Gaming and Children; Age Ratings Matter

Last week was every gamers favourite week; E3. E3 is the entertainment expo that allows gaming companies to showcase their upcoming titles and for console companies to reveal their latest hardware/software developments. Gamers of all ages love a chance to see the next thing in gaming being revealed at these shows. Yet little consideration is taking into account that the games shown are not suitable for all ages.

Games, just like films, have age ratings which are determined by the content of the game. Violence, sex, horror and drugs are just some of the factors taken into account when rating a game. The Pan European Game Information (PEGI) was launched in 2003 as a single system used throughout Europe to rate games according to age appropriate content. The age ratings are 3, 7, 12, 16 and 18 and include warnings on the labels to warn of particular content to make both gamers and parents aware of what the game consists of and why it has been given the particular rating it has. PEGI was only to be used as a guideline until 2012 when it was accepted as law in the UK, making it illegal to sell an 18 rated game to anyone under that age.

Research has shown that children are influenced by playing games. It mostly centres on skills such as visual attention, reaction times, the development of cognitive skills such as spatial perception or strategic thinking, planning or hypothesis testing. Video gaming could be used to enhance skills of flexibility (ability to shift from one task to another) and behavioural inhibition (ability to prevent oneself from doing something inappropriate) in children. This would have a significant impact on their ability to regulate their own thoughts and behaviour, which is one of the developmental challenges of childhood and could be of great benefit to children. There are other potential benefits of video games in terms of offering the chance to open up the imagination and explore other worlds, conquer fears and develop a sense of identity. There are many potential areas where games could have great positive potential for the mental and physical health of children and for education”

However, there is also a chance for gaming to have a negative impact when parents ignore age ratings and buy their children 18 rated games. ‘Grand Theft Auto’, ‘Left for Dead’, ‘Mortal Kombat’ and ‘Saints Row’ are all games that have high levels of violence, sex, gore and sexism, yet are often played by children as young as 8. Games are not just aimed at children any longer and those targeted at adults have content that can be potentially damaging to a child’s development.

I am not saying that playing ‘Grand Theft Auto’ will make a child go and kill everyone but I am concerned that these games can foster a view of the world that is unhealthy and can stunt a child’s emotional development. A common criticism of games is that they are extremely sexist; women are often there for sexual gratification, either of the characters or the players through the female characters (often skimpy) clothes. A young child playing this could form a harmful perception of women and see violence towards them as acceptable.

Most parents would not let their child watch a film that is rated 18 as they would not want their child to be exposed to the scenes, yet, arguably, gaming is more harmful as it is an interactive experience where the child chooses to commit the acts on screen instead of passively watching it, like a film.

Parents need to be more involved in their children’s gaming choices or at least educate themselves on the content of the game before purchase. Gaming can and is meant to be harmless fun but parents need to consider the age rating on games as important as those on films.

Progressive thoughts on Paedophiles

In the past few years the issue of paedophilia has become almost every day news due to Jimmy Saville, the Rotherham case, Rolf Harris and various others celebrities or those in power having been accused of such behaviour. The outrage is always the same but we never stop to consider how to either help or stop these people. I recently watched a Louis Theroux documentary called ‘A place for Paedophiles’ and it raised some interesting concepts around the issue.

The programme focuses around a ‘hospital’ in America that seeks to ‘cure’ those who have been prosecuted for acts of paedophilia. Some of the ‘patients’ acknowledge that what they did was wrong and attend therapy, however it should be noted that the only way to be released from the institution is to pass the therapy course and be being considered ‘cured’ which, at the time of the documentary, only 4 people had managed. Others refuse to admit to their crimes and see themselves as being unlawfully imprisoned for life.

The mindset of the public towards those who have sexual feelings towards children is that they are mentally ill in some way and need to be cured. I think it is not as simple as that. We as a society need to label it as an illness because it’s the only way we can even remotely try to understand it. For some paedophiles there will be a sick pleasure in it but for others it may be as simple as it is their sexual preference likes some members of society identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, omnisexual, asexual and various other sexualities. I understand that this is not a popular viewpoint but it may be a way to help people manage their impulses and for society to understand it better.

A young boy in America tried to seek help after he recognised in himself that he was attracted to young boys and girls. Therapists shunned him at first and he struggled to find a way to stop what he was doing. He now runs a support group for non-offending young people who have these urges. This support group provides a safe place to talk and to turn to in times of need therefore helping to reduce, or stopping all together, the participants in viewing indecent images of children. However, this group have to be careful and protect their identities as they know how the public would react to them. There is little difference in the eyes of the public between those who have these thoughts and those that act on them yet in reality this is a wide divide.

As more research is done into paedophilia the more it becomes apparent that it is not a mental illness or something that develops after being abused; it is something that people are born with. Society needs to be more open to supporting individuals who seek help for their urges instead of making the subject so taboo that it is repressed. This does harm both to the person suffering and any victim of these urges.

This is an uncomfortable subject and an uncomfortable way of looking at it but only by being more open about the issue can we hope to prevent it. Therapy or support groups are needed for individuals dealing with these thoughts in an attempt to prevent child abuse ever occurring. This openness could also mean that those with this sexual preference are prevented from entering careers that puts them in contact with children, therefore eliminating the temptation and controlling the environment that they are exposed to.

Society needs to realise, not everything that we don’t or can’t understand is a mental illness. Progressive thinking and more communication could help everyone live with less fear and more understanding. Hopefully in the future the place for these individuals can be in society provided they are given the correct support and help from the correct institutions.

Shoot first, Escape Indictment Later

This year is ending on two dramatic Grand jury decisions in America. In the space of one week, two separate grand juries’ have decided not to indict two separate police officers that would have been charged for very similar reasons. Brown and Garner are the names of the two young black men who were killed by these police officers. The decision not to indict has sparked outrage and disbelief which has been felt globally.

Brown

Michael Brown was shot by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, after Brown had robbed a local convenience store. The official account of the incident is that Brown kept approaching Wilson in a threatening manner so Wilson shot in response six times until Brown was dead. However some bystanders claim that Brown raised his arms in the air to surrender as the gun was fired and excessive force has been used. A grand jury case decided not to indict Wilson but Browns family is seeking a court case for ‘unlawful killing’. The US Justice Department is also investigating possible civil and constitutional rights violations in Brown’s killing and has launched an investigation into the Ferguson police department.

The over-riding sentiment in Ferguson is that this is a case about race; a white male police officer has shot and killed a young black man in public. Tensions have always been high between the police and the black community in Ferguson due to ‘stop and search’ polices. In Ferguson last year, 86% of stops, 92% of searches and 93% of arrests were of black people — despite the fact that police officers were far less likely to find contraband on black drivers (22% versus 34% of whites). Add to this that only 6% of the police force is black whilst over 50% of the population is black and it is easy to see that the black population of Ferguson are under-represented as well as feeling persecuted. This shooting has added to that feeling, especially now that Wilson will not be indicted. To some it signals that black lives are not important and that white police officers can do as they please and get away with it.

The shooting sparked protests and riots across the city which was provoked further with the use of SWAT and military equipment by the police to contain the protests.  This has raised some important questions in America about use of military equipment by police forces across the country. The scenes from Ferguson could have easily been from a war-torn region in Iraq as the pictures featured SWAT teams, heavy artillery and even tanks on the ground in an attempt to contain protesters. This disproportionate reaction did nothing to calm the situation, if anything it further enraged the population as the city became militarized and had enforced upon it a curfew.

Garner

The second case is that of Eric Garner. He was stopped in July by police officers in Staten Island on suspicion of selling untaxed ‘loose’ cigarettes. A video shot by a bystander shows Garner resisting arrest as a plainclothes officer attempts to handcuff him. Backing away from the officer, Garner tells him: “This stops today,” The officer, Daniel Pantaleo, struggles with Garner before placing him in a chokehold – banned under police policy- then pushing the asthmatic man to the ground with the aid of other officers. In the video he can clearly be heard to repeatedly say ‘I can’t breathe’ until his body goes limp. Again, a grand jury decided not to indict Pantaleo despite the medical examiner ruling the death homicide.

This case sparked larger but more peaceful protests across New York than those seen in Ferguson. The chant ‘I can’t breathe’ could be heard all over the city. This case attracted more popular support because the video footage existed showing exactly what occurred unlike in the case of Brown where there was contradictory eye witness accounts. The failure of the courts to indict Pantaleo again drives the narrative of race being a large part of the decision. Two separate decisions, both of which have devalued the lives of black people in America.

Most citizens of New York have expressed confusion over the decision and it has also cast doubt over the effectiveness of introducing body cameras on police officers. It has long been assumed that having their actions recorded would alter both the public and the police officers interactions with each other for the better but this decision casts a shadow over this. When a recording exists of an officer unlawfully killing a man and he is let go then what reasons would exist for a police officer to alter their behaviour for a body camera. Every decision would be defended by the police force creating a stand-off between the public and the police as perceptions on the incidents clashed.

In both situations it is argued that excessive force has been used by the police officer in question. This raises the issue of the quality of police training; sufficient training must be put in place to teach an officer when it is appropriate to draw their weapon and how to handle those resisted arrest without causing bodily harm. Guns should not be the first port of call for an officer yet more and more people are dying from gunshots from police officers every year. In the garner case a banned chokehold was used to overcome garner. At no point should this manoeuvre even be taught, it is banned because it is proven to be dangerous. These actions cannot go unpunished or ignored; instead funds need to be invested into police force training, not just to buy excessive military equipment that escalates situations but to educate officers on how to approach difficult situations.

The cases have highlighted that institutional racism is still alive and well in America. The message has been sent that black lives mean less than whites. This idea cannot go unopposed nor can the obvious use of black stereotypes by police officers when on the streets. Too many black people are stopped and searched creating fear and anger towards the police in these communities. This creates a tension which only requires one incident to ignite it into flames; Ferguson illustrates this clearly. Police forces need to be more proportionate in relation to the population of the community they are policing. To have only 6% of black policemen in a high populated black area is unreasonable and illustrates that either racism is preventing more blacks to enter the force or that the relationship with the community in question is so bad that no black people want to be police officers. Both reasons indicate that something is deeply wrong with America. In the 21^st century we should no longer be reading stories about racism, it’s time that this issue was addressed face on. Hopefully these cases will  have sparked the debated needed to initiate change so that in the future race will play no part in any decision making process and that police officers will answer for their actions, whether they or the victim be white or black.

Female leads can kick ass

Video games are a massive part of life these days for most of the population; whether you’re a diehard console player or a casual Angry Birds fan while on your train to work you are still a ‘gamer’. My husband is training to be a games programmer so it’s probably a larger part of my life than most. I love playing games (Xbox girl here), or even watching my husband play the ones I suck at. Therefore the issues in games are quite often a topic of discussion between us.

The latest big topic in the gaming world is the lack of lead female characters. Earlier this year pop culture critic Anita Sarkeesian tweeted about this issue. The replies she received were less than pleasant. “Shut up”. “Hey there! Can you just stop. Stop being retarded and bitchy. No?” “Women don’t belong in video games.” “What did you expect? Cooking and cleaning games at a console launch?” “Maybe if women were more interesting and capable at life there would be more female led games, like super floral arranger.” “Games with female protags don’t sell. Maybe if more women started getting into the game market then they would make more, dumbass.”*

However, she has a point. Lara croft was rebooted this year and thankfully became less of a sex symbol of more a believable lead character. This is rare though. Most games are dominated by white male lead characters, the argument being that the roles they play require them to be men. Mass effect three gave the player a choice of gender and sexuality but was considered controversial for this reason.

Modern video games have elvoled and the reasons for leaving lead female characters out of them have become weak.  Most combantant games have no female characters unless they are a love interest. Male characters vary in shape, size and looks yet when female characters are included they are often beautiful and frail or hard-lined and display masculine traits. Having unattractive females seems unspeakable as does have a strong but feminine character.

Vidoe games are beocming more complex and their audience more wide ranged. Female gamers are on the rise and having female protagonists could appeal to an even larger female audience. Being able to relate to a character incites you to play it more therefore strong female leads should in theory attract more female players.

The new Lara Croft game has opened the way and shown that a female protagonist, who isn’t just a sex symbol, can sell a game successfully. With any luck this trend will continue giving players greater choice and freedom in their gaming.

 

Also my dearest husband has written a similar piece http://nickfarman.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/single-white-grunt/ 

 

 

 

*http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2013/jun/12/games-industry-problem-female-protagonists