Violent Video Games: Our Responsibility, Not the Courts

My 15 year old son has shot monsters, aliens, cops, horses and more. None of it in the real-world, mind you. Instead, the weapons he wields are made of pixels and the blood (red, green, yellow) his victims shed is made up of, not cells, but millions of lines of code. And yet, any time I see him do it, I wince and know I have only myself to blame.
Right now, the Supreme Court is gearing up to decide whether the multi-billion dollar video game industry should be regulated not like, say, movies, but more like alcohol and cigarettes. Today, if my son wants a "Rated Mature" video game, he needs me or my wife by his side for parental consent and purchase. No Game Stop we've ever visited has ever freely sold him the equivalent of NC-17 games. If the challenge to the California law which forbids the sale of violent video games to minors stands, it's likely that, eventually, no one in the U.S. will be able to sell mature/violent video games to a 15-year-old without fear of fine. Such a chilling effect ruling could infect the movie business and other creative enterprises. Next thing you know, it'll be illegal to bring your tween or teen to an "R"-rated film.
Years ago, when my son was just 10, I struggled over whether or not to let him play Halo 2. It was rated Mature ("for 17+") and I feared scarring for life my son's young mind. As I recounted in this column (Who's Afraid of Mature Games), I learned that Mature is not exactly like an "X" or even "NC-17" rating. In fact, the ratings, which are assigned by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB), can mean many different things and most parents won't know that until they turn over the game box to read the rather detailed sub-ratings of what's really inside the game. Sometimes "M" is for sexual innuendo or even outright sex (though nudity and graphic representations of sex are reserved for the infrequently-used "Adult" game rating). However, it's more likely that a game will earn the "M" rating for blood, gore, intense violence and language.
Most of my son's favourite games are rated M. They include Oblivion, Halo 3, Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect, and the notorious Grand Theft Auto IV. The latter features virtually every objectionable act you can imagine. There's even a strip club in the game, though I haven't played often enough—or watched my son play—to understand what players can actually do in there.
My Slippery Slope
For years, I held the line on what games I would and wouldn't let my son play. When Grand Theft Auto Liberty City Stories shipped, I refused to let him play it for years. I held the line on Grand Theft Auto IV for a year or so, too, but eventually, I caved. Now, as he approaches 16, he's free to play pretty much any video game (at least what he can convince us to buy him).
The California law in this Supreme Court Case contends that the extreme violence in these mature video games can damage young minds. I'm no child psychologist and can't comment on whether or not exposure to certain virtual imagery or acts impacts anyone. Instead, I look at my own son. He plays these mature games with relish and intensity, happily killing anything in his path. If he's playing on Xbox Live, however, the aggression is toned down a bit in the service of team play; he won't randomly frag a team-mate and becomes highly focused on teamwork and the task of winning the tournament. Even in solo-play, the best parts of a game are not always to most violent or disgusting. He loves, for example, playing Texas Hold'em poker with virtual cowboys in Red Dead Redemption and says it's better than any other virtual poker environment he's encountered. Of course, if he doesn't like how things are going in the card game, he simply shoots his opponent.
Obviously, in this gamer world, especially the Mature one, there are virtually no consequences to the most violent act. Yet, has a few years of playing these kinds of games changed him? Is he more violent? Aggressive? Not that I can tell. While I might note his occasional lack of empathy and inability to foresee consequences, I don't think he's any different than any other callow youth, video-game-playing or otherwise.
The contested California statute hinges on legislative findings that say these games promote "violent antisocial behaviour." I think that gets it wrong. These games aren't "promoting" anything. They're simply allowing. The most popular games, like Grand Theft Auto IV offer what's called "free play". The ability to go where you want and do what you want in the gaming environment. The bigger the virtual world, the more exciting this can be. There are no signs, however, that tell you to punch or shoot someone. There are, however, all the necessary tools. In other words, it's like real life. Obviously, these games give young people access to a rather dangerous and adult world. Some may choose to play within the lines of acceptable behaviour. Most teens I know, do not. They enjoy taking advantage of the weapons, cars and dangerous action. They play the game in ways that I, as an adult, probably would not.
What They Learn
As far as I can tell, the majority of teens playing these games are not replicating these acts in the real world. When they turn off those games, they go back to being the same teen they were before they turned it on. Sure, they may have learned a few new words (the same ones they can learn from their best friend) and seen a few things (pretty much whatever they can see in at the movies or TV), but I don't think the games have fried their minds.
Would my son play differently with a game rated "T for Teen" or one rated "E for Everyone"? No. Even when he did play those games, he found ways to stretch boundaries, especially in teen games which evince many of the same violent characteristics as their "mature" counterparts. In any case, he doesn't play Teen games any more—and I don't think he's alone.
A quick visit to Gamestop.com is quite illuminating. I selected Xbox 360/Role Playing Games. This is the page I found. 12 games, every single one of them rated mature. On the second page, all but four were rated Mature. This is akin to finding all the movies at a typical multiplex rated R or even NC-17. It wouldn't happen because there are different kinds of movies for a wide and varied audience. The active gaming audience, however, is not quite that varied. It's still, at least according to the ESA (Entertainment Software Association), the computer and video game publishers trade association, mostly male (though Women are coming on strong), and at least 25% under the age 18. I don't know if the games shaped the audience or the audience shaped the game. What is clear to me, however, is that the ESRB rating is a joke. When everything is "M", that rating becomes meaningless. Dan Hewitt of the ESA, reminded me, though, that Mature games represent just 16% of the total video games market. So where are they on the Game Stop site (which makes it awfully hard to find games "by rating") and store shelves?
This Supreme Court case is driven by the fear that violent video games are destroying our youth. I don't believe they are, but I readily admit that I do not know what the kind of stimulus found in Grand Theft Auto and Red Dead Redemption (even Halo Reach) does to a young mind. If I have real concerns, it's up to me to argue it out with my son and take away the games or not buy them for him when he asks. I do know one thing, I do not want California or the Supreme Court to tell me what is and isn't right for my son.