So we now see, after reading part one, that interactivity being used as a justification for the study concentrating on games falls apart on close examination of the study itself. Which begs the question: why did TRIAL and Pro Juventute choose to concentrate on games? One possibility, is that these organisations – previously almost unheard of outside of their native Switzerland – wanted more visibility on the international stage. As certain politicians and bland daytime TV ‘celebrities’ know well, video games remain an easy populist target for criticism (though much less than they were ten years ago). But there is another, wholly more admirable possibility, suggested by another paragraph from the introduction:

“The link with reality is in fact so direct that nowadays several armies rely on video games both as a recruiting and as a training tool. Military from some states put video games on their websites to give the viewers a virtual experience of what being a soldier is like. Such games allow them to virtually participate in trainings, be deployed on missions, fire weapons, take decisions in unexpected battlefield situations, etc. Military also use video games, or “simulations” more and more often as a training tool in addition to “on the field” training. This demonstrates the impact of video games on the players and their behaviour in reality.”

The basic idea of tighter regulation on war games, from the viewpoint of them being used as military recruitment tools, is sound. However, this study seems very uninformed and confused when it comes to what, exactly, it sees and does. For starters, it seems that the authors have great difficulty in distinguishing between military combat simulators and commercially available video games – which is a huge and important difference. They also mention video games being made available to play on army websites – but you’re not going to get Operation Flashpoint or Modern Warfare 2 as a free – to – play flash game on any army’s site. Most army games nowadays have military or ex – military advisers involved during development, which is worth bearing in mind. But rather than pretending all soldiers across the planet play by the rules, perhaps a better suggestion would be to stop perpetuating the myth that armed combat is all about riding in helicopters and high – fiving your buddies; and walking away from battles with barely a scratch. It would also be worth, just every now and again, pointing out the fact that the enemy think they’re doing the right thing every last bit as much as ‘our boys’ do. And how about reminding people that sometimes, people like the Brits and Yanks, you know… actually start wars? And that when it’s Them that started the trouble, it’s often Us (usually the American government) that put Them into power in the first place? Saddam Hussein, ever heard of him? But I digress.

The point is, every person or organisation that calls for a game to be censored or banned has some kind of personal motive. Often, as I have already mentioned, it’s a glory hunting politician or lawyer, frustrated at the fact that they’ve been out of the public eye for 48 hours. Can be a vote winner, too (but in a few generations, that’s going to change completely). As I’ve previously posited, it is fear of video games that leads to irrational criticism of them.

By and large, it is personal gain of some description that is the engine driving ludicrous machines of hate aimed at the games industry. More votes, more viewers, more papers sold, more airtime…for me, me, me. It’s nice to see this attitude backfire which, on rare occasions, it does.

Manhunt 2 encountered problems getting rated across the world, but was eventually released in almost all significant territories. It encountered a lot of trouble in the UK, when the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) initially refused to rate it at all. Rockstar offered them a watered down version – but again, it was refused a classification, making it illegal to sell in the UK. So Rockstar went to the Video Appeals Committee, who overturned the decision, and forced the BBFC to award Manhunt 2 an 18 certificate. The BBFC fought the decision, but lost; and with much gritting of teeth, allowed the game to be released. When declaring their intention to fight the appeal decision, the BBFC’s statement included this interesting paragraph:

“The VAC judgement, if allowed to stand, would have fundamental implications with regard to all the Board’s decisions, including those turning upon questions of unacceptable levels of violence.”

Basically, the BBFC (who classified the first game without such a fight) made a last – ditch attempt to save face – and failed miserably. Whether or not this played a part in video games being taken away from them in the UK the year after the game’s release (all games in the UK are now rated by PEGI) is something we’ll never know for sure.

Censorship, or calls for it, in games can sometimes be down to the erroneous belief that they are played almost exclusively by children. Indeed, at one point, the human rights study I have been talking about says that the games they are concerned about are played by “thousands of children and young people”. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt however, as the age certification for each game is stated, and therefore acknowledged, throughout the study. There can be no doubt how the Australian censors feel about video games, however.

The OFLC (Office of Film and Literature Classification) in Australia is stricter than most other similar bodies elsewhere in the world, but is unforgiving when it comes to video games. Incredibly, there exists no R18+ certificate for video games in Australia. This is why games rated ’18′ or ‘R’ elsewhere in the world are heavily censored in Australia, or fail to be released in the territory at all. This attitude seems to make it clear that the official stance in Australia is that video games are for kids; but there is a growing movement to push for an R18+ certification for video games.

There are some people who call for an end to censorship altogether; allow anything and everything to be released and, so long as it has the appropriate age rating, allow people to decide what they find acceptable for themselves. This is lazy thinking, however. Concentrating on games for the purpose of this article, some degree of censorship and regulation is not only desirable, but also necessary for a strong and respected gaming industry. I’m not talking about stamping out rude words, and removing blood and gore from violent games. See how we don’t have child molestation simulators, gay and black extermination FPS games, and war games with FMV of real executions on shop shelves? That’s censorship and regulation, and it’s a good thing.

Do you think that nobody would make those games if they were allowed to? Really? Definitely not respectable publishers and developers; but the world is an ugly place, and the sad truth is that each of those games would have a market for two – bit companies to exploit.

Overzealous censorship is the problem. Next time you hear about an individual or organisation calling for a game to be banned or censored, ask yourself: why? What’s in it for them? You’ll find that they’re very rarely concerned about other people…

Playing By The Rules

MCV: BBFC Applies For Official Judicial Review On Manhunt 2 Ruling

OFLC Wikipedia Page

What causes violence? If you are a fan of George Lucas then you know that ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to anger, and anger to violence. I ask this as currently we are going through the yearly attack on gaming, largely caused by Modern Warfare 2; but most probably an attack which would have attached itself to another game had MW2 not been released. It’s the time of year when everyone wants a game and hence gaming is big. It used to be films which were attacked at this time of year, but hey, compared to games they are so small fry.

It's the fault of these guys. If only they had gone by Easyjet and left the guns at home. Stag parties are getting too complicated these days.

Now whenever I see a news report discussing evidence of how games might make a player violent, I see quotes relating to how those who play games demonstrate increased adrenalin and hence are ‘pumped up’. I can accept that. I can also accept that the same symptom might be displayed by those watching or taking part in football, rugby, boxing, X-Factor, Crufts, ballroom dancing, viewing the news, horse racing, motor sports and, for those who get a kick out of it, fishing.

Are we suggesting we ban those? Of course those commentators who are either stupid or just set out to be, might argue that their point is that only games have you committing acts of violence. I would point out that the violence though has to be triggered through some kind of condition or state of mind. Adrenalin is an indicator normally associated with such a situation. There is little evidence out there of players actually going to commit violence having just played a game. The research instead relies on indicators which might lead to violence, such as adrenaline. Well doesn’t that mean many activities have the potential to turn quiet, peace loving individuals into maniacs?!

In a month where six pupils at a school almost poisoned themselves for copying a plot line from the the pre-watershed BBC drama Waterloo Road, it’s amazing that the industry that got attacked was gaming! Now Waterloo Road is popular, but in the big scheme of things many more millions of young and old people are gaming than watching Waterloo Road. I would suggest that perhaps gaming is less dangerous compared to other activities such as watching EastEnders, Coronation Street, or possibly Countdown. It’s certainly worth examining on that level – i.e. looking at its effect on behaviour proportionally to the amount of gaming content consumed.

What is even more amazing is that the media have no problem with allowing lies about games being circulated. They seem to feel that it is fair game to drop all journalistic training and principles when it comes to attacking gaming. Hence, we see repeated quotes about how MW2 allows you to play as a terrorist – most shockingly played out on Fox TV. For those that have not played the game I have something to say. No you cannot!! You play a CIA operative embedded into a terrorist cell. You witness an attack and, if you feel it’s part of the character, can take part in a massacre; but ultimately you are a bystander to such an attack with limited control over the game at that point. It is crucial to the plot and at the end (spoiler alert) you yourself are then shot dead. It’s dramatic and has been seen in countless movies before. So why the problem now? You even get the choice to skip the scene – ever been offered that by a TV show or movie?

Now this isn't potentially violent at all? He is actually a member of the National Association of Local Butchers

Perhaps it’s because we call them games? Games are meant to be fun, and for children – right? That’s another lie the media propagate of course. They continually allow commentators to remind us that most people buying or playing the games are children. For sure, some are – but most people playing these games are 18 or above, and many are 25 years plus.

In the USA we hear people say that even if a game is bought by and for an adult, if there is a child in the house then they are sure to gain access and play it. Perhaps they are right. However, if they are, perhaps they should start by not keeping handguns in their house! I’m thinking (and correct me if you feel I’m missing something here) that this may be a more immediate and dangerous problem. And you know, you can even lock out your kids from your console very, very easily if you choose to.

I’m not saying there are not games out there with bad taste, nor am I suggesting there should not be age limits or even some games banned. If you can ban a film, then you should be able to ban a game. However, there should be parity between the art forms. In the UK the BBFC initially banned Manhunt 2 and fought to try to stop it being released. Why?

Now, apart from the pictures of men in masks holding guns AND this picture of a fist, what actually IS there on the packaging to alert parents to the fact that some games might contain shooting and violence?

Their own research concluded that players do not think that events in a game are real. We no more think we are really scoring the winning goal in the FA Cup than we think that we too have three heads and live on the planet Zog whilst playing a fantasy game. Indeed, they found that the fact they are interactive and we have to push buttons often brings us out of the drama and narrative, reminding us they are only games. This is something movies cannot do, and we can get lost in them and become ‘pumped up’ in a sustained way without having a release until the end of the film. So, why oh why, when it comes to violent games, suddenly all that research goes out of the window? What is the logic and reasoning for this? When films like SAW and Hostel are released, why then fight to ban Manhunt? Are the individuals in charge of these organisations stupid?

"I see stupid people, they're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know they're dumb!"

I don’t think they are. Well, I hope they aren’t anyway. I think it’s far more likely they are running scared. Those that are in the industry and those that are associated with it, such as the BBFC, still lack the self confidence to describe and communicate what gaming is to those that do not yet play them, as we do. This is a huge problem as it allows the issue to be hijacked by the Keith Vazs of this world. There are people, often important and influential people, who latch onto these issues without first thinking them through. People who, fuelled by their own ignorance, let their own emotions get carried away, eating away at their fear until they explode violently against an industry, artform and past-time which contributes greatly, in a positive way, to millions of people’s lives.

Maybe George Lucas had it right all along.