|
I'm of two minds on this one.
I do see some sense in applying the same standards to games as are applied to movies. The problem is the art of game making is not as developed as the art of film making. To an extent violent films can choose to "self-police" by showing the harrowing consequeces of violence. There ARE films that do so. What I always liked about Reservoir Dogs, a film that many will only ever see as unredeemingly violent, was the depiction of Mr Orange's gunshot wound - the way he suffered was palpable. You could really feel his pain and empathise. For me, Tim Roth's performance as Mr Orange did not desensitize me to violence, he 'sensitized' me. Films can contain violence but still have merit - they are not always violent for the sake of being violent.
Film-makers have had a century to experiment with the depiction of violence. The art of film making is developed enough to weather legislation and regulation.
Game making is much younger. Game makers have only had a decade or two to experiment with how they depict violence and there have been many titles that were violent for the sake of violence. Even now though, games are maturing. Plots are improving. Makers are giving players the option of non-violence. Deus Ex can be played from start to finish without taking a single life. In Splinter Cell the taking of life can often result in mission failure. Despite these developments, the whole art is quite fragile. Each game is expensive to make and a draconian regulatory system could very well retard the development of new game plots and concepts. We could be left with a whole market of mollycoddling pap while fearful shareholders refuse to ever give "good" games the green light.
|