Game Development Reference
In-Depth Information
speech and protecting kids.”
54
This case and the issues surrounding it are somewhat dif erent than the
risks perceived in the rising threat of Nintendo and the harm from playing a
video game for hours to see a brief, network television acceptable sex scene
in
Mass Ef ect
. Those in favor of the law pose the argument that video
games present a unique, powerful threat to contemporary society and our
children. Their presumption was that video games must be regulated dif-
ferently than other forms of media because the content of these games are
particularly dangerous and the mode of interaction is especially seductive.
Chief Justice Roberts outlined this position in oral arguments, contending
that “in these video games the child is not sitting there passively watching
something; the child is doing the killing. The child is doing the maiming.
And I suppose that might be understood to have a dif erent impact on the
child's moral development.”
55
In the development of this law and the consideration of this case, there is
an acknowledgement that there may be an adult audience for video games,
but the underlying principles behind the line of argument supporting the
legislation was that video games risk such a harm to children that they
must be considered distinct in the realm of entertainment. The presumption
behind this position was that industry and parental ef orts were not enough
to protect children and the government had a vested interest in adding an
additional layer of protection to stand between children and a particular
type of video game. Video games are portrayed as a danger similar to por-
nography, cigarettes, and guns; a clear and present threat to the health and
development of the young.
This position hinges on a particular understanding of the way video
games work and what they do—one rooted in the belief that video games
can turn children into Nintendo zombies. This line of argument is updated
and adapted to account for adults as a potential market for video games,
but retains the presumption that images on a screen connected to player-
controlled button pressing can be particularly damaging to the young. Dif-
ferent than the discussion about addiction, but rooted in the psychological
work on violence, video games are dangerous because of the connection
to children. This belief is frequently held by those with a lack of extended
fi rst-hand experience with video games. Regardless of who is right with
regard to the impact of these games on children, the notable issue with
regard to wordplay is how the debate is shaped and how video games are
constructed as a unique media form.
In the midst of oral arguments, when California's attorney admitted lim-
ited experience with video games and most Justices shared the vague under-
standing of how the games worked beyond the images they were shown in
a series of recorded, non-interactive videos, video games were defi ned by
their interrelationship with children. Although the Supreme Court held that
the law was unconstitutional, arguments from both sides demonstrated a
