In the Evening Standard
- Updated: January 21, 2008
Prior to the Telegraph’s linkbait, the Evening Standard was also thinking about games. For those who missed it, the UK Prime Minister – Gordon Brown – was interviewed last week by lowest-common-denominator tabloid, The Sun. He was very vague about what he actually expects but it does seem he believes it’s the games industry’s responsibility to put on a happy face at all times, even when catering to adults. Here’s the quote:
â€œIt is completely unacceptable to carry a knife or a gun.
â€œWhere police have previously been cautioning people, there now has to be a presumption of prosecution.â€
The PM went on: â€œI am very worried about video and computer games.
â€œNo one wants censorship or an interfering State.
â€œBut the industry has some responsibility to society and needs to exercise that.â€
I like the way he overlooks the fact that the UK has had censorship on knives (mildly NSFW) for quite some time.
The Evening Standard emailed me asking for my opinion. My response was stripped of all personality but published in their Friday print edition with the general point still intact. Even better, it was alongside two other responses who were equally disdainful of the connection between games and real-world violence. Here’s what I sent them:
“As a long-time gamer I can assure you that the interactive format of games only serves to emphasise the gap between virtual and real blood. Yes, even with pretty graphics and hi-def televisions. Virtual injuries are harmless learning experiences. Real injuries hurt like hell. It’s a big bloody difference.
Any video game that could potentially glamorise knife or violent crime is given at least a 15 rating by the BBFC, making it illegal for children to purchase. In other words, if impressionable kids are playing these games, someone in a position of responsibility has chosen to give it to them. Adults think twice about showing 18-rated films to teens but it happens, with no ill-effects. Games should be treated the same way.
Real violence has long-term consequences (ideally). Zero tolerance for violent crime is a good thing, as long as the resources are there to properly rehabilitate offenders, not just hide them away for a few short months or years.
People join gangs because they feel unsafe and seek a sense of community, belonging and protection. Until safe alternative communities are supported, prevalent and (crucially) fun, the violent gangs will prevail. What’s that? Gamers are safe in their living rooms and having fun with friends? Interesting ideaâ€¦”
Here’s a scan of the printed version – The Evening Standard Reader’s Letters Page. Sure, it’s not exactly a feature article but they approached me and it’s in a prominent position, so I’m counting it as a win :)
What would you have said, had they asked you to weigh in on the debate?