The Video Games or the Violence?

Yesterday I linked to the above video from ”Attack of the Show”, a cable series that deals with video games. In it, the release of an upcoming game, ”Bully”, was discussed by a panel consisting of Jack Thompson, a lawyer opposed to video games, Adam Sessler, one of the show's hosts, and Mark Friedler, CEO of gaming newsletter GameDaily. Thompson opposed the upcoming game, based on some early screen shots of various acts of violence, including a child having his head dunked in a toilet. He took a firm stance that video games are increasing violence in our society, citing that a child in 1997 who shot three of his classmates had somehow “trained” by playing the game Doom. Sessler took on an argumentative stance, straying at times from solid debate, yet did make some good points one of which was the fact that “violence existed prior to the release of even Pong.” Friedler's best contribution to the discussion, aside from citing freedom of expression, was the fact that his own two young boys had fought without ever playing a single game. Violence is inherent in all of us.

When horrible things like school shootings occur, there's a natural need to find a logical explanation, something to blame. Video games do have a rating system, though I doubt stores strictly enforce it. Even if they do refuse to sell certain games to minors, adults and even parents may be buying the games without really looking at the label. As for the consoles, there are failsafes built in. My PS2 refuses to play movies that are PG-13 or worse until I input my code. It's a useful tool for a parent, but I think we live in an age where children know more about technology than their parents, and easily circumvent such blocks, if parents are aware of them to begin with. As more and more people my age, having grown up with more exposure to games and computers, begin to have children I wonder if we'll see a shift in this trend. Kids really are born with violent trends. In elementary school I was often beaten by other kids, in an age where the most violent game was Donkey Kong. None of my bullies ever threw barrels at me, so I doubt that was the source of their inspiration. In some cases they did have more lenient parents than I did, who let them in to see R-rated movies and allowed them to stay awake and watch television past 9 PM. I know for a fact some of my opponents were emulating the now cartoonish exploits of The A-Team. Kids shouldn't see certain things before they're ready.

Is a game like Bully art imitating life, or will life imitate the art? Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The video games or the violence? Parents really need to take an active role in their children's lives and interests. I never had a television or a computer in my room. For a time when I was really young, our only television was in my parent's room, a 13” black and white set, and I had to watch what they were watching and vice versa. By the time I got my Intellivision, my mom had a new color set and I inherited the black and white one. I was limited to no more than an hour a day, and when I repeatedly pushed my limits my mom took a pair of scissors and cut the power cord to the television, to prove she meant business. My dad spliced the wires when he got home from work, and a few days later I tested my limits again. After she cut the wire a second time, my mom had my fear and respect. By high school, I had an NES with removable controllers. All my mom had to do was confiscate the controllers during the week, and I focused on my homework, with the goal of getting the controllers back for the weekend as a reward. I can't yet speak as a parent, but from my experience as an adult looking back on his childhood I'd say parents shouldn't worry about their children liking them. Be a parent first, and a friend later when your child grows up and appreciates the tough love.

We also live in an age where financially, it's difficult if not impossible for one parent to support a family the way my dad did. More and more mothers work, but the kids don't have to be unsupervised. I know plenty of mothers in my office who stay in contact throughout the day not only with their children, but their teachers, grandparents, and nannies. They call to make sure the television is off and homework is being done. Cell phones allow parents to reach children wherever they may be. Technology can be a source of good as much as an inspiration for evil. Violent images and lyrics can stir violence in children already prone to it, but through controlled exposure and parental involvement these children can be guarded until mature enough to handle it. I believe there are positive effects to video games too. Walking through a Babies “R” Us today I marveled at how many computerized learning toys there are for infants. Janet alluded to using games as a teaching tool yesterday. Games do increase reflexes and better prepare children for careers in which computer skills are mandatory, but the digital age has resulted in shorter attention spans. Kids can still be taught, but in a different way. Educational games probably don't sell as well as the violent ones, which may be another problem with the industry. If there were a market for schools to purchase these games, perhaps more would be manufactured. I vaguely remember a few from my Intellivision days, like The Jetsons' Way With Words and Mr. Basic Meets Bits ‘n Bytes.

Thompson has the right intentions, if the wrong target. My parents thought my generation was out of control, and here I am ironically thinking about “Kids today...” How bad will their children be, or the subsequent generations? A woman approached me in a park yesterday, followed me to my car and told me that she believed we as human beings could learn to get past our differences and cease fighting, and offered to show me a passage in the bible that said as much. I'm not sure the local park is the place for missionary work, to quell the violence in the world. In my case she was more or less preaching to the choir. In the same way, Thompson speaking out against a game that hasn't even been released, based on a few pictures and a rough description, is not attacking the problem at its source. As for the game itself, when I finally saw the trailer it struck me as a cross between The Simpsons and Rebel Without a Cause. Sometimes, a cause can blind a person to the very thing he's fighting against. The leap of some games are bad equaling all games are bad is akin to condemning an entire race or religion for the actions of a few of their number.

When I have kids, I probably won't be cutting any electrical cords, but they won't be playing games in our house while they're still in their single digits. I can't help what they play at their friends' homes or what they're exposed to in school, but I plan to keep a dialogue with them. When they're old enough to play games I can play with them, and discuss the differences between reality and a game. They'll sigh in exasperation, maybe even snap, and I'll just be their lame old man. My words will be in their subconscious when they make important decisions though, and they may be picked on by other kids for not conforming. When they're grown, they'll be able to watch whatever shows and movies they want, read their choice of books, and play their favorite games and songs. When they're old enough to make choices, choices should be available to them. They might end up enjoying violent games after all. They won't pick up a real gun though, because for one thing there won't be guns in the house. That's definitely a factor in any school shooting, and one that's oddly overlooked in favor of other scapegoats. A boy takes his dad's gun and shoots other kids because he played a video game? Why did his dad have a gun? Before these problems can be addressed and solved, the right questions need to be asked.

What do you think? Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? Did violence come before video games or vice versa?