18 means 18

Written by LorD

Sunday, 15 November 2009 07:24

After the last couple of weeks and the debacle surrounding Activision's game du jour, Modern Warfare 2, I started to think about the effect that playing such games would have on children. Sure, the game's rated 18 which means that by law, nobody under that age shall buy it. But that doesn't stop a kid from tugging on mummy's sleeve up to the point where she enters her PIN at the till in Game. And neither does it prevent 15-year-old boys from exploiting their impressive facial hair to pass off as the prerequisite age.

On the playground and in the common room, respect is everything. We forget that once we leave that tinderbox/pressure cooker environment of bells, break-time and bogwashes. And what can earn you more respect than having watched the scariest bit of a horror film or playing the worst level of a game. In Modern Warfare 2, as we're all aware by now, the worst level involves a Russian airport, a terrorist organisation and an undercover protagonist. You are encouraged, if not forced, to kill innocent, blameless human beings who are there just to fly to somewhere a little less oppressive. You are shoved hard away from the direction in which your moral compass points and face doing unspeakable acts to other people who mean you no harm. It's quite horrific.

He wasn't affected by playing Modern Warfare 2. Not at all.

So where does this concern come from? Why was this game debated in Parliament? Well, as many might throw their eyes up to the heavens and utter the words 'moral panic', you might think back to your childhood. Did you re-enact things you saw on TV? Did you act out parts of your favourite games? I know I did. I was always Sub Zero or Raiden while playing Mortal Kombat out on the field with friends. It was cartoony and comical, but there were still mumblings about its effects on kids. Mordern Warfare 2 is not cartoony, it's not comical. It's realistic and bloody, visceral with palpable emotive responses, particularly the airport level: the one level with all the hype that all the kids will want to boast about to their friends.

What could immitation of this lead to? Will it desensitise to the point of feeling that human life is disposable. There are no repercussions to killing innocents, you kill them or you don't, the outcome remains the same; a powerful message about futility. Should our kids hear that message at their tender age? No. Of course not. And it's not Activision's fault for releasing the game. They're doing their jobs and making their money and that's great, if a little soulless. The BBFC has rated the game an 18. So the retailers know who they can and can't sell it to.

Which means the message isn't getting through to mummy and daddy. To parent or guardian, to use schoolspeak. When a game is rated 18, that's the highest it can be rated. There is no R18 and if there were, I would bet a considerable sum of money on Modern Warfare 2 swelling the ranks of that category, along with, say, GTA IV. R18 in the world of film is reserved for porn, so I propose a rule of thumb for parents that's marvellously easy to remember when making a judgement call about 18-rated games:

• if you wouldn't let them watch Bareback Hotel, don't buy them 18-rated games.

Last Updated on Friday, 10 June 2011 02:27

Comments (6)

This is all too much fuss. It's "realistic" in the same sense as a loaf of bread is a broadsword. There's a huge difference from sticking a sharp object, live, in someone's body, to pressing a button on your gamepad/mouse and murdering... PIXELS. So basically: it's like a propaganda for the Inhumane Treatment Of Pixels.

Video Games weren't imported in Romania until 1999. Until then, everything was pirated. And I remember getting some floppy disks from a dude, with the first GTA. I was 13 or something. Sure, I played it, enjoyed it. It wasn't anything too realistic. It was a top-down wacky murder spree... BUT, at the end of the first chapter, doing missions for a crime boss called El Burro (translated: The Donkey), he appreciated my efforts so much, that he wanted to personally show me why they call him El Burro. So, I see a cartoony picture/cinematic, with a big ugly, hairy guy, wearing only a leather vest, inviting for a night of sodomy in his personal bed. I was 13. Did that change me? No. If kids are dumb enough to replicate what they see, it's their parents' fault for a bad education or horrible genes in the daddy's sperm for bringing up such a retarded baby. Who knows. Pixels aren't to blame.

I was 12. I enjoyed it. Everyone around me is still alive and I still urinate into a toilet. Proof enough?

I'm 17. I've played god knows how many 18-rated games but I've never searched for help in video games when I am angry or sad. I don't think "What would Niko Bellic do?". I don't walk around in the house looking for zombies or anything similar, and I don't steal my dad's car for joyrides.

Nah, common sense people... common sense.

An interesting selection of people to comment so defensively, wouldn't you say.
...that's really all I'm saying on that.

To quote Remus, "If kids are dumb enough to replicate what they see, it's their parents' fault..." Yup. That is my point. I'm not demonising the games industry or retailers but saying that it would be better - where studies don't provide adequate information at this time - to protect children from games which a professional, national board of classification who know what they're doing and why they're doing it, have deemed to be inappropriate, if not damaging to people below the age they have classified it.

At no point did I say that the games themselves were in error. It's an expression, an artform. If someone wants to shit on a duvet and call it art, they can do that and I could appreciate it, to an extent, but I don't think it would be appropriate for everyone.

It's all very well saying "I turned out okay, game's aren't to blame", but since when did one individual become the entire population of human beings on the planet? No, not just games are to blame; media and peer pressure are contributing factors among today's youthful culture and we see this sort of thing through 18 rated films and CD's warning of parental guidance. We learn when we're young. People (some more than others) are easily influenced by what they see or hear, it doesn't nesecarily mean they're gonna turn into car-jacking, prostitute killing drug dealers, but it may lead to mental problems later in life such as nuiscance behaviour or even mood swings, maybe even anger problems. I'm not sterotyping, but if subjected to games such as 50 cent, GTA, Modern warfare or Manhunt, at such a young age, games that promote such violence and anger, is it any wonder really?
When I was little the harshest games I ever played were perhaps Resident evil, GTA1 or Nightmare creatures (who remembers that!?), but what they were then, aren't what they were now.Back then I wasn't given the choice to obtain a chainsaw and to cut an innocent person into tiny bits, I didn't have the option of being cut in half by an alien only to see my player's insides spew out. I just happen to think the 18 rated logo is there for a reason, and it makes me sad to see it neglected... It looks so pweety.

I mean, for starters, there's actually some kids that can't stand violent video games (a friend of mine included). But then again, I blame the parents for buying the game for their kids. I mean, just say no, or smack the little brat. Piece a c4ke!
I've played Postal 2, and other sick games, although it doesn't make me think (I borrow this from Shade) I'd never think like "What would the Postal Dude do?" when I shop milk. "Maybe I should just get a shotgun, find a cat, shove the shotgun up its pooper, and use it as a silencer to get rid of the damn line to the cash register. I'd never hijack a car and hit some people on the streets with it, just because I just replayed GTA: San Andreas, no...
Your parents decide if you can handle the games, not you, if they say no, then too bad, go buy the latest My Little Pony game, and wait 'til you've matured, or turned 18.