I’ve been watching with interest the debate as to how video games should be classified. At present, there is a voluntary code that most games manufacturers follow. Calls have been made for the BBFC to be given the job of applying age ratings to games.
None of the commentators have mentioned the obvious problem, in their haste to wring their hands about "evil video games corrupting our youth". The problem, as with many things, is witless parents.
Games are already clearly marked. A game marked "18" contains content that is not suitable for those under 18. It’s the same as films. You wouldn’t, for example, buy an eight year old a copy of Reservoir Dogs. But when a parent caves in and buys Grand Theft Auto that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Just because it’s a game, doesn’t mean it’s aimed at or intended for children. It’s the same problem faced by writers of graphic novels. That may sound a pretentious term, but the only alternative is "comic" and they’re not writing comedy. We don’t have the terms bande dessine or manga to describe pictoral works that aren’t the Beano.
As for the claims that video games make people violent, I would suggest that anyone who cannot differentiate real life from pixels has bigger problems. I’ve played GTA, for example, and not once have I felt the urge to run real people over at random or steal cars.
I agree with the voluntary age ratings but feel that an education campaign would be a far better use of time and money than adding to the BBFC’s workload. Make it clear that not all games are for children, and that age ratings are for content, not difficulty. Have shop staff remind the purchaser of games with an age rating that it isn’t suitable for people under that age.
