Just how far are we willing to go in the name of entertainment? As I have stated in part one of this article, the 'morality' argument does not necessarily hold much water, as notions of morality change with time �entertainment for the citizens of Rome was equivalent to throwing a group of slaves into an arena with several hungry animals. In the present day, this is considered "immoral" or wrong. And rightly so. The fact that the criminals, thugs and other sundry 'baddies' can be shot, punched, kicked and otherwise beaten to a pulp then re-spawn minutes later can be just as bad as watching defenceless people being slaughtered by lions.

However, in reality, these people are unable to hit 'continue' for another crack of the whip and start again with full health and all their equipment intact. Therefore, games can be potentially damaging in that they show that no harm can come to the player if they have enough lives left. Away from the computer, a person only has one life, and it is a precious thing, to suggest that anything else is true is irresponsible. Most people will obviously be able to separate video game fantasy from reality, but will everyone? Equally, whilst games can provide a useful outlet for feelings of aggression, they can be harnessed and controlled under a set of limiting factors that prevent them from being expressed in reality. I have known so many mild-mannered drivers that become murderous behemoths behind the wheel of a car in R: Racing, and innocent smiles from sweet little girls seem almost sickening after they thrash the living daylights out of you in Wii Sports Boxing.

As long as these outlets are seen as limited and unrelated to real life, then there is an argument in favour of them being healthy, or at the very least a vastly preferable alternative to rampaging hordes of sociopaths bent on ram-raiding, larceny, theft and rape. But it is indeed the lesser of two evils, and no matter how preferable, it is still to be considered an evil. The problem is human nature, and this is not an issue that can be resolved with gentle coaxing or protecting people from images and scenes that might provoke them into unwanted behaviour. I am afraid there are many great men and women who have come before me who are unable to propose a means to suppress the worst aspects of improve human nature. I do not claim to be a great man, therefore I have nothing to propose, but instead profess an awareness of the almost hopeless cause against which we rail- this awareness is the first step to a possible solution.

Coming back to universal ratings and their inherent inequality, it must be stressed that these ratings are in theory as legally binding for the parents as they are for the retail employees and managers. However, it should be the parents that make the final decision as to whether their children are suitably equipped to be able to deal with the issues presented in the game. This itself reveals a problem that is becoming ever-more prevalent in our society: parents simply do not take the time or interest in the development of their own children, so much so that they are unaware or ignorant of their capacities- both good and bad. The result of this is that games will inevitably fall into the hands of children who are persistent in their demands for the game �exactly the sort of children for whom the game is not ideal for, as they will already have difficulty in distinguishing when it is right or wrong to have something.

So the onus is on the parents, who often treat their children like trophies when they have succeeded in winning a contest, gaining extra merit at school or have excelled in some way, but act as if they are millstones hanging around their necks when they want a social life independent of their obligations. Returning to the example of 'Daddy's beer' once again (again, see part one), giving your child a sip to quench their curiosity does not imply that you are a bad parent, nor that the child will in later life become an alcoholic. It is the moderation, the interaction with the child and the example set that will help dictate the final outcome. If you allow them to play games unrestricted, without educating them on the pitfalls of anti-social behaviour, then you have no-one but yourself to blame when awoken at 3am by the police with your child in custody, ASBO in hand. If you are able to show that moderation, temperance and good judgement �by your own example as much as in explanation, then you have armoured your child as best you can for the trials of the world.

You cannot expect that they will always follow your wisdom, but only by linking crime and punishment, cause and effect with the responsibilities inside and outside of the gaming environment can you be assured that you have done the best you can. It is only when parents grow up to their duties that we can expect fantasy and reality to be clearly defined.

Iun Scott-Hockley
[email protected]