for PC in August 2004.

In 1996, taking advantage of such technological advances as dynamic light sources and textured 3-D architecture, id Software released Quake. Representing the final id title to be released as shareware, it was followed by Quake II and III. Moreover, the Quake engine forever changed the face of gaming.

1998 saw the release of Rockstar Games’ Grand Theft Auto, which — as Wolf 3D, DOOM and Quake had done — spawned a franchise, with the latest entry being the nefarious Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, released in 2004/2005.

All of the above titles have been wildly successful. They also feature blood, gore, violence, strong language and/or sexual content. Considering these games’ popularity, it seems that a lot of gamers must favor such elements.

~FPS GAMES: FROM VIRTUAL TO ACTUAL REALITY?

In the late 1990s there was an appalling series of school shootings, all perpetrated by students. (Unfortunately, the shootings didn’t stop there. I’ll be discussing two recent, tragic school shootings — one that occurred in March 2005 and another that happened in November 2005 — later in this article.) The level of violence was shocking. And violent video games — namely first-person shooters — were seen as having caused or at least contributed to these rampages.

In October 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham started his day by fatally stabbing his mother, then went to Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi, where he shot nine classmates — two of them fatally. Woodham is reported to have been into playing first-person shooters.

In December 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, a student at Heath High School in Paducah, Kentucky, took five rifles and a handgun to school, where he proceeded to kill three students and wound five more. It’s said that Carneal was obsessed with first-person shooters, particularly Mortal Kombat, Quake, and DOOM.

In commenting on the Paducah shootings, retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel Dave Grossman has said the following:

“…[p]oint-and-shoot video games have the same effect as military training techniques used to break down a soldier’s aversion to killing. These games, however…are more powerful than military training games. Therefore, the United States Marines has now bought a version of this ‘Doom’ to train their soldiers.”

In March 1998, Andrew Golden, age 11, and Mitchell Johnson, age 13, took assorted rifles and handguns to Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas. While Johnson waited outside, Golden entered the school, pulled a fire alarm, then rejoined Johnson. As students vacated the premises in response to the alarm, Golden and Johnson opened fire. When it was over, four students and one teacher were dead, and nine students and a teacher had been injured.

On a spring evening in May 1998, 15-year-old Kip Kinkel shot and killed his parents; the next day, he went to Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon, where he was a freshman, and opened fire in the crowded cafeteria with a .22 semiautomatic rifle and a 9mm handgun. By the time he was finished, two more people — fellow students — were dead, and more than 20 others were injured.

Although neither Golden, Johnson, nor Kinkel appear to have been influenced by specific video games, all were characterized as having been desensitized to violence and its consequences by popular culture and the entertainment industry.

Then came the bloodbath that ignited full-blown moral panic and societal outrage over violent video games…

~DOOMED

In April 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado murdered 12 of their classmates and one teacher, injured more than 20 others, then took their own lives. In the investigation that followed, it was learned that the two killers, Eric Harris, age 18, and Dylan Klebold, age 17, were heavily into first-person shooters — particularly DOOM. Harris had even created custom levels for the game that included more destructive weaponry, unlimited ammunition, and targets incapable of defending themselves.

The investigation also revealed that Harris and Klebold had intended to kill a lot more people than they actually did. They had planted two 20-lb. propane bombs in the school’s first-floor cafeteria, both rigged to go off at lunchtime. The bombs had been powerful enough to destroy both the cafeteria and the library directly above it — but something went wrong, and neither one detonated. Had they blown, they could have claimed over 400 lives.

When Harris and Klebold realized that something had gone wrong with the cafeteria bombs, they opened fire outside the school. Armed with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun, a 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle, and two sawed-off shotguns, they targeted students who had been eating lunch close to one of the building’s entrances. Then they went inside and started shooting indiscriminately at anyone they saw.

As their rampage continued, they began tossing out pipe bombs. Some went off; some didn’t. One exploded later as an attempt was made to defuse it. Additional incendiary devices were subsequently discovered in the school parking lot.

The killing spree had started at approximately 11:19 AM. It was over at approximately 11:37 AM, with two exceptions. Shortly after 12 noon, Harris and Klebold committed suicide. In the space of 40-45 minutes, 15 people had been murdered and over 20 had been injured.

In the wake of such profound violence (and the enormity of the violence that had been planned), there were those who claimed that Harris and Klebold — both of whom were old enough by ESRB standards to have purchased DOOM — had learned how to perpetrate the Columbine bloodbath by obsessively playing the game.

At this juncture, I feel I must point out a few things. All perpetrators involved in the violent incidents I’ve just recounted allegedly had mental and/or emotional problems. Further, they were thought to have all been on antidepressants (more about such drugs later in this article). It’s also said that they exhibited warning signs of what was to come that were missed by parents, authorities, and other adults. Harris and Klebold had planned their massacre for a solid year and no one had noticed. In videotapes made before the carnage, they laughed about how easy it had been to fool people.

On August 21, 1999, Dr. Stuart Fishoff presented a talk at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association entitled Psychology’s Quixotic Quest For the Media-Violence Connection. In it, he offered the following:

“Because of our belief in the media-violence connection, we are primed to search for the usual suspects. What movies did the trigger men at Columbine High School, Harris and Klebold, see before they mounted their assault? What were their favorite TV shows and video games and music genres? They saw The Matrix or Basketball Diaries? They own Mortal Kombat? They listen to gangsta’ rap. Bam! That’s the answer. The media did it. The fact that they were Neo-Nazis, had arrest records, were on prescriptive drugs, and were treated by counselors for their anger and aggressiveness somehow, for many, got lost in the shuffle of feet looking for easy answers — media answers.

“I believe the roots of social violence lie in our social values about what’s important in life, what sustains us as a culture…I believe we need to pay more than lip service when we say our children are our future and then buy their quiet and quiet their demands for parenting with credit cards, cell phones or electronic baby or child sitters like televisions, computers and internet access. Conceiving children can be a mindless biological act; parenting is always a mindful, psychological commitment. Too often we see people embrace the first and abandon the second.”

At this point, I’m struck by another parallel. Remember what was pointed out about Dr. Wertham’s study of the effects of crime and horror comics on juveniles? It was said by some that all of his subjects were delinquent juveniles, most of whom read those kinds of comic books, so he had wrongly concluded that such comic books must cause juvenile delinquency. In the incidents of school violence I’ve just mentioned, the perpetrators were into video games and other media that was violent. But does this necessarily establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship? What about the kids who play violent video games, see violent movies, etc. and are never adversely effected?

Whatever the cause(s), I remember thinking to myself back when these shootings were happening how drastically things had changed since I’d been in high school. I may have thought school more-or-less sucked when I was a teenager, but I never had to risk my life to go there.

And I’ll tell you something else: researching this series of killings gave me some nasty jolts. As if what I’d remembered wasn’t bad enough, I learned gruesome details that I hadn’t known before. These events seem utterly unthinkable to me. Yet they really did happen — and do happen, still.

~COLUMBINE: A JARRING POSTSCRIPT

Now, let me make it clear that I consider what happened at Columbine to have been a tragedy all the way around, for victims as well as survivors. I invite you to draw your own conclusions about the following.

On May 17, 2004 — over five years after the shootings — FOXNews.com published an Associated Press story captioned Klebolds Say They Don’t Need Forgiveness. This is how it starts:

“In their first interview since the Columbine High School massacre, the parents of one of the killers said they feel no need be forgiven and didn’t realize their son was beyond hope until after he was dead.

“‘Dylan (Klebold) did not do this because of the way he was raised,’ Susan Klebold told columnist David Brooks in Saturday’s editions of The New York Times. ‘He did it in contradiction to the way he was raised.'”

The article goes on to say that the Klebolds don’t want forgiveness because they don’t feel they’ve done anything that warrants forgiving, and despite the fact that both Klebold and Harris “were in a juvenile diversion program for breaking into a van and stealing tools and other items in January 1998,” they hadn’t known the extent to which their son was in trouble.

According to Tom Klebold, Dylan’s father: “He was hopeless. We didn’t realize it until after the end.”

The article continues: “The Klebolds said their son was set off by the ‘toxic culture’ of the school, where athletes were worshipped and bullying was tolerated…Jefferson County Public Schools officials have consistently denied that bullying was tolerated or that athletes received special treatment.”

According to Brian Rohrbough, whose son Daniel was killed by Klebold and Harris: “This was murder. In my opinion, what went on in their home led to Columbine.”

Wayne and Kathy Harris (the parents of Eric Harris) have never commented publicly on the killings.

~A BRIEF EXCURSION INTO VIOLENCE IN NON-SCHOOL SETTINGS

On December 30, 2001, a patron of a cybercafé in Garden Grove California that featured such games as Quake III and Half-Life: Counterstrike stepped outside and put a screwdriver through the skull of another boy, killing him.

This prompted the City of Garden Grove to pass a municipal ordinance requiring, among other things, the installation of surveillance cameras in all 21 of the city’s cybercafés. This was appealed, but the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District upheld the ordinance. For further details, see Can a City Require Surveillance Cameras in Cybercafes? at http://practice.findlaw.com/cyberlaw-0304.html.

Also, some of you may have heard about a shooting on February 13, 2005 at a Best Buy at the Hudson Valley Mall in Kingston, NY. Fortunately, no one was killed, although two people were injured.

The shooter, 24-year-old Robert Bonelli, “seemed to have a ‘lurid fascination’ with the April 20, 1999 attack by two Columbine High School seniors.” Authorities were shocked by the amount of Columbine memorabilia they discovered in Bonelli’s possession.

So let’s see…Harris and Klebold allegedly had an unhealthy interest in video games, and Bonelli allegedly had an unhealthy interest in Harris and Klebold. I wonder what’s next? Maybe I shouldn’t ask.

PART IV

~LITIGATION, ANYONE?

In the years following Columbine, many lawsuits were filed by the victims’ families. Defendants ranged from the Jefferson County (Colorado) Sheriff’s Department to the Jefferson County School District to at least 25 entertainment companies.

One of the biggest lawsuits, filed in 2001 against id Software, Activision, GT Interactive Software, Time Warner Inc. (now AOL Time Warner), Nintendo, Sega, and Sony Computer Entertainment of America, among others, sought $5 billion in punitive damages and claimed the following:

“Absent the combination of extremely violent video games and these boys’ incredibly deep involvement, use of and addiction to these games and the boys’ basic personalities, these murders and this massacre would not have occurred.” It went on to name specific games such as Mortal Kombat (Midway Games), Nightmare Creatures (Kalisto Entertainment/Activision Publishing), DOOM (id Software), Resident Evil (Capcom Entertainment), Final Fantasy (Square Co., Ltd.), Quake (id Software), and Redneck Rampage (Xatrix Entertainment/Interplay Entertainment).

On March 5, 2002, the case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock, who “rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that video games should not be protected by the First Amendment, ruling that a decision against the game makers would have a chilling effect on free speech.”

Most of the other Columbine lawsuits were dismissed as well, many of them on First Amendment grounds. I’ll be saying more about the First Amendment a little later.

~HERE COME THE FEDS…AGAIN

The Columbine massacre resulted in a redoubling of efforts to combat the perceived destructive influence of violent video games. It also acted as a catalyst for more federal investigation. The result was a Senate Judiciary Committee Report entitled Children, Violence, and the Media: A Report for Parents and Policy Makers, published September 14, 1999. Its recommendations included a joint study by the Federal Trade Commission/U.S. Attorney General concerning the marketing of violent entertainment to children, and it provided for a study by the National Institutes of Health regarding the impact of violent video games on children. The report mentions DOOM, Quake, Resident Evil 2 (Capcom Entertainment), and a few lesser-known ultra-violent games by name.

The Senate’s report also noted differences in the ratings systems of various entertainment media and called for the development of a universal system of ratings for television, movies, video games, music, and the Internet. Additionally, the report contained a summary of a law that sought to address juvenile violence and its underlying causes entitled the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 (the “Juvenile Justice Act”).

Side note: As I write this, over six years have elapsed since the release of the above-referenced report, and it doesn’t appear that a universal system of ratings has ever been put in place.

In September 2000, the Federal Trade Commission released the report Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children, which addresses both rating systems and marketing practices of the motion picture, music, and electronic game industries. The report emphasizes the importance of self-regulation in view of these industries’ First Amendment protections. (Note: As we shall see, figures from this 2000 report that are favorable to the ESRB will continue to be quoted by that organization in subsequent years, up to and including December 2005. I’ll be pointing out these instances as the article progresses.)

At the time, only the game industry had mandated both age- and content-based ratings as well as marketing and advertising standards, all via the ESRB. Of the three rating systems examined by the FTC in the year 2000, video game ratings were the most comprehensive.

The FTC also discovered that parental understanding and use of game ratings was poor; only 37% of those surveyed by the Commission “had both heard of and had more than slight familiarity with the rating system.” But it was also determined that parents who did use the system found it helpful.

It was felt, however, that content descriptors didn’t go far enough. For example, the degree of violence (or blood, gore, etc.) contained in a particular game was not apparent.

Unfortunately, the FTC report found the game industry lacking in the area of marketing. It was discovered, for instance, that certain M-rated games targeted audiences under the age of 17, and certain T-rated games were marketed to the under-13 crowd. It was further revealed that children under 17 could easily purchase M-rated games.

The Commission concluded that the game industry needed to strengthen regulations and impose clear sanctions for violations, as well as improve retail compliance, more closely monitor video game advertising, and take steps to facilitate parents’ understanding of ratings and labels. (Note: As we’ll discover, there’s been little improvement in several of these areas as of December 2005.)

In January 2000, before the FTC report was issued, the ESRB had created its Advertising Review Council (ARC) to monitor video game ads. The Council was to “be responsible for the implementation, administration, and enforcement of a self-regulatory system of advertising control for the interactive entertainment software industry.” Its objective was “to promote the highest standards of advertising and to provide the interactive entertainment software industry with a system of voluntary principles and guidelines that will assure responsible, appropriate, truthful, and accurate advertising with relation to interactive software products and services.”

Also in 2000, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on the Impact of Interactive Violence on Children. According to the testimony of Dr. David Walsh, president of the National Institute on Media and the Family, 90% of teens surveyed at that time said “their parents ‘never’ check the ratings before allowing them to buy or rent video games (another 8 percent said their parents ‘rarely’ check the ratings).” Additionally, 89% said “their parents ‘never’ put limits on how much time they are allowed to play video games.” Of the 137 teens participating in the survey, 43 were in “a special program for ‘at risk’ students,” meaning they were more aggressive and prone to violence.

Although the above testimony acknowledged that more studies would be needed before a definitive causal relationship could be demonstrated between violent video games and actual aggression, it indicated that concerns about the issue were justified.

In a statement to the Committee, the Video Software Dealers Association emphasized parental responsibility in determining the appropriateness of video games and controlling how much time children spend playing them. In testimony from the Interactive Digital Software Association (now the Entertainment Software Association), IDSA/ESA president Doug Lowenstein pointed out that violent video games represent only a small fraction of all games published, and bluntly stated: “…there is no scientific basis to argue that entering the fantasy world of Doom in the home using a mouse causes players to gun down their friends in the school yard.”

In 2001, the Surgeon General’s office (part of the National Institutes of Health) released its own report entitled Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. In Chapter 4, the following appears in a section entitled Risk Factors by Domain:

“Little research has been done on violence in… video games, music videos, and the Internet…Theoretically, the influence of these interactive media might well be greater than that of television and films, which present a passive form of exposure, but there are no studies to date of the effects of exposure to these types of media violence and violent behavior.”

Also in 2001, a hearing to examine the entertainment industry’s efforts to curb children’s exposure to violent content was held before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. One of the participants was Doug Lowenstein. The following represents excerpts from his statement before the subcommittee:

“I want to start…by dispelling the myth that most gamers are kids. In truth, 145,000,000 Americans play video games and their average [age] is not 12, it is not 14, it is not 16. It is 28 years old. Sixty-one percent of all game players are over 18, 35 percent are over 35 years old, and 43 percent of them are women. (Editorial comment: Oh yeah.)

“In short, we serve a mass market made up of players of all ages and tastes, and their interests in the types of games they want to play range from sports games to puzzle games to games based on TV shows to racing games and action and adventure games, some of which have, in fact, violent content. (Editorial comment: At last, someone has mentioned adventure games!)

“But an important point to understand is that most games do not, in fact, contain violent content. Seventy percent are rated as appropriate for everyone ages 6 and up by a rating system that even industry critics have acknowledged is very reliable and credible. Last year, only 117 of the 1600 games released were rated mature for users due to violence. And I might note that the best-seller lists also reflect the fact that most games that are popular don’t have violent content. Only two of the 20 best-sellers this year, for example, are rated as mature.

“For over 7 years, the video game industry now has been committed to effective self-regulation. We created the highly praised Entertainment Software Rating Board. We have implemented a sweeping advertising code of conduct. We have distributed and produced PSAs featuring Tiger Woods…We have distributed ratings brochures to retailers…We have worked with retailers to prevent the sale of mature-rated games to minors. And that’s just a partial list.

“We have lots of problems with youth violence in this country, but I think we are doing our part to address them.”

~OKAY, I NEED TO MOUTH OFF NOW

Please indulge me as I say a few things that have been trying to burst out of me practically since I started writing this article. Doug Lowenstein has already touched on some of them in a very general way.

I absolutely love adventure games. They transport me to other worlds and provide a respite from the strife and discord so often found these days in this one. They require me to think. (Eek!) Sometimes, they even teach me things. (Yow!) And this may sound weird, but I’ve actually become rather attached to some of the characters in the adventure games I’ve played.

This wasn’t always the case, however. Before I happened to stumble upon and buy an adventure game at my local video game store, I knew nothing at all about the genre (shame on me). I was familiar with a few of the better-known titles — Myst immediately springs to mind — but I hadn’t even known what kind of games they were, and I’d never been motivated to discover anything else about them.

Until I got into playing it, I hadn’t even realized that the game I’d bought was an adventure game. (What’s an adventure game?) My purchase had been strictly impulsive, with the motivation that I was tired of FPS and RTS games and thought the beautiful box art looked quite soothing. The game’s world looked like a place I’d really like to visit, and one that I’d be able to explore without worrying about grotesque nasties trying to kill me. Well, that’s just what it turned out to be, and I loved it. I could scarcely believe what I’d been missing.

Now, why hadn’t I known all that much about adventure games? For that matter, why do a lot of people still not know very much about adventure games? A big reason, I suspect, is that violent and/or controversial games get all of the big coverage — after all, if it bleeds it leads, and if it smells it sells — and I think that’s a real shame. Media sensationalism would have the uninformed among us (and I’d been one of ’em) believe that the only kind of video game out there is full of violence, sex, nasty language, and/or other anti-social behavior. Prior to my chance adventure game purchase, when someone said “computer game” I’d think: “Ooooh! Mayhem! Destruction! Havoc! Ruination!”

Well, now that I’ve been properly indoctrinated, it really burns my backside that adventure games aren’t more visible, and are seldom mentioned by the mainstream media. I’d truly love to see critics of violent video games at least suggest adventure games as an alternative. But I guess the headline “Teen Plays Adventure Games, Exhibits Well-Adjusted Behavior and Gets Good Grades” won’t sell a lot of newspapers, magazines, or whatever — and sales are where it’s at, right? Or perhaps such critics aren’t aware that adventure games even exist. Who knows?

Whatever the case, let me do my part right now. Adventure games, adventure games, adventure games, adventure games. ADVENTURE GAMES. Okay, I’m finished with my rant.

~BACK TO THE FEDS…AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

2003 saw the introduction of a bill to amend Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Called the Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2003, (HR 669), its purpose was the prohibition of sale or rental of adult video games to minors (the definition of which is “a person age 17 or younger”). According to the Bill Status and Summary page, the last major action on the bill is reflected as having taken place on 3/11/2003. It reads: “Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.” (This is the subcommittee currently having jurisdiction over Title 18–Crimes and Criminal Procedure.) The bill has been languishing there ever since.

Many states, counties, etc. have been trying to legislate similar restrictions for years. But even when successful, such laws have typically been overturned on appeal on the grounds that video games are constitutionally protected as free speech.

Now, just so we’re all on the same page at this point, here is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Amendments 1-10 being known as the Bill of Rights):

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As a point of interest, let’s refer back to the Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2003. Using the prevailing judicial interpretation that video games are constitutionally protected, it seems to me that an act such as this could never be passed without violating the First Amendment. (I’ll be saying more about this sort of thing later.)

Be that as it may, the relationship between the First Amendment and video games has been a rather tumultuous one so far. In 2000, for instance, Indianapolis passed a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. But at the federal level, according to Adam Thierer of the Cato Institute, it was “struck down as an unconstitutional restriction of protected speech.”

A federal lawsuit alleging negligence, product liability, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, filed against Meow Media, Inc. and assorted other entertainment companies by parents of the three students killed by Michael Carneal, was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Paducah on several grounds, including an interpretation that the First Amendment applies to video games. The suit had specifically cited the previously mentioned DOOM, Quake, Redneck Rampage, Nightmare Creatures, Final Fantasy, and Resident Evil, joined by Castle Wolfenstein (Muse Software) and Mech Warrior (Dynamix, Inc./Activision Publishing).

Miami lawyer Jack Thompson, who represented some of the plaintiffs in the above cause of action, is quoted as having said, “We need a nuclear war against these people.” Gee, that’s not a violent sentiment, is it? I’ll be saying a lot more about Mr. Thompson shortly.

In 2001, the case was appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was again dismissed on First Amendment and various other grounds. The decision was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case.

In an April 24, 2001 interview, John DeCamp, the attorney who had filed the aforementioned $5 billion Columbine suit, “emphasized that the videogame industry is not protected under the First Amendment.” He went on to say: “We know absolutely that the video industry marketing these systems designed to train children to be instant, unthinking, purely reactive killing machines, will defend on the basis of the First Amendment right to offer entertainment under Free Speech concepts. We are absolutely ready for this defense, and I believe we will shatter this myth and obtain court-ordered sanctions and safeguards for the future, to prevent an entire industry from stealing the minds of our children to turn them into trained killing automata.”

I have a question. Why would the video game industry want to turn kids into killing machines? I mean, what would the payoff be? World domination, perhaps? And again, the impression is given here that all video games are violent, and that there are hordes of out-of-control, killer children running around.

Another federal lawsuit — this one in 2002 — challenged the constitutionality of a St. Louis County ordinance prohibiting the sale/rental of violent video games to minors without parental consent. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri upheld the ordinance, ruling that video games are not protected by the First Amendment. But when the decision was appealed in 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling, stating that video games are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. (Follow the bouncing amendment…)

In May of 2003, Washington State passed a law prohibiting the sale of video games featuring violence against police officers to children under 17. Games featuring violence against non-police officers weren’t included. (Editorial comment: I hope you’ll pardon me, but I don’t think this makes a whole lot of sense.) The law was appealed and struck down on First Amendment grounds by U.S. District Judge (Western District of Washington) Robert S. Lasnik.

Interesting side note (and take heed, the following paragraph includes a word that some might find objectionable):

Back when rapper Ice Cube was still a member of NWA, the group released a song entitled Fuck tha Police. Lyrics such as “And when I’m finished, it’s gonna be a bloodbath of cops, dyin in LA” did not amuse law enforcement. In response, the Fraternal Order of Police refused to provide security at the group’s concerts. This didn’t result in the absence of all security, mind you — just that provided by the police. Sort of like restricting sale to minors of video games depicting violence against cops, but remaining unconcerned about selling minors games that show violence perpetrated against everyone except cops.

On April 8, 2003, prior to passage of the above-referenced Washington State law, an editorial was published by The Olympian Online. I feel makes some valid points. For instance:

“The question is, whose responsibility is it to keep kids away from violence? House Bill 1009 puts the onus on retailers, making them video police…Under the bill, any merchant who rents or sells a violent video game to a minor — the violence has to be against a law enforcement officer — would be subject to a $500 fine.

“There are serious First Amendment issues with government entities that seek to police so-called “offensive” behavior. House Bill 1009, even in its watered down state, raises similar constitutional concerns. But more basic, this bill shifts responsibility for raising children from parents to video merchants. The state should not put retailers in the role of enforcers of moral conduct.”

Many other laws seeking to restrict the sale of violent video games have been passed. But since video games obviously didn’t exist when the First Amendment was written, application of the protections it affords are open to judicial interpretation which, as we’ve already seen, can vary greatly. A majority of the courts seem to have extended First Amendment rights to include — in so many words — the right of children of any age to consume violent video games without restriction. I really, really wonder what the framers of the Constitution would think about something like this.

Site note: On May 28, 2005, the State of Illinois succeeded in passing legislation prohibiting the sale of violent and sexually explicit video games to individuals under the age of 18. I’ll be going into more detail about that and similar legislation later in this article.

On October 29, 2003, the FTC held a Workshop on Industry Self-Regulation concerning the marketing of violent entertainment to children. One of the participants was Congressman Frank Wolf (R-Virginia), who stated the following:

“It is becoming nearly impossible to shield minors from graphic violence. Exposure to these images is taking a toll on our society. Now, children who — for whom we are all responsible, are seeing acts of violence and then acting out what they see in the media and in video games. The problem has grown so severe that lawsuits are beginning and being filed against the creators of some of these violent video games because children are mimicking the violence they’re watching.

“If what society, especially the young and the immature in society, sees or hears or reads is filled with violence, is there not motivation associated with these images toward the wrong kinds of behavior? We are running out of time and turning the corner on protecting our children from media violence.

“The time has come for an aggressive plan, not tomorrow, not next year, but today. How many more Columbines must occur before effective action is taken to keep violent material out of the hands of children?”

Hmmm. I believe we’ve just heard another example of “all video games are violent” rhetoric. Moreover, the above statements make it sound as though nobody cares about the issue, that nothing is being done, and that we have a full-blown crisis on our hands, with violent video game-playing children rampaging through the streets.

This is not to say that I don’t think we have a problem. Just look around — we have plenty of problems. What I do wonder about, however, is our tendency to beat a problem over the head repeatedly with “plans,” laws, proclamations, studies, subcommittees, theories, you name it — when we’ve seen that none of these things improves the situation.

One thought has been running through my brain since I got into all of this: perhaps we are approaching the violent video game issue from the wrong direction. If it were the right direction, wouldn’t things be getting better? You’d think so. But are things getting better? I don’t think so.

Anyway, Doug Lowenstein of the ESA also participated in the FTC workshop. Here are some of his comments:

“The FTC found that 83 percent of the time parents are involved in the purchase and rental of games for their children. That’s important to understand because what it tells you is the chances are, if a child has Grand Theft Auto, if a 12-year-old has it, mom and dad gave it to him. Now, you can’t indict the industry for that.

Side note: The 83% figure referenced by Lowenstein in 2003 is taken from the September 2000 FTC Report on the Marketing of Violent Entertainment to Children, Appendix F: Mystery Shopper Survey and Parent-Child Survey.

Lowenstein continues: “You may not like the game, I might not like the game, but that’s not the point. The point is people are making decisions at the point of sale, they’re ignoring information that’s available to them. Maybe they’re not aware of all the information.

“With respect to the lawsuits, it’s really a simple matter. You know, the frustrating part about this to me is we really do agree on the objective of having retailers not sell [inappropriate] games, but it is absolutely crystal clear that the laws [controlling sales of video games] are unconstitutional. That’s what the courts keep ruling.”

Side note: The transcript of 2003 FTC workshop in which the above statements are made, entitled Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Workshop on Industry Self-Regulation, states that 69 percent of 13 to 16-year-olds who participated in an undercover store survey for the FTC in late 2003 were able to buy M-rated games. In other words, 7 out of 10 kids had no problem purchasing video games that the ESRB has deemed to be inappropriate for anyone under 17. I just have to ask one thing, here: does this demonstrate effective industry self-regulation?

In October 2004, the National Institutes of Health held a State-of-the-Science Conference on Preventing Violence and Related Health-Risking Social Behaviors in Adolescents. The following is reflected in a statement from that conference:

“There is a long history of research attempting to identify the effects of violence in the media. Because television is but one variable in a complex set of life circumstances, it has been difficult to demonstrate long-term as opposed to short-term effects. There is even more reason for concern now that violent video games and music videos that exalt macho lifestyles have been added to the steady diet of violence on television.The relationship between media and violence is a critical area for investigation.”

Excuse me folks, but what a freakin’ tug-of-war. Is it any wonder parents are confused? Who would have thought, while watching that little ball being batted back and forth on that small oscilloscope back in 1958, that we’d end up where we are now?

~MEANWHILE, IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR…

The Surgeon General’s 2001 report I referred to earlier may have noted a lack of studies, but by that time plenty of material had been published by public and mental health professionals concerning the adverse effects of violent video games. Some of it was rather alarmist. Let’s look at a few examples.

In April 2000, an article entitled Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life was published in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. It examined two studies on “violent video game effects on aggression-related variables. Study 1 found that real-life violent video game play was positively related to aggressive behavior and delinquency. The relation was stronger for individuals who are characteristically aggressive and for men. Academic achievement was negatively related to overall amount of time spent playing video games. In Study 2, laboratory exposure to a graphically violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior. In both studies, men had a more hostile view of the world than did women. The results from both studies are consistent with the General Affective Aggression Model, which predicts that exposure to violent video games will increase aggressive behavior in both the short term (e.g., laboratory aggression) and the long term (e.g., delinquency).” One of the authors of this article, Dr. Craig A. Anderson, would go on to contribute to the 2001 Surgeon General’s report cited above.

More of Dr. Anderson’s work — an article entitled Video Games and Aggressive Behavior — is featured in a 2003 compilation of articles published as Kid Stuff: Marketing Sex and Violence to America’s Children, edited by Diane Ravitch and Joseph P. Viteritti. In it, Dr. Anderson concludes that there are three important factors for parents and policy-makers to consider. First, parents need to monitor the kinds of games their children play and take steps to restrict exposure to those that are violent. Secondly, legislation that limits access of minors to inappropriate games is needed, as are a more effective ratings system and a mandate to require parental permission “to buy, rent, or play violent video games in arcades.” Lastly, parents should limit the amount of time their children play video games, and discuss with them the reasons certain video games are thought to have a negative influence.

Dr. Anderson’s article also recounts one woman’s approach to the issue of restriction: “…whenever she finds in her house a CD-ROM video game disk that has a violent game on it, she breaks it in half and tosses it in the trash, regardless of whether it belongs to her son or one of her son’s friends.” This woman must have quite a reputation.

Okay, let’s get back to our timeline. On July 26, 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Psychiatric Association issued a Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children. Here is an excerpt:

“At this time, well over 1000 studies – including reports from the Surgeon General’s office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations – our own members – point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children. The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children.”

The above excerpt has been widely quoted in subsequent articles on the issue. However, the Joint Statement goes on to make other points that are less often quoted, such as (the emphasis is mine):

“Although less research has been done on the impact of violent interactive entertainment (video games and other interactive media) on young people, preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies, or music. More study is needed in this area, and we urge that resources and attention be directed to this field.

“We in no way mean to imply that entertainment violence is the sole, or even necessarily the most important factor contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence. Family breakdown, peer influences, the availability of weapons, and numerous other factors may all contribute to these problems. Nor are we advocating restrictions on creative activity. The purpose of this document is descriptive, not prescriptive: we seek to lay out a clear picture of the pathological elements of entertainment violence. But we do hope that by articulating and releasing the consensus of the public health community, we may encourage greater public and parental awareness of the harms of violent entertainment, and encourage a more honest dialogue about what can be done to enhance the health and well-being of America’s children.”

~SOME FINAL WORDS ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT

In January 2005, a national study entitled “The Future of the First Amendment” was released. The project, funded by the Knight Foundation, took two years to complete and cost $1 million. It involved the questioning of “students, faculty and administrators at 544 high schools across the country.” The results are both surprising and unsettling. For example:

~Seventy-five percent of high school students have no appreciation of the First Amendment and/or admit they take it for granted.

~Fifty percent think the government can censor the Internet.

~Over thirty-three percent think “the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.”

~Fewer students than adults believe in the freedom to express unpopular opinions and to publish material without prior government approval.

Now, let’s have a look at an excerpt from an article by author Diana West, published in Public Interest in the summer of 2004:

“The only effective way to hog-tie the pop-culture beast may be to strip away its First Amendment defenses — a notion that surely qualifies as heresy in our age of First Amendment absolutism…a little such heresy might jump-start a debate that has grown static, moving it beyond copious cataloguing and thin calls for discretion and understanding. Should we as a society always value free speech over obscenity-free speech? Meanwhile, what constitutes ‘speech’ anyway? In the Missouri video-game case [note: addressed earlier in this article], the court’s three-judge panel acknowledged that there is a government role in supporting parents; nonetheless, it also wrote that ‘the government cannot silence protected speech by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority.’ The fact is, when the porno-cartoon-carnage of ‘Mortal Kombat’ or ‘Grand Theft Auto’ — video games that turn dismemberment and murder into sport — qualifies as ‘protected speech,’ the definition of speech needs a rewrite.”

~I NEED TO MOUTH OFF, PART II

Let me tell you something, folks. Whatever the motivation — and whether I agree with it or not — I get mighty nervous when someone talks about messing around with the Constitution. Moreover, I’m not aware of any single, official definition of “speech” as used in the phrase “freedom of speech.” As I’ve already said, the judiciary has discretion in the interpretation of such things. So whose definition of speech shall we rewrite? And, more crucially, who shall we get to do the rewriting?

While I do disagree with some of the more liberal interpretations of the First Amendment by the judiciary, the primary task of the federal court system (which is given its power by Article III of the Constitution) is to “protect rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.” Well, this can hardly be accomplished without constitutional interpretation. So the only way I can see to redefine the word “speech” as used in the First Amendment would be to amend the Constitution. Similarly, it seems to me that limiting the power of the federal judiciary would also entail a constitutional amendment.

Now don’t get me wrong: my heart goes out to the families and friends of victims of senseless violence — losing someone that way must be excruciating. And I certainly don’t deny that youth violence is a serious problem these days.

I just don’t believe that values, morals, a sense of right and wrong, respect for others, etc. can be legislated. It’s up to parents and other adults to instill these kinds of things in kids. The responsibilities of government do not extend to raising our nation’s children — nor should they.

I do think it’s true that some people suffer from mental and/or emotional disorders — as did the perpetrators of the school violence I recounted earlier — that make them more susceptible to external influences such as violent video games. Further, the kids who perpetrated that violence had been on anti-depressants such as Prozac, Zoloft, Luvox, and Paxil. Such drugs can have some pretty nasty side-effects which, to my way of thinking, cannot be discounted when examining the circumstances surrounding such violent acts. (I’ll be discussing this issue in more detail later.)

Surely the parents of these medicated children-turned-killers had been aware of the problems their kids had, and were cognizant of the potentially dangerous side-effects of these drugs, right? Perhaps not. But if the parents did know about these things, doesn’t it stand to reason that some extra supervision would have been warranted, in case any side-effects were manifested? Well, in my research on school shootings, I found precious little mention of parents aside from the ones who had been killed by their own children. Where were the rest of them, anyway?

Maybe the legislators and other pontificators who are so quick to blame video games for violence should take a closer look at the perpetrators’ mental/emotional condition and the potential side-effects of any medication they may have been taking. Instead, we just seem to end up with more laws, studies, etc., pertaining violent video games, and nothing much changes.

PART V

~JACK THOMPSON, VIOLENT VIDEO GAME LAWYER (“VIOLENT” REFERRING TO THE GAMES, NOT THE LAWYER)

Remember Jack Thompson, the lawyer I mentioned previously in conjunction with the lawsuit filed by the families of the three students killed by Michael Carneal? Mr. Thompson has a website called StopKill.com. Well actually, it’s just a single web page, and its the contents tend to change.

When I first visited Thompson’s page, he spoke of the game Manhunt (Rockstar North/Rockstar Games), saying “This game allows you to train yourself to kill people by placing plastic bags over their heads while you watch them struggle while suffocating.” This induced me to search for more information about the game (see the next section, below).

Currently (as of December 5, 2005, anyway), Thompson’s meniton of Manhunt on his web page has been replaced by the following:

“Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., through its Rockstar Games, has distributed tens of millions of units of its Grand Theft Auto games to kids. The FBI and Secret Service found that games like these trained teen killers for their massacres at Columbine and other schools like Paducah. We increasingly have a nation of ‘Manchurian children,’ ready, willing, and able to kill.”

The page also says:

“You may be a parent whose child is addicted to video games. You may know someone harmed by someone addicted to violent entertainment who copycatted that violence. The victim, whoever it is, needs help. Jack Thompson will assist in getting that person help.”

~LET’S GO ON A MANHUNT

Okay, I’ve never played Manhunt (from the same folks who brought us the Grand Theft Auto series), which is rated “M” (Mature, age 17+) for Strong Language, Blood and Gore, and Intense Violence. I mean, I just don’t have time to play every single violent video game out there — I’m too busy playing adventure games. But I’ve looked at previews, read reviews and articles, visited Manhunt‘s official website, viewed stills from the game, watched trailers, and read forum postings. That’s quite enough, thank you. I definitely get the picture, and it ain’t pretty.

However, I also question the wording of a statement appearing in the above excerpt from Thompson’s web page (the emphasis is mine): “This game allows you to train yourself to kill people by placing plastic bags over their heads while you watch them struggle while suffocating.” I may be wrong, but to me, this gives the impression that Manhunt‘s purpose is to train killers, and that the sole motivation of people who play the game is to acquire such skills. Doesn’t this sound a bit extreme?

I’m certainly not saying that I have no problem at all with the nature of Manhunt, which is categorized as a “stealth action” game. Check out this description, taken from the official Manhunt site:

“The year’s darkest and most terrifying videogame experience has arrived. Walk in the shoes of James Earl Cash, a man sentenced to death only to find himself given an unexpected and sinister reprieve. Forced to fight and outwit hordes of bloodthirsty gang members vying for his head on a platter. All orchestrated for pleasure and profit by the voice of an unseen Director.

“This is a brutal bloodsport.

“Rush to your nearest videogame retailer now or purchase through links on this web site.”

Frankly, folks, this game sounds pretty dreadful to me.

Side note: The “unseen Director” in Manhunt is named Starkweather — a name that may be familiar to some of you. Think Charles Starkweather, 19, who with his girlfriend, Caril Ann Fugate, 14, went on a grisly killing spree in late 1957 and early 1958 that spanned five states and left 11 people dead. Both were convicted of first-degree murder. Starkweather was executed, and Fugate, because of her age, received a life sentence. She was paroled in June 1976.

The story of Starkweather and Fugate has served as a basis for a slew of motion pictures, among them 1973’s Badlands and 1994’s Natural Born Killers. And by the way, to the best of my knowledge, neither Starkweather nor Fugate played video games, violent or otherwise. In fact, video games weren’t even on the market back then.

Getting back to Manhunt, a GameSpot review of the PS2 version of the game, which was released 11/19/03 (with the Xbox and PC versions arriving on 04/02/04), ends thusly:

“Obviously, Manhunt isn’t for the faint of heart. Like it or not, the game pushes the envelope of video game violence and shows you countless scenes of wholly uncensored, heavily stylized carnage.” GameSpot goes on to award it a rating of 8.4 out of 10 (meaning “great”). I dunno, folks…

I’ve gone into detail about Manhunt for a reason. Let us now pay a visit to the UK…

~MR. THOMPSON TRAVELS ABROAD

Let me say at the outset that I’ve read conflicting accounts of the following story. Everyone, however, seems to agree on one thing: in February 2004, Warren Leblanc, 17, of Leicester, East Midlands, UK, murdered a 14-year-old friend, Stefan Pakeerah, by stabbing him repeatedly and beating him with a claw hammer. Leblanc subsequently pleaded guilty to the crime.

At issue, however, was Leblanc’s motivation. Some reports claim that he needed money to pay off a drug debt and that his motive was robbery. But the victim’s family, as well as many others, blame Manhunt — a game with which they claimed Leblanc was obsessed.

According to a CNN article about the case dated July 29, 2004,”Britain’s Daily Mail…carried a front page headline: ‘Murder by Playstation’ and another saying: ‘Horror images on computer drove teenager to kill his friend aged 14.'”

After Leblanc entered his guilty plea in July 2004, several things came to light. According to a BBC article dated August 4, 2004, “…Leicestershire Police said their investigations did not uncover any links with the game and said the motive for the murder had been robbery.”

The article goes on to quote a spokesman for UK retailer HMV, who says, “Interest in Manhunt has significantly increased for all the wrong reasons. It’s flying off the shelves…People who had never heard of the game now want to buy it.” Well, go figure.

An excellent article appearing on IGN.com, also dated August 4, 2004, provides a good summary of the situation:

“Last week 17 year-old Warren Leblanc pleaded guillty to the crime of killing 14 year-old Stefan Pakeerah. Leblanc was supposedly strongly influenced by Rockstar’s Manhunt and the focus of the murder has shifted from Leblanc to the role of violent videogames in modern culture. UK retailer Dixons has responded to the front-page headlines by pulling the title from their shelves. What’s next is yet to be determined, but the mother of the victim has taken on American lawyer Jack Thompson as her lawyer to provide counsel.”

IGN then presents a revealing interview with Mr. Thompson. I must say that I respect the way Ed Lewis of IGN handled the interview in the face of a rather strong attitude on Thompson’s part.

For instance, when Lewis asks Thompson if there have been any reports showing that violent video games have more of a negative influence on kids that do other forms of violent media such as motion pictures, Thompson responds:

“…when the industry gets a study they commission people. We lawyers who do litigation call those people ‘whores’ and they, in effect, skew the results and then do the studies to get the results. And they’re paid to do it!

“All of this stuff I read in places like your magazine or others that say there are no studies that suggest there’s a linkage or that they aren’t reliable and so forth. People who say that ought to be in the Flat Earth Society.”

Ouch. Lewis keeps his head in the face of these and other barbs, and does a very good job of letting Thompson have his say. It’s quite an interesting interview.

Some of the conflicting information I encountered regarding the UK shooting has one source saying that Manhunt actually belonged to Pakeerah; another saying no, it was Leblanc’s; and yet another saying yes, it was Leblanc’s, but he had loaned it to Pakeerah and it was in Pakeerah’s possession at the time of the murder. All three statements were picked up and propagated in various online gaming forums.

Also, several sources reported that Thompson had filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pakeerah’s mother seeking fifty million pounds in damages. Thompson, however, categorically denied this, saying he was assisting the victim’s mother “in other ways.”

Interesting side note: Both Manhunt and Postal 2 (Whiptail Interactive/Running with Scissors) have been banned in New Zealand by the Office of Film & Literature Classification under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act of 1993. It is illegal to sell, own, or bring these games into the country; doing so carries penalties of fines up to $50,000 and imprisonment for one year. The people in Wellington are serious, folks.

~THOMPSON: HALO RATES NO HALO, NOR DOES THE U.S. DEPT. OF DEFENSE

In a July 2004 Washington Times Op-Ed piece, Jack Thompson writes that one of 2002’s Beltway Snipers — 17-year-old Lee Boyd Malvo (aka John Lee Malvo) — had been trained to kill by John Allen Muhammed via the XBOX game Halo Bungie/Microsoft) played in “God mode.”

Microsoft describes Halo as “a sci-fi shooter that takes place on a mysterious alien ring-world. Packed with combat, Halo will have you battling on foot, in vehicles, inside and outdoors with Alien and Human weaponry. Your objective: to uncover Halo’s horrible secrets and destroy mankind’s sworn enemy, the Covenant.”

Thompson also writes that he had appeared on NBC’s Today Show two weeks before Muhammed and Malvo were apprehended. When Matt Lauer asked Thompson who he thought the Beltway Sniper was, he replied: “We will find it is a teen-age boy trained on a shooter video game switched to ‘God mode.’ ‘I am God’ on the tarot card [found near the scene of one of the shootings] — a gamer mantra — is a clue.”

Side note: I feel that the above blanket statement misleadingly assigns this “I am God” attribute to everyone who plays video games. I’m very much a gamer, but to the best of my recollection I’ve never uttered the phrase “I am God” (although I’ve been known to say other things — many of them four-letter — when I’m stuck on a ridiculously difficult puzzle that ends up taking three days to solve).

In the same Op-Ed piece, Thompson states his position that the Dept. of Defense “takes our tax dollars and pays the video-game industry to create virtual-reality-killing simulators — video games. DOD then frees the industry to sell these killing simulators on the civilian market…Kids are training themselves on simulators…to kill one another…You think Columbine was bad? Just wait.”

Um, let’s see…does this mean that non-violent kids who play video-games-that-are-really-trainers end up wanting to kill each other? Or is it that kids who already want to kill each other are training to do so using video games? And while I’m at it, have we just heard another example of “all video games are violent” rhetoric?

Excuse me a minute, folks. (Sound of head repeatedly banging into wall.)

~AN ASIDE CONCERNING HALO 2…

On December 1, 2004, an article entitled Parents face tough choices on M-rated games appeared in the Dallas Morning News. The article presents contrasting views from parents regarding the newly released Halo 2 for XBOX, as follows:

“‘I don’t think it’s a positive influence,’ says David Nelson, 45…who stood firm against buying the first ‘Halo’ and pre-ordering the sequel for his son Andrew, 11.” Nelson does, however, allow Andrew “to play it [Halo] at his friends’ houses and at Tru Gamerz, a Dallas LAN (Local Area Network) center, which hosts ‘Halo’ and other video game contests.'” (Note: To its credit, Tru Gamerz lets the under-17 crowd play M-rated games only with their parents’ permission.)

Nelson continues, “‘…I like to take the long view of parenting…Some of the wildest kids I knew in college came from very restrictive homes. I’d rather my child feels that he can be honest and open in telling me he played ‘Halo.’ By not coming down on him, it makes him feel he can ask me questions about other things he doesn’t understand.'”

Well, the above is something I don’t quite understand. I have no minor children, so maybe I’m just missing the point — but wouldn’t it be preferable for an 11-year-old kid to be playing an M-rated game that his or her parent doesn’t consider to be a positive influence (but is letting the kid play anyway) at home, under supervision? I also wonder about the mixed message a situation such as the above may send. If a game isn’t acceptable to a parent, would it not continue to be unacceptable no matter where it’s played?

The article goes on to say: “[J]udging from ‘Halo 2’s’ first-day sales of 2.4 million copies and $125 million, many more parents side with Linda Onorato, 48…who reserved the sequel for her boys, ages 13, 15 and 18…’I’ve seen enough of ‘Halo’ to know it’s nothing shocking,’ says Onorato, referring to the original 2001 game and noting that she sees its story line, pitting humans against aliens, as a war-strategy game.

“For every expert who puts out a study linking video game violence to violence in kids, there’s another finding no link at all. Lawmakers are similarly divided. Bills are proposed to limit kids’ access to violent video games, but so far, those bills have failed to hold up against legal challenges. Which leaves it up to parents to weigh the merits of protecting their kids from bad influences vs. isolating them from peers by forbidding access to the games.”

Isolating them from peers? Hmmm. I really have to wonder about a social order that mandates the playing of violent video games as a prerequisite for acceptance. I sure am happy I’m not a kid these days.

~ANOTHER ASIDE: THE DEPT. OF DEFENSE

The U.S. Army actually does have an official video game. It’s an MMOG called America’s Army – Special Forces. According to the website there are over 5 million registered players, with over 1.34 billion missions having been played. The game’s overview reads:

“America’s Army is one of the five most popular PC action games played online. It provides players with the most authentic military experience available, from exploring the development of Soldiers in individual and collective training to their deployment in simulated missions in the War on Terror.”

Interestingly, although the site reflects a “T” rating (13+) for the game, it has no listing in the ESRB site under its exact title. There are three listings, but two are for the title America’s Army: Operations, both rated “T” for “Blood, Violence,” and the other is the E-rated America’s Army: Soldiers, which contains “Mild Language.”

The game’s online FAQ section reflects the following:

“Q: How do you keep children under the age of 13 from having access to the game?

“A: The game CD will only be distributed to those individuals that can prove that they are over 13. With the game on the Internet it is hard to control who is able to access it and we have to rely on parents being educated about how their children are spending time online. We have made a game that stresses values and does not condone bad behavior.

“In addition, we’ve added Parental Controls. Parents are able to alter and control certain aspects of gameplay in the game. Parents can disable all the blood in the game, enable a language filter, disallow the ability to play as an Advanced Marksman, and limit gameplay to only those missions which features the MILES laser-tag type play.”

Despite the game’s MMOG status, the ESRB apparently hasn’t applied the standard language for such games (“Game Experience May Change During Online Play”). We’ll be delving into the issue of ratings enforcement on MMOGs as well as games sold via the Internet a little later.

~LAWYER JACK DOES GRAND THEFT AUTO

Late one afternoon in June 2003, two Newport, Tennessee teens (who are also stepbrothers) grew bored playing Grand Theft Auto III. They decided it would be fun to shoot at tractor-trailer rigs traveling on Interstate 40 instead. So they took a couple of .22 rifles belonging to their parents from a closet, went to a hill overlooking I-40, and opened fire. They killed one motorist and wounded two others.

When 15-year-old William Buckner and 13-year-old Josh Buckner confessed to the shootings, they said they hadn’t meant to hurt anyone. They claimed that Grand Theft Auto had made them do it.

Representing the families of the victims, Jack Thompson filed a $246 million lawsuit against Sony Entertainment, Take-Two Entertainment, Rockstar Games and Wal-Mart, as well as the two shooters and their parents.

Okay, I need to say a few things at this point…

Both Will and Josh had been raised in unstable environments. Further, Will was slightly brain damaged as a result of suffering a cerebral hemorrhage when he was only a month old. Josh, who had been diagnosed with ADHD, was on medication.

Although Will and Josh were too young to have bought the M-rated GTA III, they didn’t have to — Paul Buckner, Josh’s 19-year-old stepbrother, had given it to him. It also appears that the two boys had easy access to firearms that were kept in the house.

After Will and Josh had taken up residence at a juvenile detention facility, Will told his mother, “It wasn’t the game that made us think to go out and do this. We wanted to do this. The idea was to act out the game. But the game didn’t reprogram our minds.” He also expressed dismay over a lawsuit having been filed against the entertainment companies.

In commenting on Thompson’s lawsuit, ESA’s Doug Lowenstein said this: “The notion that they [the shooters] don’t know right from wrong, that they don’t know that picking up a weapon and shooting people is morally wrong and that somehow ‘a video game made me do it’ is just ridiculous.”

~AGAIN, PLEASE DON’T GET ME WRONG…

While I do take exception to some of lawyer Thompson’s positions, I have no problem with his contention that M-rated games should not be marketed and/or sold to anyone under 17. As I’ve already illustrated, this issue appears to be a major point of disagreement between the video game industry and those who claim that M-rated games are freely available at the retail level to gamers of any age.

However, I definitely question situations such as the one examined above, where an M-rated game is purchased by someone who is old enough by ESRB standards to do so, and given to two juveniles for whom such a game was never intended (see the next section, below). How in the world are the video game industry, legislators, the courts, and/or the federal government supposed to control something like that? Should adults who provide inappropriate games to kids who go on to perpetrate violence be held culpable? If so, should they be considered accessories and face criminal prosecution?

For me, these are serious issues that aren’t easily reconciled. However, as I’ve previously said, I believe the bottom line is that parents need to be responsible for their children’s proper upbringing. In my opinion, a bunch of adults pointing after-the-fact fingers at video games, other outside influences, and one another doesn’t get us very far at all.

PART VI

~WHEN ADULTS BUY VIOLENT GAMES FOR CHILDREN

A lot of noise has been made about ESRB ratings being confusing and difficult for parents to understand (more about that later). But what about parents and other adults who are aware of a T- or M-rated game’s content and buy it for kids anyway, as was the case with Will and Josh Buckner?

Have a look at the following, from an online article in the Victorville (CA) Daily Press dated April 27, 2005 and entitled SEEK AND RESTRICT (I’m not shouting; the title is in all caps on the web page). It concerns Californa Assembly Bill 450, which would criminalize the sale of M-rated games to children under 17 and impose a fine of $1,000 for doing so:

“[M]any parents see no problem in letting their children play violent games…Lamel Jiggets, 26, allows his 6-year-old son to play Grand Theft Auto, one of the games that advocates of AB 450 say is the most violent on the market…’I allow him to play Grand Theft Auto. It don’t affect him,’ Jiggets said. ‘We got movies, too. Kids are going to be seeing violence, regardless. It should be the parents (that are responsible). We shouldn’t blame society for our mishaps.'”

Considering the almost perpetual state-level efforts to ban the sale of M-rated games to kids under 17, I wonder if anyone has realized that this kind of law doesn’t address the issue of adults buying such games and giving them to members of the under-17 crowd, thereby rendering such legislation grossly ineffective? I mean, shouldn’t this kind of scenario be covered somewhere, too? If the point is to keep M-rated games away from kids under 17, shouldn’t parents and other adults who give such games to underage kids be held at least as accountable as retailers? If the government is going to mandate that retailers participate in the raising of children, shouldn’t parents and other adults be required to participate in it, too?

I concede that state laws could keep some kids from playing M-rated games. But as we’ve seen, it takes only one or two kids to pull off a bloodbath. So, those who claim that violent video games are a direct cause of juvenile violence had better realize that even if laws restricting the sale of such games to minors manage to stand, it’s not going to stop kids from acquiring the games through other means.

Say, I have an idea. With all of the technological advances such as GPS tracking, RFD tags, and airport screening machines that can see through people’s clothing (grrrrrrrr), maybe someone could come up with a way to determine the age of whoever is playing a particular game, as well as the age of the person who bought the game and anyone else who may have handled it from the time it was purchased to the point it landed in inappropriate hands. Then we’d know who to go after if a kid ever did something bad that could possibly be linked to playing M-rated games.

Or, maybe a teeny camera could be devised that could be hidden in computer monitors, game consoles, portable gaming devices, etc., and “smart” optical drives could be developed that could sense the rating of game software. That way, when the camera “saw” a kid under 17 playing an M-rated game, a silent alarm could be triggered to alert police that a crime is in progress (despite the fact that there are no laws prohibiting the under-17 crowd from playng M-rated games), and they could descend on the player (and any adults who happen to be in the area), and throw ’em all in jail.

Maybe some of the above has already been implemented. Perhaps you’re being watched by your monitor right now.

Yes, the above is dripping with sarcasm, but I’m using it to make a point. I really do think that if someone wants something badly enough, he or she will find a way to get it. Look at how Prohibition (1920-1933), mandated by the 18th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (also known as the Volstead Act), gave rise to speakeasies, bootlegging, and a very lucrative business for organized crime.

Despite the illegality of alcohol during Prohibition, the demand for it remained strong and people kept drinking. Ultimately, the Volstead Act was a failure. It was repealed in 1933 via the 21st Amendment.

This brings something to mind that I’d like to throw in for no particular reason. When I was a little kid, The Untouchables, starring the late Robert Stack as Elliot Ness, was a very popular TV series. At the time, it also happened to be the most violent show on television. I watched it regularly for four years, but I didn’t end up working for the FBI, nor did I join organized crime or ever feel the need to carry a Thompson (and no, I don’t mean Jack Thompson) submachine gun.

Considering the way some people have characterized the effects of media violence on kids, however, it seems that between watching The Untouchables and Roadrunner cartoons, I should currently be serving a life sentence in prison.

~ARE WE RAISING VIOLENT, BRAINWASHED ZOMBIES?

In February 2000, Helga LaRouche of the Schiller Institute gave a speech entitled The Mark of the Beast – America’s Children Are In Mortal Danger, in which one of the topics is “the cult of Pokémon.” In Pokémon games, according to Ms. LaRouche, “you can attack your opponent either through fire–you throw fire at them–or electricity, lightning, or you destroy them through seismic shock, and eventually you outdo your opponent. It’s totally mechanistic; there is no way to influence this game, other than this mechanistic pushing of the buttons. No creativity. No cognition…Now as everybody knows, the minds of children are completely impressionable, because children learn primarily through imitation and through play. But what is there here to imitate? Aggression. And what is completely lacking? Love, compassion, joy, beauty…in Pokémon, there is no discovery, there is no hypothesis, no creativity, no soul, no cognition. Pokémon is the Dream-Eater which sucks the soul out of the child and turns it into a potential little killing machine.”

She goes on to say, “Don’t worry about guns, because Pokémon-trained kids will kill you with fire, lightning, electricity, or anything else. And the more Internet connections to schools we have, if there are no fundamental changes in the education system, the more little monsters you will have…”

Daikatana from Ion Storm (Deus Ex, Anachronox), released in 2000, is also specifically mentioned in Ms. Larouche’s talk. She says:

“…Daikatana supposedly gives a new dimension of realism, taking advantage of the roaring processing speed of computers and powerful three-dimensional graphics, accelerator cards…The computer screen replaces your field of vision and you believe that you are actually creeping around a corner, afraid the enemy is lying in wait. You feel your pulse quicken. When the monster jumps out, real adrenalin roars thorough your body. Everything is so lifelike, you can almost feel the wet blood.”

At this point, I can’t resist getting into some irony. As you may have discerned, I’m big on irony. Read on…

~DAIKATANA

The creation of Daikatana was supposed to have taken seven months but dragged on for three years. When it was finally released in April 2000, it didn’t fare too well with critics. According to the UK’s Ferrago Ltd., “Daikatana received an unprecedented critical mauling and consequently sunk without a trace at retail. The Dallas office of Ion Storm was soon to close down.” (Note: The Dallas office did close in 2001.)

I’ve read enough reviews of Daikatana to know that all of them weren’t bad. But because the game had taken so long to finish, it looked somewhat dated when compared to other new releases that had been created using more up-to-date engines (an enhanced Quake 2 engine was used for Daikatana). The game also had quite a few bugs.

According to Game Revolution’s less-than-favorable review, “The action is repetitive, and thanks to lousy AI, gets old really fast. The level design is blocky, inconsistent, un-detailed and often squandering the potential of the setting. Graphically, Daikatana is the ugly duckling of Quake 2‘s children. Using that venerable engine, with only a few nips and tucks…Daikatana screams 1997 with fire and passion. Characters have low polygon counts, animation is stunningly awful…For the most part, texturing is very repetitive…The overall appearance is, needless to say, less than impressive.”

I’m not pointing out Daikatana‘s shortcomings because I’m a mean old thing, but to illustrate a point. Does the above sound like a game “where everything is so lifelike you can almost feel the wet blood?” I freely admit that I haven’t played Daikatana. But I don’t think Ms. LaRouche has, either.

Now, let’s fast-forward to the present — where Ion Storm no longer exists, anywhere. According to the above-referenced Ferrago story (dated February 13, 2005), “Ion Storm’s last remaining outpost in Austin, Texas was abandoned yesterday, according to a press release from its parent company Eidos.” (Note: That’s the UK-based game-publishing giant Eidos Interactive, which bankrolled the development of Daikatana and other Ion Storm games.)

Members of the Just Adventure Forum didn’t waste any time starting a discussion thread about Ion Storm’s demise. You can read what everyone had to say at:
http://www.justadventure.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1108068902/14.

For anyone who might be interested, Geoff Keighley’s Behind the Games series for GameSpot includes an intriguing (albeit lengthy) look at the creation of Daikatana entitled Knee Deep in a Dream: The Story of Daikatana (located at http://www.gamespot.com/features/btg-daikatana/p9_01.html). I found it absolutely fascinating.

Daikatana is still being sold, by the way, and I picked up an interesting tidbit during my research of the game. Let me preface it by saying that Daikatana is rated “M” (Mature, age 17+) for Animated Violence, and Animated Blood and Gore (with one exception, which I’ll get to in a minute). In the game’s README file, veteran designer John Romero (DOOM, Quake, and the driving force behind the creation of Daikatana) writes the following:

“Since Daikatana is a game for big, big boys (and girls), you should be ready to face-down horrible monsters, track down an evil scientist through time, learn how to efficiently control your sidekick buddies, and generally prepare yourself for extreme action and massive mayhem.”

A game for big, big boys and girls? I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t sound like something one would say to gamers who are over 17 years old to me. Hmmm. Perhaps Mr. Romero was engaging in some irony of his own…

Okay, now here comes some real irony, accompanied by a potentially confusing kick in the pants for anyone who is trying to understand ESRB ratings. In late 2000, Kemko (a Japanese developer/publisher owned by Kotobuki System) released a version of Daikatana ported to Game Boy Color consoles. But wait — this one is rated “Everyone” (age 6 and above). Huh??

Well, according to a GameSpot review, it seems that the entire game was reworked: “Unlike the laughable PC and N64 releases, the Game Boy Color Daikatana is not a 3D first-person shooter. Instead, it’s a top-down-perspective dungeon crawler with action-RPG elements, and it’s a fun one at that.”

So here we have the results of a search of the ESRB site for the title Daikatana (talk about double takes):

(1) Eidos Interactive (Publisher), Nintendo 64 (Platform), Rated M (17+) for Animated Blood & Gore, Animated Violence
(2) Kotobuki System (Publisher), Nintendo 64 (Platform), Rated M (17+) for Animated Blood & Gore, Animated Violence
(3) Kotobuki System (Publisher), Game Boy Color (Platform), Rated E (6+) for Mild Animated Violence

I find it interesting that as of December 5, 2005, the PC version isn’t even mentioned by the ESRB. Yet I have a Moby Games image of the front of the PC-version box up on my monitor right now (see http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/john-romeros-daikatana/cover-art/gameCoverId,12400/), and I can clearly see an “M” Rating. When I flip the box over (see http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/john-romeros-daikatana/cover-art/gameCoverId,12401/), I see the word “Mature” followed by content descriptors “Animated Violence, Animated Blood & Gore.” I wonder why the ESRB site doesn’t reflect this??

Well, whatever the reason, I can sure go off on a tangent. Let’s move along quickly now, before I accidentally start knocking my head into another wall…

~MORE FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR

In its Fall 2000 issue, 21st Century Science and Technology magazine published an article entitled PROGRAMMED TO KILL – Video Games, Drugs, and The “New Violence.” Referring to Columbine, it says “…Littleton was only the most notorious of at least eight similar such incidents carried out by child killers, ‘Manchurian Children,’ [a term also used by Jack Thompson] who learned their deadly skills from video games, and their scenarios from Hollywood.” It goes on to also refer to “Manchurian Children” as “Nintendo Killers.”

In a 2001 paper entitled Video Games and the Elusive Search for their Effects on Children: An Assessment of Twenty Years of Research, James D. Ivory presents the most even-handed treatment of the video game violence issue that I’ve come across so far. In exploring various studies, Ivory finds that results are often at odds with each other. He states:

“While the topic is a well-researched and widely debated issue in both scholarly work and public discussion, studies of the possible negative effects of video games are so contradictory along all fronts that it is impossible to make an unequivocal, unanimously supported claim for or against the existence of far-ranging negative media effects on children.”

The paper goes on to quote Annie Lang, a researcher on children and the media:

“‘The problem is societal. We all need to come together on this issue because like it or not, there will always be the one person who walks a thin line and just needs a nudge in a society brimming with violent messages and guns at easy access.'”

Mr. Ivory notes that even as the public voices concern over violent video games, “manufacturers have stood firm in their denial that video games negatively affect children, and some have claimed that increased regulation jeopardizes their First Amendment rights…While research has failed to provide firm conclusions on how best to guide the video game industry’s production and regulation, attitudes remain quite polarized.”

In an article entitled Studies Show Violent Videos Damage Brain, in the December 2002 issue of Executive Intelligence Review, author Don Phau says the following:

“Recently released medical studies indicate that violent video games damage the brain, possibly permanently. Video games may be more dangerous to your health than cigarettes or alcohol. This national scandal has been covered for the benefit of the $10 billion-a-year video-game industry, of which violent games rated “M,” for Mature, are the fastest-growing segment. Approximately 20 million Americans, many under 18, play these “M” games. The studies, many years in the making, show that repeated playing of violent video games ‘desensitizes’ the activities of the brain involved in reasoning and planning, while activating those functions that respond to violence. The studies include scientific data indicating that these games may actually cause destructive behavior.”

As if I didn’t incur enough brain damage in the ’60s. Damn.

Page 1 | Table of Contents | Page 3