Gaming gets a heck of a lot of negative press these days. Children who illegally buy copies of Grand Theft Auto or Resident Evil are splashed over the newspapers on slow news days and are greeted by tuts and head-shaking all over the world. Even worse are the headlines when one out of several hundred thousand actually commits a crime while an 18-rated game sits nonchalantly in their home console. How do we solve the problem of desire for the 'unsuitable'? Is it even right to allow the unsuitable at all?

Let's face it, when something is forbidden or denied to you, it instantly becomes more attractive. Think of how many times as a child you wanted to try daddy's beer, or wanted the last piece of chocolate in the fridge, but were told you could not have it. The desire for it increased because you were not allowed. If you had all the chocolate you wanted, or all the beer you wanted, the need for it would be significantly less, or you would become bored by it. It is a similar situation when you slap an 18 certificate on a movie or a game: the forbidden element is like an invitation to desire for a ten year-old.

This isn't necessarily the result, though: on the other hand, if something is commonly available, it risks going from the banal and uninteresting to a dangerous obsession or addiction. The desensitisation that will render you immune to its charms may instead desensitise you to its dangerous nature. Thus the person who has free access to beer may become dependant on it, instead of considering it uninteresting due to its availability.

This is where judging the individual enters the equation: can they, from a personal point of view be adjudged to be immune to the addictive and obsessive desensitising effects of violent games? The answer is not one that the average sales assistant can (or should) answer easily. Responsibility should, in theory, fall to the parents to judge the disposition of their child. However, with the increasing trend in parents reneging on their responsibilities towards monitoring their children's activities (especially in the modern computer-dominated era) some sort of legal protective measures are clearly required.

Step forward the British VSC (Video Standards Council) �and its European counterparts. These organisations aim to classify games by their content, not their intentions and thereby protect the impressionable from exposure to dangerous or unsuitable themes and images. Again, we run against the problem that some children under the age of 18 are totally immune to sensationalist, glorifying images of violence and are never likely to become the anti-social axe murderers that the tabloid press would have you believe. This blanket legislation cannot possibly make provision for the more intelligent youths of society, nor is it its mandate.

The real questions is: Are we right to allow depictions of rape, violence and degradation in computer games and films at all?

Well, yes and no, really. The fact of the matter is that these things happen in real life and it is irresponsible to ignore them and think that without their proliferation in media that they will die. Of course this is neither true nor possible, as historically, great acts of violence and cruelty have managed to surface without the aid of video gaming. That is not to assert that video games are entirely blameless in the corruption of youth as there will always be a small minority of copy-cats, but the case is far too frequently overstated. As is often the way with sensationalism: "Nintendo Killed My Son!" will sell far more newspapers than "It's Possible That Video Games May Trigger Photosensitive Seizures".

So do we permit the depiction of various acts of cruelty and crimes and accept them as normality in a topsy-turvy world, reasoning that by mollycoddling our children that they will become vulnerable to the first act of violence or deceit they come across in their lives?

Frankly: No.

Images of violence for its own sake are wrong and there is no getting around that. Violence with purpose (if there is such a thing) is far more acceptable than hunting people down and killing them simply for the pleasure of inflicting pain. Liberating a castle from hordes of Nazis is a justifiable act of violence in the name of doing good: stealing a car, beating someone to death or encouraging prostitution for monetary or social gain is not. Period.

So the option we have on the table is to dictate the kinds of unsuitable material our children can see. But this again brings with it branching problems: if we make violence for pleasure the forbidden fruit, then we return to the earlier issue of desire through denial. If all games show noble heroes overcoming tremendous odds, then the need for brash, arrogant anti-heroes and down-right rapscallions becomes all the more pressing in the minds of our youth. Variety being the spice of life, such repressive measures would also engender boredom into the players. And since this is an entertainment industry (as I have stated many times) developers and publishers are only interested in making games that sell, and if those games are Grand Theft Auto, Manhunt and True Crime, then so be it.

Money talks, but so do ethics and respectable standards. These are, however, purely subjective in their application: one man's murder simulator is another man's restful weekend indulgence, and surely this is the biggest issue of all. How do we perceive games and how do we allow our children to be affected by them?

The second part of this column will tackle the issues of appropriateness and the role of perspectives and influence in suitability. In the meantime, it's time for Iun to put on the funky shoes, get down and party and get into the Christmas "Spirit" as he's just found where the key to the N-Europe drinks cabinet is again.

Iun Scott-Hockley
[email protected]