Section 3 - Regulation of Video Games: How and Why?

Then:

            If someone was to be asked to list off a series of controversies surrounding video games, one of the first ones to show up would probably have something to do with children. Back in the day, video games started out with little to none of the negative light that they may have now, but that changed as more violent and “harmful” video games started to come out. Heck, games as innocent and simple as Pac-Man were labeled as violent (Vessey & Lee, 2000)! People have a tendency to focus on the negative, and there was no shortage of that in video games. One of the most infamous drawbacks of video games is the formation and development of aggressive behavior. Specifically, violent video games were proven to cause around five changes in children. On the biological side, children playing violent video games experienced short periods of arousal, wherein their heart rate, blood pressure, and other factors rose. In terms of cognition, there were both temporary and long-term increases in aggressive thinking, such as thinking hostile thoughts when provoked and completing word fragments with aggressive words. Emotionally, the players of violent video games were shown to experience anger more often than those who did not. Behaviorally, children exposed to violent video games displayed acts of aggression more often, such as starting fights or yelling at opponents while playing a game. In general, these children also displayed below average amounts of prosocial behavior, such as making friends or being helpful to others (Gentile & Anderson, 2006).

A simple illustration of a few other benefits to playing video games.

            That list of negative effects caused by violent video games may look a little overwhelming, but that is just focusing solely on the negative part of a single “genre” of video games. In reality, these usually apply to video games that without a doubt deserve the label of “violent”, such as Grand Theft Auto, whereas it is unlikely that a child will start more fights at school just because Pinky cut them off for the third time in Pac-Man. As for the positive effects, quite a few were discovered in the past. In the case of educational games, they do a very good job of passing on their information to developing children. Surprisingly, an experiment on college students proved that playing a golf video game can improve one’s control over the strength put into the club’s swing despite not receiving any such feedback from the game itself! It was also argued by some scientists that video games served as the metaphorical training wheels of becoming computer literate (Gentile & Anderson, 2006). This I can attest to myself; I have learned much about computers on my own after spending so much time playing computer games since I was a child.

Now:

            Of the ways to prevent video games from harming our children, one of the most effective so far has been to just keep them from getting their hands on them until they become mature enough for their contents. We realized that this was necessary as video games continued to evolve throughout the years through which they displayed more and more realistic graphics and effects. One of the most active groups in pushing for regulation were concerned parents wanting to ensure that their children were not to be corrupted by sexually explicit or violent games. Their voices were eventually heard, and an example of the resulting change would be a law Michigan’s legislature created in 2005. This law made it so anyone who willingly sells a minor a video game that is either sexually explicit or excessively violent has to pay a sizable fine. Specifically, “excessively violent” means that the game contains either realistic or simulated instances of cruelty, torture, maiming, disfigurement, dismemberment, death, or any mixture of these and more. “Sexually explicit” should be self-explanatory. The law also said that a game would fall into fine territory if it was: offensive to the local standards for what is suitable for minors, overly appealing to morbid, aggressive behavior, and considered lacking in any type of intellectual information (“Regulating video games”, 2013).

The video game industry's way of saying: "You really should not play this if you are not old enough to meet the rating, but we also really cannot stop you if you do play this."

            Unfortunately for the vocal groups, the video game industry fought back against these kinds of laws, and in the first couple court cases they were met with victory. Claiming that laws like Michigan’s infringed upon their protection under the First Amendment, they convinced courts to enjoin, or strongly recommend the cease of, not only Michigan’s regulation law but a similar law passed by Illinois’s legislature. The rulings of both cases more or less said that even if it was scientifically proven that violent video games have ill effects on children, it was not in the state’s power to strictly regulate the matter. California attempted to pass its own regulation law, this time requiring that labels be put on the problem video games along with the fine for breaking the law, but was met with a similar result as Michigan and Illinois. This time, though, some progress was made: Congress passed a bill in 2012 that required that alongside the ratings supplied by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, a label warning about the dangers of violent video games must be given to any E-rated game, or game that was rated for all ages. However, the label did not catch on as quickly as the ESRB’s ratings, which only gave recommended age ranges for their games along with what content gave them the rating, and was criticized by many in the video game industry. The lesson that can be learned from all this is that while the government can try to protect children from harm caused by video games, it is not within their authority to completely seal children off from the ideas in those video games (“Regulating video games”, 2013). This was hopefully a valuable lesson for the aforementioned parents, too; since they could not rely on the government to protect their children for them, they had to buck up and do it themselves.

Later:

            The regulation of video games has seen mixed results in the past and present. The general consensus is that the only people who have any power to deny others access to video games are either their close ones or themselves. In other words, it cannot be officially done as of yet. It is possible that this will have to change further down the line, however, due to recent and upcoming breakthroughs in video game technology. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in particular are developing genres that could pose a problem. In both cases, the device running the video game tries its best to place the player into the game world with a headset fitted with either the usual opaque video screen in the case of Virtual Reality, an example that uses it being the Oculus Rift, or a clear screen that superimposes an image on the user’s view of the real world in the case of Augmented Reality, an example that uses it being the Microsoft HoloLens. Why these styles in particular? Well, their main focus is on immersion in whatever game or program one is using, so image what would happen if realistic first-person shooters were developed specifically for this technology. Simulations run by the military to train their troops are not too different from the first-person shooters that we have now (Jenkins, 2016), so bumping the realism factor up a notch would blur the line between the two even further. One key strategy parents have to make use of when their children play games with questionable content is to stress that they are separate from the real world (Vessey & Lee, 2000), but telling them that when an enemy is blowing a hole through their bedroom wall will most likely have not as much effect.

The game of "tag" spans from 5:25 to 6:55. Imagine something like this being designed for the future iterations of Virtual Reality.

            Another factor to consider is the consequences of genres like horror games becoming more fleshed out in these consoles. I speak from experience that the more immersed into a horror game you become, the more terrifying it becomes. A pixelated horror game, IMSCARED, featured sound effects as simplistic as its graphics, yet it made those sounds appear to come from specific directions and locations around oneself if one wore headphones. This turned a simple game of “tag” with the game’s main antagonist from a mildly spooky chase scene to a genuinely scary experience. I shudder at the thought of IMSCARED being remade for the Oculus Rift or HoloLens with proper graphics. I have also seen grown men play horror games with the Oculus Rift before, and while the atmosphere and some of the scares may have given someone a cold sweat if they were played on the PC, these people genuinely broke down and were forced to take breaks due to how real it was to them. On a PC, you have the safety blanket of being able to turn away from the screen, but with Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality you have no such net to fall back on. All of this is important to the topic at hand because these horrific experiences may become too real for some players. People with weak hearts who ignore any warnings given by the game developers could suffer from heart attacks, and rebellious children could end up walking away from the game with more than just a short-term scare. These problems could be avoided if people heed the ratings from the ESRB and messages from the creators, but that is a problem we are still struggling with.

Home

<- Previous | Next ->