Video games are too violent, people say. Everyone under the sun has heard this claim. Gamers disagree — activists agree. So ask me this: even if it’s old, is it still news?
Apparently.
A prison in the state of Missouri made an executive decision to take away dozens of violent PlayStation games from inmates. One of the games, “Hitman: contracts,” consists of “using meat hooks [and] silencer-equipped pistols to carry out brutal contract killings.”
In parts of Canada, violent video games will not be rented out to anyone under 18, and stores must ask for an ID — which has essentially put video games on the same danger level as tobacco and nudie bars.
Back in the states, a University of Massachusetts freshman took down an Internet game he created because of bad pub. In his game “Riot UMass,” a cartoon character donned in Red Sox apparel beating up policemen and using discovered police weapons to ward off anti-riot officers. The game was on University Web space, and UMass did not tell the student to take down the game, but a lot of negative press coverage was given to the game and its creator, Grant Cerulo.
In a seemingly sarcastic response, Cerulo posted a new game, called “Zoo Mass.” It features the same cartoon Red Sox fan, but instead of bloodying up the po-po, he feeds ducks on a campus pond. Points are awarded for how many ducks you feed.
I have not played either game — NCAA Football and Final Fantasy are more worthwhile in this columnist’s beloved spare time– but kudos to Cerulo and his smart-alecky approach to those person who find video games to be too violent.
A simple Google News search reveals a flurry of news stories pointed at the issue of violence in video games. Among the most notorious are “Grand Theft Auto,” “Doom” and “Half-Life.”
Since this is news, I’ll give you some more news: all video games are violent. That’s what makes them fun.
I’ve heard the old defense of video games: “I play ‘Grand Theft Auto’ all the time and I never killed anybody.” It’s a clever defense, but doesn’t hold up well in court. People were killing peasants, hookers and nobles long before the Atari was invented.
That’s obvious — not every adept gamer takes their fictional sharpshooting skills to the real world. But research has been done on violent video games, and the American Psychological Association has come out with mounds of data that supports this theory. (Going into it will bore you. Moving on.)
In short, science believes that playing violent video games increases people’s tendencies of aggressive behavior. This can come in all forms. Murder is the extreme case.
There are numerous instances in this world of aggressive behavior. Sexual assault, domestic violent, drunken brawls and atomic wedgies are just a few examples of socially unacceptable practices.
I’ve never been one to refute the findings of the APA, so I’ll take their word. Video games that have violence will make gamers more aggressive.
Society’s fault. Let’s blame society for our citizens being violent (it’s been blamed for everything else). After all, removing violence out of video games would take all the flavor out of Nintendo.
Cerulo’s “Zoo Mass” illustrated this point. Feeding ducks isn’t a game — it’s barely a sub-game, and feeding ducks in real life is for kindly old gentlemen who fear technology.
So what’s a society to do?
Nothing.
Keep playing these games. Mario shooting fire at turtles is violent. Football players tackling other football players and injuring them is violent. Tetris — whenever one holds the down button and slams down a piece — is violent.
Still, when a violent game comes under fire, overprotective parents will cause a ruckus, but naive parents will still purchase them. C’est la vie.
In the meantime, it’s time for me to forget about finals week for a while and murder some Goombas.
E-mail Matt with comments at [email protected].
