It seems to be getting harder for California kids younger than 17 to get their hands on violent video games.
Best Buy, a major tech entertainment retailer, recently reinforced its policy restricting the sale of mature video games to minors. And the California Legislature expects to see the revival of a failed bill that would make it a crime to sell ultra-violent video games to youth.
It seems to be getting harder for California kids younger than 17 to get their hands on violent video games.
Best Buy, a major tech entertainment retailer, recently reinforced its policy restricting the sale of mature video games to minors. And the California Legislature expects to see the revival of a failed bill that would make it a crime to sell ultra-violent video games to youth.
Even a tech camp at Stanford University this summer is limiting the violent content that students produce and play.
Despite all the attempts to protect kids, the line between what’s acceptable gameplay and what’s gratuitous blood and gore remains hazy. It’s also unclear whether a one-size-fits-all approach benefits everyone younger than 17.
“Everyone wants to take out anger,” said 16-year-old video game aficionado Robert DeArmond, “and it’s better to do it in a game than on someone.”
DeArmond, a Santa Cruz native, plays video games for one to two hours every few days and favors ones that can be considered somewhat risqué. He runs cars off the road for a fiery explosion and reward in “Burnout 3,” assaults hordes of aliens in “Halo 2” and chain-saws rival gangs in “Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.”
“Kids just want to be rebellious, and this is just another form of it,” he said. They “want to play something more extreme than Pac-Man.”
At the weeklong iD Tech Camp at Stanford in late June, DeArmond designed a 3-D video game from scratch in which a warlock traverses through dark sewers to escape from a temple.
Another 90 or so campers, ages 7 to 17, programmed their own two-dimensional and three-dimensional games and modified existing games, like the mystical role-playing game “Dungeon Siege.” Many of the students at the camp, which is sponsored by gaming moguls such as Electronic Arts and Microsoft, aspire to become professional game developers.
Though DeArmond’s game sounds dark, it’s not violent. In fact, the instructors try to keep the video game violence to a minimum. And they only let campers 13 or older play games appropriate for teens and adults.
State Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, is trying to make that kind of age guideline a law. Assembly Bill 450 would have made it a felony to sell extremely violent video games to minors, but state legislators voted it down in June. He plans to reintroduce the bill.
“We’re prepared to shore up support,” said Yee, who garnered the endorsements of the California Academy of Pediatricians, the California Psychiatric Association and California State PTA.
“These are virtual games that have life-like human figures that commit heinous, atrocious acts of violence,” said Yee, who notes research shows such activity can be detrimental to the children’s well-being.
The $10 billion video game industry and other opponents of Yee’s bill said the legislation would stifle the free-speech rights of game developers and publishers.
In an e-mail rallying video game industry members to speak out against the bill, the International Game Developers Association pointed out “no other entertainment industry’s products are regulated by the state, even though other media have controversial content.”
Electronic Arts, the world’s largest video game publisher, underscores the First Amendment issue. Tammy Schachter, spokeswoman for the Redwood City-based company, declined to comment specifically on violence in video games but did say game developers, just like filmmakers and book publishers, should be free to create content that caters to a wide range of customers.
Entertainment Software Association spokesman Dan Hewitt said Yee’s bill is “unconstitutional, unnecessary and unwarranted.” According to Hewitt, the industry supports Yee’s goal, but insists government regulatory policies are not needed. Rather, politicians, community groups and the industry itself should educate parents about which games contain violent content.
Teens at the tech camp, who may grow up to be tomorrow’s game developers, have mixed ideas about video game violence.
Sixteen-year-old Aaron Solomon thinks it’s fine for kids to play violent video games as long as their parents approve.
The parents of Daniel Adams won’t let their 11-year-old play games rated for audiences age 17 or older because they contain violence, sexual content or foul language.
But they made an exception once. Two years ago, his parents gave him “Halo,” an Xbox best-seller that they didn’t realize was extremely violent.
“We were getting really mad at each other for killing each other in the game,” said Adams, who had thrown a remote control at his brother. “It got kind out of hand, so our parents took it away from us.”