Misconstrued Words: Researcher Responds to “Violent Pac-Man” Critique

If you might remember our earlier article on violence in video games, based on an article by Aaron Stanton, many of you seemed quite incensed at the assertions pointed out.

This follow-up is a bit late in coming, but it still deserves to be said.

After hearing about and reading Stanton’s article, Dr. Kimberley Thompson (no relation to Jack Thompson, okay?) decided to respond to it by sending a letter and submitting herself to an interview with Joystiq. Her response?

Stanton’s article essentially misrepresented her words. Regarding the claims of her using classic arcade games as part of her testimony, she responded,

We only played and coded some older arcade games because we were interested in examining the progression from abstract and repetitive portrayals of violence in early video games to more realistic portrayals in modern video games. However, quite contrary to what some people appear to allege about our research, we never have and never would hold up these games as evidence against the accuracy of the ESRB rating system.

One thing she does note, at least for the E-rated games, is that even if the games are E-rated parents sometimes let very young (mentally speaking) kids play. By this, she means those children who haven’t been able to distinguish between reality and fantasy yet. If any of you heard about it, this inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy is what makes little kids think they’re their favorite flying Pokemon, and try jumping off the balcony of their apartment building to be like their favorite creatures. Gruesome image, but it’s happened and the kids didn’t die, luckily enough.

She also talks about the nature of subjectivity, where she reminded people that because it is subjective, they might also be missing something in their own view. When people usually refer to violence, they subjectively talk about the severity of it, but it’s also important to mention that there are small details that we might miss, such as a visual or aural indication of pain (a sound associated with getting hit, or glowing red if hit in Mario) or exaggerations of pain received.

Most importantly, in response to Stanton’s assertions, you have to remember that Thompson is working for the best interests of kids (not us gamers above the age of… well, 18… but that’s an arbitrary number). The two most important things she wants to get out of the hearings is that the ESRB actually tries the games (much like game reviewers, except they don’t play the whole thing) before giving them a rating instead of relying on what the developers say, and that parents actually take a more involved role in looking after their kids, especially in the things they do.

“The important thing to realize about self-regulation is that we are depending on parents to make good media choices with and for their kids to avoid bad outcomes.” Good answers all around, and puts a more responsible spin on the ideas presented in Stanton’s article, don’t you think?

If you might remember our earlier article on violence in video games, based on an article by Aaron Stanton, many of you seemed quite incensed at the assertions pointed out.

This follow-up is a bit late in coming, but it still deserves to be said.

After hearing about and reading Stanton’s article, Dr. Kimberley Thompson (no relation to Jack Thompson, okay?) decided to respond to it by sending a letter and submitting herself to an interview with Joystiq. Her response?

Stanton’s article essentially misrepresented her words. Regarding the claims of her using classic arcade games as part of her testimony, she responded,

We only played and coded some older arcade games because we were interested in examining the progression from abstract and repetitive portrayals of violence in early video games to more realistic portrayals in modern video games. However, quite contrary to what some people appear to allege about our research, we never have and never would hold up these games as evidence against the accuracy of the ESRB rating system.

One thing she does note, at least for the E-rated games, is that even if the games are E-rated parents sometimes let very young (mentally speaking) kids play. By this, she means those children who haven’t been able to distinguish between reality and fantasy yet. If any of you heard about it, this inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy is what makes little kids think they’re their favorite flying Pokemon, and try jumping off the balcony of their apartment building to be like their favorite creatures. Gruesome image, but it’s happened and the kids didn’t die, luckily enough.

She also talks about the nature of subjectivity, where she reminded people that because it is subjective, they might also be missing something in their own view. When people usually refer to violence, they subjectively talk about the severity of it, but it’s also important to mention that there are small details that we might miss, such as a visual or aural indication of pain (a sound associated with getting hit, or glowing red if hit in Mario) or exaggerations of pain received.

Most importantly, in response to Stanton’s assertions, you have to remember that Thompson is working for the best interests of kids (not us gamers above the age of… well, 18… but that’s an arbitrary number). The two most important things she wants to get out of the hearings is that the ESRB actually tries the games (much like game reviewers, except they don’t play the whole thing) before giving them a rating instead of relying on what the developers say, and that parents actually take a more involved role in looking after their kids, especially in the things they do.

“The important thing to realize about self-regulation is that we are depending on parents to make good media choices with and for their kids to avoid bad outcomes.” Good answers all around, and puts a more responsible spin on the ideas presented in Stanton’s article, don’t you think?