In the wake of the Supreme Court overturning California's First-Amendment-violating law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to children, the firestorm has kicked up again with both sides - for and against - shooting their mouths off.
One such person is the San Francisco Chronicle's Mark Morford whose tweet stating, "Dear videogame makers: sort of pathetic to cheer that you can now freely sell ultraviolence to children. Just FYI," was retweeted by film critic Roger Ebert.
Ebert is no stranger to video game debate. His opinion - and it is just that - that video games are not, and cannot be art received much attention, and he often brings the topic up again and again on both his personal Twitter account and his blog. With this latest retweet, and his utterly tactless (now-deleted) tweet in the wake of Jackass cast member Ryan Dunn's death, Ebert is quickly proving he is quite possibly the internet's greatest troll.
Morford does raise an interesting point, however. I firmly believe game-makers should not be held responsible for underage children playing games intended for a mature audience. That falls squarely on the shoulders of the parents, who often cave in to their child's demands or are simply too clueless or disinterested to do any research themselves into the product.
That said, is it the responsibility of the game-makers and publishers to market their product properly? If a game is rated M for Mature, does it not follow that the televised and magazine adverts should appeal to that same crowd?
The answer isn't so simple. How can you really prove a product is directly marketed to "children," after all? Because the commercial has explosions and hot babes? I hate to break it to you naysayers, but most adults like those things too. The problem lies in the fact that kids also think they're cool, so what then is a publisher to do? Make some weird arthouse TV spot for a game that only intellectuals will understand so as not to attract the attention of kids?
You don't need to have children to know that the old adage "Forbidden fruit is more tempting" applies to every situation. If a game is rated M for Mature and Mom or Dad says, "No," chances are that child is going to want the game even more. If they see a TV spot for an M-rated game that shows a hero kicking ass through nifty environments, overflowing with action, they're going to want that game - but so will many of the members of the age-appropriate audience.
Ebert's retweet certainly signifies that he agrees that game-makers intentionally market to children, which smacks as hypocritical from a film critic. The easy defense for those of his ilk is that movie ticket sales are restricted, but the problem is the system is so full of loopholes that it's as laughable as the proposed restrictions on video games. When the film Se7en came out in 1995, my mother bought me and a friend two tickets to see it at a local AMC. We were both 16 - one year under the age limit for R-rated movies in America. Nobody questioned us as we walked into the theater. In fact, I had seen countless R-rated films by the time I was age-appropriate for them.
It had nothing to do with the marketing. Those were just movies I wanted to see, regardless of the rating or my age, because I thought they looked good. Ebert's smug retweet seems to suggest that the film industry he loves so dearly isn't guilty of the same thing Morford is accusing the gaming industry of. To wit, I'd like to remind Roger of a little film called RoboCop.
Do you remember RoboCop, Paul Verhoeven's ultraviolent futuristic action-satire? More importantly, do you recall how RoboCop himself became a childrens' icon? Halloween costumes, action figures, video games, pajamas - you name it, there was a RoboCop logo on it. Somewhere in my house, I still have a picture of me and my childhood best friend posing with Peter Weller himself, in full RoboCop costume, at a local Blockbuster Video, where the line of kids curled around the building.
I was only eight when RoboCop came out, yet every kid my age knew who he was, and no one in their right mind would accuse the studio of not taking advantage of that fact for all it was worth. Though later films descended into embarrassingly bad PG-13 fluff, don't forget the original theatrical version featured a gruesome death scene for the main character, scores of vulgarity, heavy drug use, an attempted rape, and several more deaths ranging from a businessman being turned into Swiss cheese, a key villain being stabbed through the neck, and a man who explodes into a pool of goo after being run over by a car.
I will say that I agree with the fact that game-makers shouldn't be championing the decision in the manner they are. While I stand firm in the belief that parents are ultimately responsible for what their children are exposed to, I'm not so naive as to believe that game-makers' intentions were so noble as protecting our First Amendment rights. Let's face it, gamers, it is about money. Don't kid yourselves; the folks over at Rockstar Games will undoubtedly make more when Grand Theft Auto V is eventually released if 13-year-olds have the ability to walk into a Best Buy and pick it up, and they're OK with that fact.
Proving that anyone is marketing directly to children is the tougher task. Short of Camel Cigarettes' infamous cartoon mascot - long since retired - I can't think of many adult products that strike me as being explicitly marketed to children. Younger kids take interest in them, but that's like saying that the Die Hard films were marketed to children because they just happen to like hero cops and big explosions just because they like hero cops and explosions.
The other thing to consider is where these young children get their money from. Lest you forget, games cost $60 a piece, and if a 13-year-old walks into a store and buys an M-rated title, chances are it's money his parents gave to him. Marketing or no, that is still the responsibility of the parent to monitor what their children are doing.
I have gone on record as saying I didn't think California's law was a bad thing. If game sales were policed - however half-heartedly - in a manner similar to movies, that frees up developers and publishers from responsibility. It still allows those of appropriate age to purchase fully uncensored products, but it limits the access children have short of a parent willingly and knowingly buying a game with a big M stamped on the front - and there can be no argument who is to blame then.
The notion that game-makers are peddling directly to children is no less ridiculous or hypocritical with or without said law(s) in effect. Children want what they can't have, and the only way to prevent them from getting it is usually good parenting. It may seem irresponsible for game-makers to cheer the ruling because it affects their bottom line, but it's no worse or different than making action figures for movie franchises that are rated R. It's hypocritical to hold the video game industry to a higher standard of responsibility than any other entertainment industry, and if you think for a second movie studios wouldn't love to be able to sell tickets to the next ultra-violent horror flick to young teens, then I have a condo on the moon I'd like to sell you.
Comments