Another Victory for Video Games

So today the Supreme Court struck down the California law banning the sale of violent video games to children in a 7 to 2 vote. This is an obvious victory for everyone in the gaming industry and perhaps one for the First Amendment as well. Of course I was on the side of the industry, but I thought it would be a worthy endeavor to examine the law and supposed repercussions from both sides of the argument. No worries, I shan't delve too much into the many overdone topics of violence in video games and how it affects children, as better people have handled that question anyway.

So what exactly was the law attempting to do? Well, obviously it was trying to limit the access that children have to video games. Does that mean it made it illegal for children to play violent video games or even for violence to be in the games themselves? Simple answer is "no". It would still have been possible for parents to make the purchase of such games for their children if they deemed it appropriate. So, that said, what reasons do we have to be glad the decision was made in the first place?

First of all (I'll make this quick as I possibly can), do games damage children the same way other products that are prohibited to minors do, such as tobacco products? Well, there exists a few studies that claim that children who indulge in excessive violent gaming often have issues with aggression and desensitization. Besides the fact that one should always scrutinize which groups are performing these studies, I must say that extended  gaming of any variety is unhealthy for any person really, no need to beat around the bush, it's a grim fact we all know. So aside from issues of moderation and willingness to be exposed to wider elements in culture that all of us as gamers have to face, is there anything wrong with responsible indulgence in games even if they are reasonably violent?

The way I see it (caution: anecdotal evidence ahoy), kids will behave the way their brains have wired them to behave, if they are rough and tumble boys and girls, then they will most likely have benign violent traits and interests despite being deprived of violent toys and media. Altering the media they have access to will most likely only change the flavor of violence they like. The fact is our brains have evolved to function in several different ways, and while cultural reinforcement teaches us what is appropriate and what's not, our tastes and interest (especially at a young age) are going to gravitate around the same nature that our brains have been programmed to. However at the core of the matter, an interest in media with superficial violent content does not comprise the entirety of one's personality, and all humans young or old, are far too complex to be simplified by what media they consume. All in all, I find it strikingly hypocritical that we would want to limit our children's exposure to fictitious violence when we live in a country that embraces aggressive personality traits and is currently engaged in multiple long term wars... but that's another issue entirely.

As I said before, this is a question as old as the medium itself, and is best answered by someone who has formally studied this stuff and has an understanding of video games and culture.

What I really wanted to address was how the industry would actually be affected. Obviously these war-based FPS games are our current blockbusters, so without them, what would the industry look like? Honestly, I guess it would just go back to the 90's with Nintendo dominating everywhere... but besides that, how would our U.S. game development companies fare? Is there any real way to track how many violent video games were sold to minors versus people of age? Unfortunately, that's impossible, so we'll never know how hard the industry would be hit financially.

But that's not even the heart of the issue, the actual scourge is the proverbial slippery slope. Games have only recently been officially recognized as art, yet there is still so much work to be done. Not only do we have to graduate into maturity to take our place among our literature and cinema cousins, but we have to be vigilant in order to not backpedal. You see, it's inevitable that games will progress in the way that all of us intellectual gamers have predicted, but that doesn't mean that said growth won't be slowed by bad decisions of a culture that moves at a snail's pace in understanding new technology.

So here is the real issue, our medium... our culture is in it's adolescent years. It's a turbulent time where we have to embrace what we have achieved and simultaneously be ready to cast off old hindrances and stereotypes as we prepare to embark on the long journey of fulfilling our potential. Did California's law endanger our capability to evolve or stifle our growth to innovate? It's really hard to say, but what is for sure is that we have proven that we have come a long way and plan to continue. Our medium deserves the same rights and privileges as any other, and as the consumers of this culture, we demand the respect to choose which art, entertainment and information is right for ourselves and our children. So until the culture police find the next demon that threatens to destroy our nation's youth, video games will continue to emerge victorious in the courts.

It's a cliche, I know, but one day we will tell our grandchildren about the time that games had to endure the harsh cultural spotlight of slings and arrows. They will passively quip "that's stupid..." and then return to learning first hand about the political and cultural systems of Mesopotamia while engrossed in the fast-paced combat of Warriors of Babylon for PS5.