British Government Plans New Classification Laws
Like Michael Myers, the game violence debate just wont disappear when you want it to, and when you thought everything was safe, it's there breathing down your neck. The British government, in response to calls for an enquiry into the nature of video game violence alongside internet nasties, is now looking to formalise a system of mandatory classification reminiscent of that found accompanying film releases.
As the recent enquiry into Man Hunt 2 highlighted, the BBFC takes a role in censoring the most extreme games. Current forms of statutory labelling only apply to titles which feature 'gross' violence to people or animals; representatives from the BBFC clarified last year at the Women in Games conference that the context in which the violence is shown is taken into consideration, so if there is a frame of fantasy and disbelief which prevents the violence from being 'unremitting' and 'senseless' then it is considered to be established appropriately for an audience.
Read on after the jump...
That makes sense, though isn't a case for outright censorship in my view
In a cover story for today's Guardian political editor Patrick Wintour commented that the current approach to labelling
...leaves up to 90% of games on the market , many of which portray weapons, martial arts and extreme combat, free from statutory labelling.
The two implications being first (and most optimistically) that the new film standard labelling would best help the consumer make sense of the content of current video game titles; secondly, that a fair percentage of commercially available video games are chock-a-block with rampant, frenzied combat. While the BBFC take into consideration the issue of context in the proper determination of violence within games, sometimes I wonder about the degree to which the non-player perception of game content invariably misapprehends the
what players think about and derive from gameplay. Games aren't what they were, moving from obscure subculture to play an increased role in everyday life inevitably comes at the cost of increased regulation. Some of the contemporary (journalistic and policy) claims for video game violence seem mired in the controversy that has surrounded previous titles (Mortal Kombat for instance), and risk neglecting the increasingly diverse contemporary development scene.
As MIT Media Professor Henry Jenkins has highlighted time and again, an overt focus on the potentially harmful effects of media on young people tends to conveniently move away from the meanings and contexts those same individuals might derive from a game. It creates a picture of the child player as an uncomplicated uncritical sponge absorbing and then directly implementing what they see on the screen.
It makes me sad that the video game violence debate takes another turn toward extremity and polemic here in the UK; while reasonable measures are being taken in some departments the simple logical issues get forgotten. In that same article Wintour writes:
Ministers are also expected to advise parents to keep computers and games consoles away from children's bedrooms as much as possible, and ask them to play games in living rooms or kitchens facing outward so carers can see what is being played.
On the surface this seems reasonable, but it's important to note a few things. Here in the UK a recently released title for XBOX360 or PS3 retails at about £40 ($78); when I was a little whipper-snapper, I certainly didn't have that kind of ready cash at my disposal, in fact my access to games was entirely dependent on trapping my parents with a barrage of superspecial nags and well-timed tears. The cost of buying games place the vast majority of parents in a position of responsibility; furthermore if games come into the home since many parents are gamers themselves, then it is down to them to determine proper use and the terms of access.
The full obligations of parenting aren't taken into account in these debates; an increasingly scrupulous UK government is looking directly at the developer for answers, without proper understanding of the ways in which contemporary parents act as gatekeepers for media. So much of this reminds me of the Frederick Wertham 'Seduction of the Innocent' trials, which surrounded the ways in which young people of the 1940s and 50s were being corrupted by 'evil' detective novels and horror comic books. In these landmark trials, a similarly uncomplicated notion of young people brainlessly devouring media and then maliciously enacting its content were touted. In the same way, the real problem was an uncomplicated view of children's capacity to discern fantasy from reality, and the need to assert the role of the parent in taking responsibility for children's media.
I hope the reasonable people at the BBFC play a prominent role in the government review of video game violence, and steer issues toward what we might call 'information for choice in parenting' rather than outright and overreaching censorship.
SuperSpecialDavey
Posted to Hot Stuff on 9 February 2008
· Comments (1)
Other stuff like this: bbfc, uk, violence, Violent Games, violent games, violent video game, violent video games
Doesn't most kids tv portray weapons, martial arts and combat?
He-Man, Biker Mice, Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers..
..that would explain the recent rise in Gay Furry Biker Ninja violence among youths, I guess.