Verdict Form

Should the UK courts impose regulation on video producers to ensure that representation in games is fair?


Mumsnet

Mumsnet's arguments are completely against video games companies regulations; they feel that they should be changed so that it is harder for younger children to get copies of violent video games which are out of their age rating.
Children are spending around 3 hours a day playing violent video games, this means they are missing out on positive social experiences. They believe that video games are making younger children act more aggressively and making them less kind to their peers. A statistic showed that in average 60 percent of children played violent games in schools in the USA; where as only 39 percent didn't, it seemed that the schools which had the highest amount of children playing the violent video games were also where the most bullying took place.The way violence and violent characters are portrayed in games is seen as fun which could make the children want to imitate the characters in the games. A case was brought up where a young child murder his their friend it was though that this was due to them playing violent video games such as "Mortal Combat". Mumsnet also thought that video games aren't completely bad; but they believe that video games can have an effect on your personality. But the way this could effect children could be far worse as young children don't know how to decide what's right from wrong. They also say that in general people who play video games when they are children are the ones who have usually committed horrific crimes when they are older.

Video Game Companies

Video games companies side of the argument were completely different they seemed to think that the regulations which they have now are fine and that the games rating system is perfect. They went on to say that video games are fine and there is no evidence to prove that video games have any links to the way that children act, and the video companies went  also stated that youth crimes have not increased in the last few years. They believed that if children are playing games that are out of their age rating then it is not due to the regulations, it is the parents fault for letting their children get copies of these items.
Video games companies also thought that video games could give positive messages to children; for example if children play games such as simulator games it could potentially make them aspire to be a medic or a dentist.

My Opinion

In my opinion I think that there are definitely two sides to consider; I neither think that mumsnet or video games companies are wrong but I think that certain areas from both arguments need to be challenged. I feel that at the moment the regulations and age rating are fine, and that the video games companies have done their job where this is concerned. It seems that parents are also quick to leave the blame at the video game creators rather than the retailers. But at the same time I feel that the way video games are advertised needs to be changed. I think that when a game is a high rating such as a 15 or an 18 then the adverts for this game shouldn't be played on TV until later on; at the moment video games companies still advertise these game when children are watching but they just use the edited for television version of the trailer. I think that this is bad because it will still make the children want the game; which parents may fall into buying them it, I feel that to prevent children from playing violent games then firstly the video games companies have to make children less aware of what there is out there.