The settling of EMA Vs. Brown pretty much drew a line under the latest chapter in the history of videogames detractors whith a pretty ringing victory on the part of games, gamers and game makers. Infact if you visit known advocates websites like the Perants Television Council you can see most of their gaming material stops at mid 2010ish when things weren't quite so witheringly bad for them. Those who wish to destory gaming have been roundly decimated. But im not sure running unopposed is the best thing for gaming.
Ok let me explian; there are important debates to be had about content, the control of content and its effects that have simply been destoryed by those on the "Anti-Gaming" side. The problem gaming has had is that the calibur of those challenging it, even when they sometimes might be touching on a valid point, has been so very very low. Even our lawmakers see people like the PTC as a bunch of out of touch fun-police and figures like Jack Thompson, Fox News and various religious groups have made their camp look not only wrong but baseline INSANE. There is no healthy back and forth between two sides with valid points, there has been a lot of good work in self examination on the gaming side but i think a group of well informed and well... sane gaming sceptics would be a good thing for all of us.
*Ahem* The law trying to ban the sale of 'violent' videogames had a tiny crumb of the real issue at its heart; perants are not limiting young people's access to games in the same way they do movies or TV due to a lack of understanding. Games are rated appropriately for age and i agree that trying to class them like pornogrpahy whilst Movies are still self regulated is a farce but the issue of 12 and 13 year old kids playing slightly things like MW3 for hours on end is troubling. The content of games is rated for 18+ because they are better able to contextualise the content and process some of the worst excesses of the chest beating homicidal militaristic overtones in a proper way.
I don't think many games are appropriate for 12-13 year olds. As a gamer it troubles me that they would be playing them at length without prenatal supervision. Yes these games can seem silly to an adult, they are able to recognise where things deviate from reality and have already formed informed opinions on many issues. We need to recognise that whilst games are not outright dangerous, exposing pre-teens to this content is FAR from desireable. Things like the glorification of the miliraty, guns and violence are unsettling. We need to look at the content of our games and who is consuming it, Media is meant to have content that is unsettling, challening and uncomfortable. It is essential and banning that would destory human expression but it has to be for the appropriate audience.
The solution is simple. Don't get little jonny GTA87 for christmas. Yes its violent, but it is a satire of violence MEANT FOR ADULTS. Again here in the UK we DO have a legally binding ratings system, it just gets largely ignored. As an industry and as a community we need someone out there to point these things out wothout trying to form a mob. We DO need to educate perants more on content apropriateness but there is no-one out there willing to point out our flaws in a rational manor.
Gaming has become so used to fighting attempts to overly limit it, censor it and outright destroy it the industry and community has become hard-wired to react to gaming criticism in a nuclear fashion. Our opponents have for so long been so out of touch with reality and wanted to act out of fear of the unknown, religious extremism or outright spite. Those who are on the 'other side' have been incapable of debate because they lack a grasp of the most basic meaning of what it is to play a game. They simply don't undersntand gaming enough to understand the real issues. In order for gaming to grow we do NEED a healthly debate.
