Drugs and violence in gaming

By Dave Kozicki

…Or when will games get the same courtesy and consistency feature films do?

Any gamer who’s been around for a little while would be well familiar with the following scenario; a new game is released with thinly veiled references to drug culture or excessive violence. Now if this was any other form of popular media, it would at worst case get slapped with an R rating, leaving the decision to watch it placed firmly in the hands of the individual, or for minors, their parent or guardian. Seems simple enough doesn’t it? You make the decision whether or not you deem this subject matter appropriate and enforce your right to choose whether or not to view said piece of entertainment.

So why is there always such a grey area when the focus turns towards the video game industry? Why has the decision-making process been taken away from us and moved to a “to ban or not to ban” philosophy? Why is a special place reserved for gaming culture? Is it the archaic perception that games are just for kids? For god’s sake we hope not! If you take a looksee at the average gamer’s age, you’ll probably find they range from 18-25 year old males. So why the special treatment? Let’s take a look at some of the craziness that has been perpetuated by the OFLC over the years and see if we can find a little insight into why games get banned and what the future holds…

Drugs and violence in videogames, nay, even popular culture, is not a big deal. In fact, an argument could be made that we are desensitised to these extreme and often-illegal acts due to the glorification through various forms of entertainment. And here’s where the hypocrisy and inconsistency lays. Look at some early games like Max Payne, which included the use of “painkillers” as a health top up or even The Warriors where you did some blow or “dust” to replenish your health. All deemed suitable. Even look at Bioshock, which still stuns us that it made it through classification unscathed, where you inject plasmids to access new abilities, and looks remarkably like someone jacking up heroin (so we’ve been told). That’s all fine and dandy. Now we look at Fallout 3, and it gets refused classification because of morphine use, when each previously mentioned game slides? How does that one work? And if Fallout 3 gets refused, how possibly can the PS3 version of Bioshock slip through again?

We feel it’s less of an idea of the public’s perception of drug use, but more a case of how can local distributors slip it past the OFLC. Maybe Red Ant should make the lead character in Fallout 3 a diabetic, and he can inject “insulin” to receive the favourable result, aye? Would that be acceptable? It’s not the public’s perception that is flawed; it’s the unbalanced playing field of the OFLC and the censorship laws it enforces. Seriously, you think that banning a game is going to stop little Jimmy from ordering it overseas or picking it up on Ebay for less than he would at a retail shop locally? How exactly does that help the local industry? Why not give it a rating and rely upon the parents and shopkeepers to enforce the law? It works fine for alcohol and pornography, so why the uproar against a game? Which would you find more disturbing, a kid sitting at home playing GTA IV or Fallout 3, roaming the sandbox worlds living out his violent fantasies, or little Johnny getting tanked on a case of West Coast Cooler in a park with his mates, rolling an innocent bystander and generally causing a ruckus? We see the lesser of the two evils, and it doesn’t involve alcohol.

What about violence you say? Again this double standard applies. Case in point, the last Rambo film. Uber-violent to say the least, yet many heralded this as a ‘return to form’ for Stallone and gave kudos, yet look at some of the last batch of bans. Dark Sector was done because you use a glaive that slices and dices humans, that’s uncalled for innit? But Sly mowing down dozens of enemy soldiers with a 50 Cal and literally blowing their heads into itty-bitty pieces is entirely acceptable. It doesn’t bode well for the future now, does it? How can Dark Sector get the shaft, and Soldier of Fortune (who’s biggest selling point was the gratuitous violence) gets lobotomised, yet Viking: Battle of Asgard and Ninja Gaiden II, which both feature decapitations and limb removal (and buckets of blood) by the score get off Scott-free? Where will that leave the upcoming Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway, which shows broken bones poking through clothing and other horrific visions of war, or the stellar looking Madworld where bloodlust is made into a competition? Not good at all friends, not good.

The problem is that there’s still a stigma attached to our industry. It’s ludicrous. We have ill informed individuals making decisions that effect us all, without having all the facts, or worse, knee jerk liberals embracing causes they know nothing about to garner more airtime. We say the key, as with anything, is to educate. We need to stand together and make people understand that as with watching a movie, or reading a book, this is just an escape. It’s a form of entertainment to live out one’s heroic tendencies, or indulge dark desires. It’s pure fantasy. How can we judge one format, and not another? The answer is, we can’t. Until we get that level playing field (or at least a few more gamers on the OFLC board), we’re stuck with the way things are. Our petition to save Fallout 3 was a huge step in the right direction, and the support received from our fan base was gratifying to say the least, but don’t let the buck stop there. There’s a lot more to games than drugs and violence, and it’s up to each of us to shatter that stereotype and educate those who think they’re in the know…

You know, another storyteller was considered tremendously out of order when his risqué plays saw the light of day. We’re sure you’re familiar with him. That fellow’s name was Shakespeare. Something to think about isn’t it?