The Politics of Violence

Last week, US Vice President Joe Biden met with representatives from the video game industry, sparking lengthy discussion about what role video games play in real world violence, if any.

We've been talking about this at length here on IGN. Last week, I appeared in the above video, and published both a primer for talking about violent video games and  an open letter response to Gamasutra Editor-in-Chief Kris Graft's admonition to the industry to boycott the Biden task force meeting.

You know what we think. What does the rest of the games press really think about the Biden meeting, and where the violent games debate goes from here?

I asked our esteemed friends and colleagues from outlets around the country exactly those questions.

Here's what 20 of the top editors, writers, and critics in America had to say (in alphabetical order by first name):

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Adam Sessler - Executive Producer/Editor-in-Chief, Revision3 Games

Whether or not the meeting was "positive" is hard to gauge but, compared to the acrimony expressed by the NRA representatives the sober, neutral statement from the ESA would indicate that there was little significant policy proposed to the regulation of videogames. More importantly was the statement made by Biden to the press ahead of the meeting, with his hand reassuringly on John Riccotello's shoulder, where he acknowledged that there was no definitive causality between violence in interactive entertainment and real-life behavior. I've wondered if this meeting was little more than kabuki theater to appear to take seriously Wayne LaPierre's and some pundit's fixation on violence in media before setting forth substantive gun regulation proposals. As far as how the meeting appears to admit responsibility, it's not the best PR for the industry but much better than refusing to attend. Also, there were people in attendance who were thoughtful spokespeople for the industry in addition to researchers who represent studies that show no linkage. The one downside is that such nuance is hard pressed to reach the large chunk of Americans who have merely superficial views of the videogame medium.

“

We cannot ignore that the primary virtual interaction in the majority of popular games is an act of violence.

There is work to be done and the press does have a role. I firmly believe that, while there will not be any serious policy proposals coming out of this meeting, the perception of the industry needs a lot of maintenance. While I don't take issue with violence in games in the abstract, we cannot ignore that the primary virtual interaction in the majority of popular games is an act of violence. The market for games needs to become less dependent on young men who desire power fantasies and broaden the spectrum of financially viable alternatives which, in turn, will broaden the base of players. In addition, the image gamers export is nasty behavior online, something we in the enthusiast press now just take for granted as a necessary evil but it does little to make the medium look respectable and worthy of peoples attention and support. We in the press would benefit our communities and readers by putting this industry into a larger context and criticize from that vantage point. Can we criticize a game for tasteless violence or detestable representations of people? Yes we can, but this inward looking and pseudo-identification as a "protected class" negates many of these discussions as the airing of dirty laundry. Games are part of a larger social, cultural, economic and political spectrum and acknowledging that fact is an essential step to resolving this debate.

Watch Adam at Rev3 Games, follow Adam on Twitter at @adamsessler.

Ben Kuchera - Senior Editor, Penny Arcade Report

The burden seems to be on the video game industry to prove that games don't cause real-world violence, while there is no evidence that shows causation between playing video games or consuming any kind of pop culture and acts of violence. I have yet to hear a single good reason for the video game industry to be a part of this conversation, outside of the ESRB; the group that is tasked with forming self-regulation to make sure violent and M-rated games aren't sold to children. A job they have been excelling at; education on the rating system and its use at the retail level are both strong.

“

It's unlikely anything will come of [the meeting] outside of a few easy headlines about violent media, and the industry will once again be on the defensive.

No one can seem to draw a straight line between games and violent acts, other than the fact that since most Americans play video games, so most American criminals will have at least a passing history with games in some form. The same can be said for drinking orange juice in the morning; an act that has almost a 1:1 ratio with violent acts. Somehow the board of orange growers in Florida have escaped legislation.

It's important to take the games we play seriously, and to be mindful of the entertainment we view and play with our children. That being said, the Supreme Court has found video games to be protected speech. Vice President Biden is merely being a politician and making sure his bases are covered by making sure industry representatives attend these talks. It's unlikely anything will come of it outside of a few easy headlines about violent media, and the industry will once again be on the defensive. You can expect this to repeat as long as there are violent crimes, or until we decide to stop conforming to this simplistic and exploitative narrative about pop culture and violence.

Read Ben at Penny Arcade Report, follow Ben on Twitter at @benkuchera.

Ben Silverman - Senior Editor, Yahoo! Games

There’s been a great deal of talk in gaming circles about whether or not the industry already lost this fight before stepping foot in a meeting room, and I think that’s a legit concern. The NRA’s spectacular use of misdirection would make David Copperfield proud.

But it sounds like the meeting went as well as could be expected, under the circumstances. I’m pleased to hear that Biden wasn’t pointing fingers and demanding change so much as requesting information about a controversial topic that most politicians are wary about confronting. At least someone in a position of power is actually calmly asking questions instead of whipping up some knee-jerk legislation.

“

If ignorance is the real culprit here – and many in the games industry firmly believe this is the case – then we invest our resources in education.

I don’t believe one fact-finding meeting with the VP is the industry death-knell some seem quick to call it. It’s a meeting with a group of lawmakers who admittedly know very little about how the game industry works, how it polices itself, and who, exactly, its myriad products are designed for. Compared to the usual anti-game rhetoric we hear following a tragic event (post-Columbine, for instance), this doesn’t feel like a witch hunt. The violent games hubbub in the mid-90s spearheaded by Joe Lieberman had a far more sinister tone, and ultimately that nightmare gave us the ESRB system, which we currently heft like a shield against those who claim the games industry is a “callous, corrupting shadow."

In much the same way, I’m hopeful that the outcome of the meeting will lead to a more responsible game industry, one that pays a bit more attention to how the world at large views its products and how best to present itself for what it is: a wildly creative yet often misunderstood art form.

I imagine we’ll see a new round of violent media studies with accompanying graphs and charts and conflicting research. We could wait for our own “silver bullet” -- a study that definitively proves no causal link between violent media and violent behavior -- but when you’re already looking guilty in the court of public opinion, it’s hard to just sit back and wait for anything.

So that means we bring our best and brightest minds to the table to discuss ways in which we can better educate the world about what the games industry is all about. We talk about ratings and parental controls. We examine the way we market games and we correct misconceptions about our business. If ignorance is the real culprit here – and many in the games industry firmly believe this is the case – then we invest our resources in education.

Read Ben at Yahoo! Games, follow Ben on Twitter at Ben_Silverman.

Brian Crecente - News Editor, Polygon

It sounds like the meeting was more of an informal fact-finding gathering than it was something designed to implement change. While it's disappointing that the meeting was spurred by an unrelated shooting, and not by the many positive things that video games are responsible for, it was still an important moment. Having a chance to discuss the importance of video games and the impact it has on today's society can only engender future discussions, hopefully at more opportune, relevant times.

“

Two years ago, video games were afforded first amendment protection. I think the game industry needs to continue to show that they're living up to the great legacy that protection bestows upon games.

The outcome of the meeting sounds like it was to ask the game industry to remember those in the country who aren't as familiar with video games when educating the public about the industry. While gamers are well aware of the positive nature of games, the aftermath of the Newtown shooting is a clear sign that there remains quite a lot of disinformation about video games, the people who make them and the people who play them.

I'd like to think that in the wake of these meetings, the industry will be more proactive about reaching out to those who remain outsiders to video game culture as it continues to make the transition from a facet of pop culture to a mainstay of modern culture.

Two years ago, video games were afforded first amendment protection. I think the game industry needs to continue to show that they're living up to the great legacy that protection bestows upon games.

Read Brian at Polygon, follow Brian on Twitter at @crecenteb.

Dan “Shoe” Hsu - Editor-in-Chief, GamesBeat at VentureBeat

I'm very pleased that the tone of the meetings seemed fairly neutral and objective, according to this Wall Street Journal blog post. But make no mistake: Joe Biden is a politician, and ultimately, he'll probably do what's popular, not necessarily what makes logical sense. If the public wants a witch hunt, he'll likely give them one.

“

It's vital that gamers and game-industry people alike do not get overly emotional over this debate. Get defensive and it can look like you have something to hide.

The good news is that we're no longer living in some McCarthyist era where fear rules all. That fear is still a factor, yes -- that's why the games industry is even in the discussion right now. But reason can prevail, as evidenced by all the talks right now around gun control, mental health, violent media in general, etc. No one has the solution yet, but I feel better that Americans are not so unanimously narrow-minded that they're collectively pointing only one finger. That's very encouraging!

It's vital that gamers and game-industry people alike do not get overly emotional over this debate. Get defensive and it can look like you have something to hide. Generations of people simply do no understand virtual entertainment, so don't waste time trying to explain why Gears of War won't cause you to see real people as Locusts who need exterminating.

Instead, know that we have time on our side. More studies (and therefore, facts) are coming to prove us right. And do you know why Americans no longer think that rock and roll causes us to sacrifice goats to Satan? It's because those people who grew up with the music are now, well, all grown up. And assuming they don't have a bloody, goat-smelling altar at home, they probably grew up to be normal, well-adjusted adults. So they know better. And in the future, people will know better when it comes to video games, too.

Read Dan at GamesBeat, follow Dan on Twitter at @danshoehsu.

Read page 2

Source : ign[dot]com