Absolutely. Pornography, and violent movies and games, are given censors' restrictions - or banned outright - because it can be harmful to expose young people to those kinds of images. People do get messed up by what they see, hence the need for restrictions.Originally Posted by Dr Unne
Especially with games becoming ever-more lifelike in the way they portray graphic acts of criminal violence.
Of course, all sane individuals are ultimately responsible for their actions. Parents are responsible for what kinds of media their kids are exposed to. However, that doesn't mean that games, and game content, should be unrestricted.
[q=Black Mage]I don't think video games are the cause of this problem. I'm sure they may play some role, but I don't believe it to be any different than if he were watching a bloody movie, or reading a book concerning the same stuff.
[/q]Again, I agree. Under 18s can't legally buy or view American Psycho - the book and the movie - in my country, and a good thing as well. If kids were entitled to experience that kind of thing, there'd be plenty more messed-up kids, and it'd be unreasonable just to say, "well, they must've been insane already" as though that excuses it. Games are a bit different to other media, since the player actually takes on a character's role, controlling their actions plans. In a movie or book, you're shown what happens - it's a far more passive experience. When you watch a movie about criminals and their crimes, you're generally not meant to think, "Hey, racially-motivated murders! Rape and torture! Funfun!" Generally, those acts are portrayed as criminal and objectionable, they're meant to incite disgust and to paint a picture of what the characters are like. Games, though, have shown an increasing tendency to put the player in a position where they're expected or, in the case of Manhunt, for instance, they're even rewarded for commiting sadistic and inhuman acts of grotesque cruelty. In Doom, Silent Hill, Syphon Filter etc, the objective is to fight the "good fight" against evil opponents of one form or another. The violence perpetrated by the player is targetted at deserving targets, and is necessary in order to save lives. This is markedly different from games in which the point is be a sadist. The distinction doesn't merely need to be drawn between degrees of violence in games, but also types of violent act. Manhunt got banned in my country; the censorship office said this was because the game's subject matter was primarily focussed on making the player indulge in, and even enjoy, carrying out horrific acts, with great emphasis on the details of suffering. Basically, the game had the potential to be "injurious to the public good" by its very nature, since there was nothing to mitigate the violent content.
Game makers should take more responsibility for what they make, too. I honestly believe that, in a matter of years, some company's going to issue a title called Kid Rapist Deluxe or something. There'll be massive public outcry, then the self-absorbed nerd responsible for the game'll appear in the press saying, "But it's not real, it's just a game so no-one's actually hurt. It's all about having fun, not hurting people in real life. Like, there's games where you get to drive cars fast but no-one complains about them. Society's just afraid to face reality. I'm glad my game's generating all this controversy, because it highlights the important issues. My game won't have any bad effects, it's up to people to decide what they want to play or not." Those are the same excuses that get used to justify increasingly extreme content in games; it's only a matter of time before someone uses them to support a game about, say, sexual violence.
