California State Senator Leland Yee has granted GameCyte readers and fellow journalists an open interview.
In the interests of stimulating mature discussion about video game violence, GameCyte contacted the offices of California State Senator Leland Yee, an outspoken critic of Rockstar and the ESRB -- and received a rather unique opportunity. Want to know if the Senator really saw GTA IV before denouncing it? How Senator Yee feels about current game regulation? What he thinks adults should be able to play? Just ask.
GameCyte readers and fellow gaming journalists are invited to pose questions which the Senator will answer on camera next week, the resulting video to be available here and freely distributed to other interested game publications.
To participate, please submit your question in the comments below (or directly to me at sean@gamecyte.com) including your name, city and state of residence, and your title and organization if applicable, before 3:00 PM PSTthis Friday, May 9th.
Mr Yee. My name is Timothy Anderson, I am 19 years old and reside in Minneapolis Minnesota.
I, as well as my friends and girlfriend, have been playing violent video games for the larger portion of my life and neither I, nor any of those whom I associate with, have ever been in any trouble with the law to any extent other than perhaps a parking ticket, and certainly no violent offenses of any kind to speak of.
Now I know this is not neccasarily evidence of anything sir, and its probably something many others will/have written in other questions to you, but I thought it was important to establish.
My question is simply, have you read, in detail, the so called studies that attempt to establish a link whatsoever between violent video games and the increased aggresion and/or desensitization of or to violent behavior?
If so, have you read the book Grand Theft Childhood? The book in which two harvard graduates conduct a large scale study (and one in my opinion much more proper, scientifically speaking and without a clear bias) That shows that not only is their no evidence showing such a correlation but to some extent, actually shows the oposite to be true.
And If you have, what were your thoughts on the book, its authors, and the way they conducted their study?
Hello, Senator. My name is Alex Mejia, and I live in Corona, CA. I have grown up with games as well and have played violent video games. I have a couple of questions:
1. Have you, Senator, played any of the games that you have denounced for the level of violence? If not, how can you just assume that games are just about violence and not consider the stories or storytelling aspects of the games, which is a bigger focus than the actual violence?
2. Considering even the FBI has statistics that show the the crime rate is dropping even when games such as GTA have increased in popularity, what proof is there that violence in games creates violent tendencies in players? Have you yourself read any of the studies that also help show there is no link between violence in games and violence in people?
3. We aware you are an outspoken critic of Rockstar, Take-Two, and the ESRB. However, how can you go after these companies for kids that get their hands on violent material, since they are do not market or aim these kind of games to kids? Can't we say that the parents are more to blame since they are the ones responsible for their own children, and thus, responsible for what their kids are doing?
4. I believe that games are still seen as children's toys. Do you consider that there are just as many gamers who are adults as there are children? Have you considered that different games are marketed to different demographics?
5. Finally, Senator, have you considered that not all violent video games are the bestsellers? In fact, have you realized that the best selling games and most praised games are not M for Mature or even very violent?
Mr. Yee have you heard of a game called America's Army? If not, the game is a first-person shooter made by the United States Government in the idea to help with U.S. Army recruitment and its rated T for Teen. To ensure that players actually know what they're doing, each recruit is required to go through several offline training missions. These training missions are based on actual boot camp locations around the United States, and the Army has taken steps to ensure that boot camp exercises remain just as rigorous as they are in real life.
In other words, America's Army is the closest a game has become to a "murder simulator." Yet I haven't you, the soon to be disbarred Jack Thompson, or main stream media demanding that this game should be re-rated AO because it corrupting our youths. Can I ask why is a game like M rated GTA IV more a threat then a game that is rated T and simulates our own army's rigorous boot camp training?
One last thing, I wanted to add, last November a North Carolina man was able to provide medical aid to the victims of a car accident with the skills he learned from plaing America's Army. I guess violent videogames do have a affect on people after all.
Hello, Senator Yee, my name is Justin Graham. I am set to turn 25 this month, am originally from Petaluma, CA, and am days away from graduating law school at the University of the Pacific-McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. Throughout my childhood, and even today, I have been a fan of video games, including some violent titles. I hope you would not mind answering some questions I have about the supposed harms of violent games and the evidence to prove your assertions:
1) Critics have pointed out numerous flaws in the studies that support your position. The most glaring in my opinion are as follows:
-These games purportedly make people more aggressive, and restrictions are needed to protect people from violence. However, the terms "violence" and "aggression" are not interchangeable. All violence is aggression, but not all aggression is violence. Some aggression can be positive, such as an aggressive player on a football field, or a salesman aggressively pursuing a client. How is "aggression" defined in terms of video game violence, and does it encompass more than just actual violence? If so, why would these other kinds of aggression be harmful to minors?
-The majority of these studies have been conducted in laboratory settings and use proxies for aggression, such as popping balloons, delivering "noise blasts" or hitting rubber dolls, rather than seeing if someone can be provoked into directly attacking someone. This is a highly artificial, contrived setting, far different from how someone would behave in the real world. How can you say delivering a noise blast or recognizing aggressive words quicker on a computer screen is in the same realm as someone deciding to participate in assault, carjacking, or murder?
-These studies also seem to suffer from a large problem with demand characteristics, the tendency for research participants to overly compensate to prove the researcher right in an effort to be a "good subject." Even if the participants are not actually told that the study will be on aggression and video game violence, the setup of the procedures makes it relatively easy to guess. Wouldn't it then follow that people who participate in a study on aggression would be predisposed to act aggressively and may skew the results?
2) Are you familiar with the books "Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super-Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence" by Gerard Jones, or "Grand Theft Childhood" by Cheryl Olson? These books demonstrate that violent video games and other media may actually be beneficial for some children, as it gives them a fantasy setting where they can explore natural feelings of power in an artificial setting, whereas they are often made to feel helpless in the real world. Do you believe that media violence can actually be beneficial in this way? On a personal note, I would strongly recommend you read these books, if you haven't already.
3) One argument about the danger of violent video games is that they serve as training tools to make people more efficient killers, and I constantly hear that the military uses them to train shooters and break down their inhibition to killing. The difference, however, is that the military is a controlled setting, with multiple other factors of physical and mental control that someone would not encounter in their daily life. Saying that video games alone have this desensitizing factor is simply erroneous, and does not account for other influences.
As for the argument that first person shooters can improve marksmanship, a game controller and a computer mouse have entirely different looks and feels from actual guns, weigh significantly less, do not require the ability to reload, and cannot simulate recoil. How, then, can someone "train" obsessively on Grand Theft Auto, and be able to duplicate expert precision marksmanship in a real-life shooting. Shouldn't it follow then, that I could "train" by obsessively playing Madden Football, then go out and develop the arm strength and accuracy of Tom Brady? Why does this training happen in one instance, but not the other?
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to address our concerns.
Senator Yee,
Last year I was in contact with your office over this very issue. Both you and your assistant were very nice and even called me personally. Unfortunately due to events in my life I never got to call you back and talk to you about this issue so I am glad this opportunity came up.
Lately it seems as if politicians have one thing in mind, force retailers to be responsible for what parents allow their kids to purchase and play. What seems to be lacking is any mention of the responsibility of parents to oversee what their kids watch and play. All current generation game systems (Wii, Xbox 360, and Playstation III) have a built in feature that allows parents to lock a game consoles ability to play games based upon the rating. So, for example, if a parent didn’t want their kids to play a M rated game, they simply could turn on the parental controls and the game system would prevent any M rated game from running. If politicians such as yourself are serious about helping parents, why hasn’t there been any effort on the part of the government to educate parents on such game console features?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Mr Yee. My name is Timothy Anderson, I am 19 years old and reside in Minneapolis Minnesota.
I, as well as my friends and girlfriend, have been playing violent video games for the larger portion of my life and neither I, nor any of those whom I associate with, have ever been in any trouble with the law to any extent other than perhaps a parking ticket, and certainly no violent offenses of any kind to speak of.
Now I know this is not neccasarily evidence of anything sir, and its probably something many others will/have written in other questions to you, but I thought it was important to establish.
My question is simply, have you read, in detail, the so called studies that attempt to establish a link whatsoever between violent video games and the increased aggresion and/or desensitization of or to violent behavior?
If so, have you read the book Grand Theft Childhood? The book in which two harvard graduates conduct a large scale study (and one in my opinion much more proper, scientifically speaking and without a clear bias) That shows that not only is their no evidence showing such a correlation but to some extent, actually shows the oposite to be true.
And If you have, what were your thoughts on the book, its authors, and the way they conducted their study?
Thank you for your time sir.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Hello, Senator. My name is Alex Mejia, and I live in Corona, CA. I have grown up with games as well and have played violent video games. I have a couple of questions:
1. Have you, Senator, played any of the games that you have denounced for the level of violence? If not, how can you just assume that games are just about violence and not consider the stories or storytelling aspects of the games, which is a bigger focus than the actual violence?
2. Considering even the FBI has statistics that show the the crime rate is dropping even when games such as GTA have increased in popularity, what proof is there that violence in games creates violent tendencies in players? Have you yourself read any of the studies that also help show there is no link between violence in games and violence in people?
3. We aware you are an outspoken critic of Rockstar, Take-Two, and the ESRB. However, how can you go after these companies for kids that get their hands on violent material, since they are do not market or aim these kind of games to kids? Can't we say that the parents are more to blame since they are the ones responsible for their own children, and thus, responsible for what their kids are doing?
4. I believe that games are still seen as children's toys. Do you consider that there are just as many gamers who are adults as there are children? Have you considered that different games are marketed to different demographics?
5. Finally, Senator, have you considered that not all violent video games are the bestsellers? In fact, have you realized that the best selling games and most praised games are not M for Mature or even very violent?
Thank you for your time, Senator.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Mr. Yee have you heard of a game called America's Army? If not, the game is a first-person shooter made by the United States Government in the idea to help with U.S. Army recruitment and its rated T for Teen. To ensure that players actually know what they're doing, each recruit is required to go through several offline training missions. These training missions are based on actual boot camp locations around the United States, and the Army has taken steps to ensure that boot camp exercises remain just as rigorous as they are in real life.
In other words, America's Army is the closest a game has become to a "murder simulator." Yet I haven't you, the soon to be disbarred Jack Thompson, or main stream media demanding that this game should be re-rated AO because it corrupting our youths. Can I ask why is a game like M rated GTA IV more a threat then a game that is rated T and simulates our own army's rigorous boot camp training?
One last thing, I wanted to add, last November a North Carolina man was able to provide medical aid to the victims of a car accident with the skills he learned from plaing America's Army. I guess violent videogames do have a affect on people after all.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Hello, Senator Yee, my name is Justin Graham. I am set to turn 25 this month, am originally from Petaluma, CA, and am days away from graduating law school at the University of the Pacific-McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. Throughout my childhood, and even today, I have been a fan of video games, including some violent titles. I hope you would not mind answering some questions I have about the supposed harms of violent games and the evidence to prove your assertions:
1) Critics have pointed out numerous flaws in the studies that support your position. The most glaring in my opinion are as follows:
-These games purportedly make people more aggressive, and restrictions are needed to protect people from violence. However, the terms "violence" and "aggression" are not interchangeable. All violence is aggression, but not all aggression is violence. Some aggression can be positive, such as an aggressive player on a football field, or a salesman aggressively pursuing a client. How is "aggression" defined in terms of video game violence, and does it encompass more than just actual violence? If so, why would these other kinds of aggression be harmful to minors?
-The majority of these studies have been conducted in laboratory settings and use proxies for aggression, such as popping balloons, delivering "noise blasts" or hitting rubber dolls, rather than seeing if someone can be provoked into directly attacking someone. This is a highly artificial, contrived setting, far different from how someone would behave in the real world. How can you say delivering a noise blast or recognizing aggressive words quicker on a computer screen is in the same realm as someone deciding to participate in assault, carjacking, or murder?
-These studies also seem to suffer from a large problem with demand characteristics, the tendency for research participants to overly compensate to prove the researcher right in an effort to be a "good subject." Even if the participants are not actually told that the study will be on aggression and video game violence, the setup of the procedures makes it relatively easy to guess. Wouldn't it then follow that people who participate in a study on aggression would be predisposed to act aggressively and may skew the results?
2) Are you familiar with the books "Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super-Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence" by Gerard Jones, or "Grand Theft Childhood" by Cheryl Olson? These books demonstrate that violent video games and other media may actually be beneficial for some children, as it gives them a fantasy setting where they can explore natural feelings of power in an artificial setting, whereas they are often made to feel helpless in the real world. Do you believe that media violence can actually be beneficial in this way? On a personal note, I would strongly recommend you read these books, if you haven't already.
3) One argument about the danger of violent video games is that they serve as training tools to make people more efficient killers, and I constantly hear that the military uses them to train shooters and break down their inhibition to killing. The difference, however, is that the military is a controlled setting, with multiple other factors of physical and mental control that someone would not encounter in their daily life. Saying that video games alone have this desensitizing factor is simply erroneous, and does not account for other influences.
As for the argument that first person shooters can improve marksmanship, a game controller and a computer mouse have entirely different looks and feels from actual guns, weigh significantly less, do not require the ability to reload, and cannot simulate recoil. How, then, can someone "train" obsessively on Grand Theft Auto, and be able to duplicate expert precision marksmanship in a real-life shooting. Shouldn't it follow then, that I could "train" by obsessively playing Madden Football, then go out and develop the arm strength and accuracy of Tom Brady? Why does this training happen in one instance, but not the other?
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to address our concerns.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
You know fozzy, its actually MORE adult gamers than children, quite a bit more, the average gamer is in the mid 30s at this point.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Senator Yee,
Last year I was in contact with your office over this very issue. Both you and your assistant were very nice and even called me personally. Unfortunately due to events in my life I never got to call you back and talk to you about this issue so I am glad this opportunity came up.
Lately it seems as if politicians have one thing in mind, force retailers to be responsible for what parents allow their kids to purchase and play. What seems to be lacking is any mention of the responsibility of parents to oversee what their kids watch and play. All current generation game systems (Wii, Xbox 360, and Playstation III) have a built in feature that allows parents to lock a game consoles ability to play games based upon the rating. So, for example, if a parent didn’t want their kids to play a M rated game, they simply could turn on the parental controls and the game system would prevent any M rated game from running. If politicians such as yourself are serious about helping parents, why hasn’t there been any effort on the part of the government to educate parents on such game console features?
March 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Appreciate the info guys, thanks