“Eight hours into ‘Grand Theft Auto IV’ (Rockstar Games, for the Xbox 360m Playstation 3, US $59.99), I have stolen 17 cars, run over 20 people and killed another 15 (some of whom had it coming). ….”
OK, let’s just be clear from the start: As that except from a Canadian Press article shows Grand Theft Auto IV, which will be released tomorrow, is not for children. It has an “M” for “mature” rating splashed on its packaging so young people under the age of 17 shouldn’t be able to even buy it.
However, that has not quieted the game’s critics. The lobby group Family First wants to ban the popular game (more than 70 millions copies of its predecessors have been sold) outright. Under reported pressure, the Chicago Transit Authority removed from buses and trains ads for the high-speed, violent game that features some nudity. In Australia and New Zealand it has been reported that only censored versions of the game will be available.
So, again, it is not for children. There is no sense in debating that point. However, you have to be naïve if you think children are not going to be playing something this popular. When I was in high school I had a collection of rap tapes (yes, I am old), that clearly had “parental advisory” marked on them.
So, the question is not whether Grand Theft Auto IV is for children, but rather how do you keep it away from them. Yes, the rating is there, but a 2007 study from MediaWise and Harris Interactive stated 37 per cent of parents said they don’t use those codes when buying games. This makes sense as the poll showed that 72 per cent of parents do not understand the ratings.
So, what should be done? Is more education about the ratings needed?
Robin
Also, in terms of effort-to-payoff ratio, this is a waste of time. If you're really that concerned about the effect of violent imagery on children, then invest your effort keeping them away from R-rated movies like Pan's Labyrinth, which have orders of magnitude more emotional impact than even the best videogame does.
I would argue that it's not possible for a game to have the same impact as a well-crafted movie, simply because it allows for user choice. When they were brainwashing Alex in A Clockwork Orange, did they let him choose what he saw? Did they put a controller in his hand? No. They strapped him down and controlled his sensory input to the Nth degree. A movie director does the same thing. He controls everything you see and hear; he controls what and when and where and from what angle; he has far greater powers to suspend disbelief, to draw you in, and to steer you toward an emotional climax. Movies have left me shaken and disturbed, they have reduced me to tears. When a game is capable of evoking any emotion, it's a big deal, critics take notice, simple because it's so rare.
After you've run over your 30th pedestrian in GTA and heard the same canned response and seen the same canned animation 10 times, it no longer has any impact, it's just a game mechanic. It's not that you are desensitized, it's that you've seen through artifice. Perhaps we'll need to revisit this discussion in a few hundred years, when we have realtime digital actors who are not so obviously fake, and who are capable of improvising emotional responses as moving as those in a good script. For now, games can't even approach film's ability to manipulate and affect and leave long-lasting impressions on the psyche. by EricT