The Lawbringer: Arguing about video games
by Mathew McCurley 
Nov 5th 2010 at 5:00PM
One day, massively multiplayers will be center stage at the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We aren't there yet, but one day. Hell, we just got video games as a genre of entertainment on the lips of the Supreme Court justices. I'll talk about the Supreme Court case Schwarzenegger v. EMA later on, once we've got more to go on than the opening arguments, etc., and give you a rundown in the simplest terms possible about what is being argued over. For now, I'd like to talk about the language of video games being used in the case and get a little ranty about who gets to argue about video games.
Fine. I will give you the super-fast rundown. In 2005, the state of California passed a law that banned the sale of certain violent video games to minors (under the age of 18) and mandated ESRB ratings. The law also imposed a $1,000 fine on anyone found to have violated the law. The Entertainment Merchants Association challenged the law's constitutionality in district court and won. The state of California, through Governor Schwarzenegger, appealed the ruling. In the Ninth Circuit, the ruling of the district court was upheld, and California lost again. Now, for its final appeal, the case is before the highest court in the United States of America. And it's sort of a big deal.
We aren't here to talk about the case just yet, however. I want to talk about the language in which the debate over violent video games is being couched. Have you ever listened to completely out-of-touch people discuss something that you are so incredibly knowledgeable in that there are times when you just want to strangle them because the issues they bring up in whatever field of study they have little to no knowledge of are years behind? It's infuriating listening to the justices, lawyers and pundits talk about things they have no idea about.
Can you believe how esoteric video games still are to a whole subset of the population?
Postal 2?!
Can you believe people are still talking about Postal 2? POSTAL 2. One awful game from 2003. The year 2003 might as well be the prehistoric era for video games at this point, especially at the rate things are moving. Postal 2?! The language of video games has changed so much from 2003 to 2010 that we live in a completely different world. The California law from 2005 had to come into effect two years after Postal 2's mediocrity graced what few screens it did. Mountains, molehills, etc.
The fact that Postal 2 still touches the lips of incredibly smart people practically offends me, not as a scholar but as a gamer. Did anyone even enjoy Postal 2? I'm probably barking up the wrong tree and fighting the wrong fight, but I want the discourse to be framed in more relevant language.
Mortal Kombat jokes are so 1995
Elena Kagan made some Mortal Kombat jokes at the oral argument on Nov. 2. Mortal Kombat. Let that sink in. This whole debate is like arguing about the validity of movies in the 1960s using early Chaplin works with no sound and no color. And that fact that Elena Kagan made a Mortal Kombat joke about her law clerks playing the game, and Antonin Scalia's response of "not knowing anything about this," shows two worlds people still live in when discussing video games.
The first world is that of the embarrassed adult who feels the very knowledge that video games exist and people play them is somehow marked with evil nerd status. These are the people who missed the boat and failed to see that video games stopped being advertised solely to children more than 20 years ago. Scalia represents the curmudgeon who doesn't want to admit that, more than probably, everyone around him is playing video games.
The second world is that of the accepting adult who gets it, somewhat, but isn't enthusiastic enough to move past the precursory information that a 10-minute debriefing would bestow. There is nothing wrong with this -- it's how most information is delivered to people. It is just unfortunate that such important discourse is argued by people who have very narrow viewpoints on the type of content.
We will continue to scream from the sidelines as video games are debated as having serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value. The only way we can combat a general ignorance is through education about what video games really are and explain that they're more than just entertainment. Child's Play has been doing a great job at putting a positive spin on gaming and gaming culture, for instance, as well as every Nintendo DS in the hands of every child born today.
Here's where MMOs fit in. We've been good about settling real MMO legal troubles outside of court. Blizzard is fighting over scammers, cheaters and EULA stuff, sure, but that's more about contracts and the validity thereof. Second Life even avoided court catastrophe after its huge mess but still had nothing substantial on the books. Rumblings of taxing virtual assets comes up once in awhile, sure, but we're all assuming that, for the time being, it's all just like airline miles.
One day, someone will have to explain massively multiplayer online role playing games to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. One day, the worlds we live and play in are going to be scrutinized just like violent video games are being scrutinized right now in Washington, D.C. We have to be the ones who create the narrative that will one day be used to make crucial decisions about the entertainment we choose to partake in.
So how do we go about creating the narrative of the massively multiplayer? Pop culture. The more MMOs become a positive cultural phenomenon, we will have a much easier time convincing the world that our virtual worlds are more than just entertainment, more than just servers in some complex, and more than just the code that blasts across the fiber. Because, really, do you want World of Warcraft to be compared, in the greatest court in the land, to Postal 2?
This column is for entertainment only; if you need legal advice, contact a lawyer. For comments or general questions about law or for The Lawbringer, contact Mat at mat@wow.com.Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, The Lawbringer
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
biafracorleone Nov 5th 2010 5:07PM
I have two children and there is a lot of games I don't want them to play. I'm a huge GTA fan and I certainly screen those games from them.
However, that as my job as a parent. For ME to decide what is right for my children, not the government. The fact that a man responsible for so many overly violent movies has such an issue with games is mind boggling to me. Does he actually think kids haven't watched Terminator 2? Seriously?
And that is better for the young'uns how?
Corath Nov 5th 2010 5:30PM
The problem is that there seems to be no such thing as common sense anymore. I'm pretty sure most (I hope all) parents would make sure their kids wouldn't see the GTA series be played.
My 15 month old son helps me play WoW. He isn't trying to murder me in my sleep because of it.
Suss Nov 5th 2010 5:57PM
Woah, personal responsibility in raising one's children? Balderdash!
bob Nov 5th 2010 6:10PM
"there is a lot of games"
"I'm smarter than the government"
I feel bad for your kids.
Spriestess Nov 5th 2010 6:27PM
/agree! I'm a parent as well and I take my job of raising my kids to the best of my ability very seriously. That's MY responsibility, not the government's. It's my job to monitor what my kids are watching, playing, and listening to. It's what I signed up for when I had them and I went into it knowing this.
I shudder at the thought of politicians shoving their version of 'family values' onto my family because I don't always agree with them and I think I should have that right as an adult and as a parent. Politicians here think that the only sex education here should be abstinence, I disagree and have taught them about things like condoms so that they're prepared when they start dating in a few years. Politicians here only teach creationism, I've taught them about the theory of evolution. That's my prerogative as a parent. And when my kids want a new game, I take the time to read up on it to see what the game's about and play it with them to make sure it's something I find acceptable for them. It's called doing my job as a mom.
Hob Nov 5th 2010 6:29PM
It's actually correct to say "there is a lot" of something, because the verb - "is" - agrees with the subject - "lot".
"I have 1000 marbles in this bag."
"That is a lot of marbles."
vinniedcleaner Nov 5th 2010 7:05PM
It just sounds weird because we usually use the contraction 'there's'
MusedMoose Nov 5th 2010 7:23PM
@ Hob and vinniedcleaner:
Actually, the correct way to say it would be "There are a lot of games". The subject of the full sentence is 'games' and since that is plural, 'are' is the correct word. If the OP had only been talking about one game, "There is a game" would have been correct.
Just wanted to correct a misconception. No more on this from me, since this column isn't titled "The Grammarbringer." ^_^
Shyster Nov 7th 2010 3:04PM
I personally feel it's better to allow kids to see violent games, but equally important to show them and make them understand what they're seeing and how situations like it arise, and perhaps through that they'll learn something useful to carry on with.
Tribunal Nov 5th 2010 8:31PM
I'm really quite torn on all of this.
I DO believe that it is ultimately the parent's job to control what a kid sees, and that we shouldn't censor the world to death 'for the children'. But at the same time, limiting the sales of alcohol and tobacco to minors is ok with me.
I think the thing missing is the harm correlation. There is a clear correlation between tobacco and harm, so I am ok with restricting it until the kids are legally allowed to make their own decisions (I do think alcohol should be 18, 21 is random and arbitrary). I haven't seen that correlation for video games yet, and personally, I don't think it's out there, or at least it's -no where near- the level that some of these lawmakers seem to think it is.
That being said, there are some parents who just don't care. They don't. They fail to do their job as parents. There is a difference between raising your child in a reasonable manner as you see fit and not raising them at all.
Ultimately, I think the voluntary system of not selling M games to minors without parental permission that most of the big retailers subscribe to is the right balance. The problems with that, however, are:
-It's a hassle for everyone involved.
-It's still limiting, just not 'officially' - can go either way on this one.
-Being voluntary, it has no backbone. They give themselves a slap on the wrist if they fail. There is no punishment, and that is why they agree to do it. They don't want fines and possible legal trouble, they'd rather self-regulate so if they do fail they can sweep it under the rug. That is why they are fighting this. They don't want to look like they don't care about kids, but they don't want to incur the additional costs the law would bring.
It always struck me as ridiculously slimy that that's why they're willing to follow the recommendations, but in the end I still think it might be best.
Trumeg Nov 5th 2010 10:30PM
Your argument is that you as a good parent have the responsibility to decide what video games your child play. I, however, fail to see the conflict between your point and the government's wanted restriction to minors. As the good and responsible parent you are, you could still purchase a "rated M" game for your child and allow him to play it. All the law would prevent is your child going and purchasing it himself. It may be a minor inconvenience, but wouldn't you agree that it is better to be safe than sorry?
TonyMcS Nov 5th 2010 10:44PM
It would seem ironic in a country that allows personal weapons, sends young people off to the far corners or the earth to kill others, bring assault weapons to rallies and broadcasts violence and death starting with the nightly news, would worry about simulated violence in video games.
Video games don't cause violence, people cause violence and they've been doing it with gusto for centuries before video games.
Eisengel Nov 6th 2010 6:59AM
You know, I've been playing video games for a while and I have known and do know a lot of people who have as well and I have to say, I don't think video games in any material way influence people - however, quite the opposite. I find that usually video games reveal a person's tendencies and personality. Especially in a game like WoW that is so expansive and has so many avenues of exploration and achievement/progression, the way you choose to play the game can tell you a lot about yourself.
For instance, I like the game Hitman - not because I like to go around shooting people, but I find the aspect of actually completing the mission while avoiding the easy solution (just gunning down everyone) interesting. You also don't know what's around the corner - so it pays to sit back and be sure of what's going on and not zoom in, guns blazing. In real life, I do academic research, and have to make choices all day about which tests to do, data to collect, types of analysis to perform, where to publish, what to publish ... all kinds of little decisions that are very tempting to cut corners on, but things usually are so much better when you don't. You also often don't know what method will work or why - and need to read a lot of papers and research thoroughly to be sure the direction you're going is reasonable and that the tests you're performing are designed well.
I also trained and worked with the US Army for about 6 years, so I'm no stranger to the prospect of firefights and gunplay, but even though that is part of my experience, it isn't why I like Hitman or am a researcher, it's because I have a careful, methodical, detail-oriented way of thinking and I enjoy working hard at discovering obscure bits of knowledge and solving problems. My personality lends itself to the Hitman gameplay and doing research. Hitman doesn't make me want to run around and shoot people, and I don't play it because I want to run around and shoot people, but I play it because the type of gameplay dovetails nicely with my personality.
Same thing with any other game that involves violence. It's likely to appeal to someone because of how the gameplay seems to fit them. The red flag would be if someone enjoys playing exceedingly violent games with very shallow to no story or distinct mechanics, and focuses largely on not only how much bloodshed they can cause, but the degree of simulated pain of their virtual targets.
Tikabelle Nov 6th 2010 6:04PM
"Actually, the correct way to say it would be "There are a lot of games". The subject of the full sentence is 'games' and since that is plural, 'are' is the correct word."
This is not true. "Of games" is a prepositional phrase and therefore can not be the subject of the sentence. The subject is the noun to which the prepositional phrase refers - in this case, "lot," which is singular.
There IS a LOT (of boxes). There ARE many BOXES.
There ARE many PAIRS (of pants). There IS one PAIR of pants.
If you're going to get nit-picky about other people's grammar, you'd better have a Strunk & White next to you to back yourself up. http://www.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/Prepositional-Phrases.html
/grammarteacheroff
Tova Nov 7th 2010 6:46AM
@Tikabelle
Are you sure that "of games" is a prepositional phrase here? I would have thought that "lot of" was a complex preposition, and so the verb "to be" has to agree with the true subject "games" - "there are a lot of games", "there is a lot of sugar".
I would agree with you if we were talking about an actual lot of games (i.e. a set of games being put up for auction, say). Then the lot is the subject and "of games" is a prepositional adjective. Fine.
But we're not.
I could be wrong, of course. I'm getting a headache overthinking it.
One thing is for sure - "there are a lot of games" is much more common, and arguably more accepted. So even if you're gramatically correct after all, maybe you should consider notional concord.
I think there was a time you would say either "there are lots of games" or "there is a lot of sugar", and that is a lot easier to understand.
Tikabelle Nov 8th 2010 3:41AM
@Tova
Yes, I'm sure! :D "Lot" is singular, like "pair." It's exactly the same as the "lot" you mention in terms of auctions, in fact, because it is one group of games that the OP doesn't want his kids to play. It's a collective noun.
You could say, "there are lots of games at GameStop," but you would be referring to several groups of games all in one store, while "a lot" is always, ALWAYS singular. Somewhere along the line, vernacular use of "lot" became synonymous with "many," because it indicates a (usually large) group of related things.
Nominal concord doesn't work here. Collective nouns are used to, well, you know. The distinction needs to be made (maybe not exactly in this case, but overall) for clarity. It's not like saying we can all agree that using "who" instead of "whom" doesn't meaningfully change the meaning of a sentence, because in this case the distinction DOES materially change that meaning.
Whew! Does that make sense? I need a beer...
Chokaa Nov 5th 2010 5:11PM
You mean, there are people who DIDN'T enjoy Postal 2??
/sarcasm
By the Gods, I wish the 'adults' would realize that video games exist not only in the pastfew decades, but in this current one as well. And that without games, we really wouldn't have such great computers for personal use. Sure, the military and businesses might, but at home you'd still have a 486 rockin Microsoft works. Cause that's all u would need! /rant quitting before I get too far off topic.
Mat - gamers need a voice of reason. YOU need to embrace your destiny and be that voice.
Hollow Leviathan Nov 5th 2010 6:43PM
I played through the Postal 2 story-line, such as it is. It was tongue-in-cheek, immature, and cheap fun, but it was still fairly fun. I was more offended by the casual islamophobia than the over the top violence.
Oh, and I don't remember any game-breaking bugs. *Cough*
Unsavory Nov 5th 2010 5:13PM
Quit gettin' mad at video games.
Summersetstud Nov 5th 2010 5:20PM
Very well put!!!