Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

The violent games debate isn't about facts; it's about hearts and minds

The violent games debate isn't about facts; it's about hearts and minds

Fri 18 Jan 2013 8:00am GMT / 3:00am EST / 12:00am PST
Politics

America's continuing culture wars bemuse the rest of the world, but the industry has no choice but to engage positively

It is both tragic and despicable that the Sandy Hook massacre - one of the most horrific of the school shooting attacks which plague the United States to an extent unthinkable in any other first world nation - has returned us to tawdry and predictable round of finger-pointing and scapegoating. Once again, violent video games have been among the prime targets, and while the calls for regulation, censorship or any other knee-jerk reaction you can imagine have lost much of their power and their volume in the past decade, the finger-pointing itself has been enough to rattle the games industry and lead to some interesting internal debates.

"While in the UK, much of Europe and indeed much of the rest of the world, the war on violent video games is effectively over, America is a whole different ballgame"

It's also been a reminder that while in the UK, much of Europe and indeed much of the rest of the world, the war on violent video games is effectively over (British politicians, for example, are now far more likely to be found praising the innovation and business success of videogame creators than excoriating them for the content they produce), America is a whole different ballgame - one which, perhaps appropriately, is best played while wearing body armour. It's rough and underhanded in a way rarely seen elsewhere.

The reasons for that situation have been explored at great length by a great many more politically and socially aware authors than I, and I would waste my time and yours by going over them again in any detail. In brief, though, America is a nation more divided than most others, culturally; for all its much-vaunted freedom, it has since its birth as a nation played host to a powerful streak of interfering, nannying ultra-conservatism, which found expression throughout the 20th century in the form of various strict "codes" for media creators. Running alongside this conservatism, and intersecting with it on regular occasion, are the nation's powerful Christian groups, whose impact on America's political life has no parallel in Europe's largely secular democracies.

Then there's the NRA, the villain of the present melodrama, at least from the point of view of the games industry. The NRA purports to represent gun owners in the United States, of which there are a great many - the US has more guns per citizen than any other nation on earth - but it doesn't, not really. In reality, it's the industry lobby for multi-billion dollar weapons manufacturers who want to continue to sell their lethal wares to the lucrative American market. A vital distinction, since the wishes of the gun-carrying public (who do tend to favour some common-sense regulation of gun ownership) do not always align with the desires of the arms manufacturers (who are more keen on the "from my cold, dead hands!" hardline stance, as the cash paid by a mentally disturbed person with a criminal record for an assault rifle is no less green and enriching than the cash paid by a sensible, grounded outdoorsman in the countryside for a hunting rifle or shotgun). In this instance, the bodies in Sandy Hook were barely cold before the NRA was alluding to violent games as being the real cackling villain behind the screen - as clear and distasteful an attempt to deflect blame and reframe the debate as anyone can imagine.

"This is a culture war, a clash not of scientific evidence but of firmly held beliefs, so rationality isn't invited."

Ultimately, the arguments are hollow and the stance of those blaming video games doesn't add up - just as it didn't when countries like the UK were subjected to it - but this is a culture war, a clash not of scientific evidence but of firmly held beliefs, so rationality isn't invited. This is about mud-slinging between two parties fuelled by fear; the gun lobby thinks the government is coming to take all their guns (a belief carefully inculcated and nurtured by the NRA and its backers), while the games lobby thinks the government is coming to censor its work (a belief often reinforced by the raising of the spectre of the notorious Comics Code, which crippled the creative output of the comics industry and left it a ghettoised, marginalised form of media for many years).

The interesting thing to come out of all of this is the internal debate within games, which flared up when representatives of the games industry were invited to meet with Vice President Joe Biden to discuss violent media last week. There have been some good contributions on both sides, actually, but the crux of the argument is this - should we be engaging with this debate at all? Does even getting involved in such a discussion, in the wake of such an awful massacre, not suggest an acceptance of culpability? The NRA's finger-pointing has, in effect, left the games industry with a "so when did you stop beating your wife?" question; even to acknowledge the question, some argue, is to give credence to the ugly accusation it contains.

On the other hand, there are those who argue that the industry must engage, and in a positive way - if only to distance ourselves from the intransigence and knee-jerk defensiveness of the NRA. Show the public how a proper, responsible, grown-up industry behaves in response to criticism, and they'll realise who the real villains are - that's the theory, anyway. It's a lovely theory, but I fear that politics and public opinion is rarely that sensible or intelligent in its execution.

What's needed, I suspect, is a nuanced approach that features aspects from both sides of this discussion. The industry must remain absolutely firm in its insistence that all of the credible evidence is on its side - which it is, with even the US government's own research into video game violence failing to show any causative link between violent games and violent or unruly behaviour among children (correlation has been found, but never causation, the implication being that unruly kids are more likely to seek out violent media, rather than well-behaved kids being transformed by the media they consume).

It must reject attempts to tie it to violent acts, and not be afraid to point out that in other nations where video game consumption is extremely high, violent crime is extremely low. The UK and several continental European nations (the Netherlands has a particularly high spend on games) provide good counterpoints; closer to home, so does Canada, while Japan, famous for its huge video game market, is one of the safest countries in the world to live in.

Equally, though, the games industry needs to lose its pervasive fear of being slapped with Comics Code style restrictions, and be prepared to work with the government on common sense initiatives - even to propose them, where possible. Jim Matheson, a Democrat congressman from Utah, has tabled a bill proposing that ESRB ratings be made legally binding, so that it would be illegal for stores to sell M-rated games to children, for example. The industry should enthusiastically support this move; if there are concerns about constitutionality, let those be handled by someone else, rather than having the ugly spectacle of a media industry fighting a legal battle to be allowed to sell M-rated games to kids, a practice which the industry (not entirely honestly) claims to be diametrically opposed to. Other common-sense initiatives for the industry would include working more prominently and publicly to educate parents, teachers and others engaged with kids about ratings and content - and bluntly, there'd be a fair bit to be said for ending the practice of marketing children's toys based on M-rated properties, too (although movies have always been equally bad if not worse in this regard).

"The games industry needs to lose its pervasive fear of being slapped with Comics Code style restrictions, and be prepared to work with the government on common sense initiatives"

The elephant in the room, in some regards, is the issue of the AO-rating. The M rating is not meant to be the top of the ESRB scale; extremely violent or sexual content rightly belongs in the AO (Adults Only) category, which is more directly comparable to the PEGI 18 (or the old BBFC 18) rating than M. The problem is that the US' big retailers, hypersensitive to the danger of offending the conservative and religious lobbies, have almost uniformly refused to stock AO games, leaving them confined to the same kind of specialist outlets that stock hardcore pornography. An AO rating, as a consequence, is the kiss of death at US retail - no high-budget game with that rating would ever make its money back.

Predictably enough, what has happened instead is that the boundaries of the M-rating have been tested at every turn. Without a higher rating available, and with the whole rating system being voluntary rather than enshrined in law anyway, game creators have pushed ceaselessly at the boundaries of the M rating, aided by advancing technology which makes it possible to display increasingly detailed and gruesome violence. Were the AO rating to be available as a commercial option, M-rated games would inevitably calm down; were the ratings system to be legally enforced and properly respected, the industry could, with complete honesty, state that it has given parents the tools they need to control their kids' media consumption, and that what happens beyond that is out of our hands.

We're not there yet. This is a battle that's going to be won in the USA, just as comics and movies won their own battles in the past, just as games won the debate in Europe and elsewhere (Australia just published the first game under its brand new 18 rating, finally allowing adults to access adult game content legally, and as yet the sky has not fallen in on the nation), but it's not yet at the point where we can sit back and refuse to engage at all. There's work to be done. Violent games don't breed killers - if they did, the frantic amount of research that "concerned family organisations" in the USA have funded and backed trying to find such a causation would have turned up something, anything, by now. This isn't even a debate about that any more. It's a straight up battle for hearts and minds, and in that regard, sitting down for a chat with Joe Biden is only the first step in the right direction.

29 Comments

Sandy Lobban
Founder and Creative Director

314 206 0.7
Good article Rob. My honest opinion is the pro gun group have the "we must protect ourselves" stance to go on, and that's fairly seductive to most people. In a divided land, that just hits a nerve.

Therefore, the industry will no doubt be in their sights for some time to come. At least until they exercise some restraint over american consumers of video games, and up until the next gun massacre happens with games removed from the picture.

I'd imagine it will move on to other art forms after that.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Sandy Lobban on 18th January 2013 4:03pm

Posted:A year ago

#1

Stephen Woollard
Online Infrastructure Specialist

146 71 0.5
This is what I said yesterday about the proposed US government funded study into games and violence. Rather than throwing a fit over it, we as an industry should embrace it and show that we are, as Rob put it, the grown ups in this debacle.

By basically saying "we're not responsible for this, but we want to 'do our bit' and engage with society at large" we then take the moral high ground, and can quite honestly look the likes of the NRA square in the eye and say "we've done this and this and this, even though we didn't have to - what have you done?"

As for the law making the ESRB ratings legally binding, I don't see a problem with it personally. The one thing we have to be careful of, and again Rob alludes to this, is that we don't bend over so far to try and be accomodating that parties such as the NRA can say "look - they know they're to blame, that's why they're doing all this". It's a fine line to walk.

Posted:A year ago

#2

Dave Herod
Senior Programmer

525 768 1.5
Popular Comment
Research: "Nope, your hypothesis was wrong."
Government: "Keep doing it again until we're right."

Posted:A year ago

#3

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
Popular Comment
A vital distinction, since the wishes of the gun-carrying public (who do tend to favour some common-sense regulation of gun ownership) do not always align with the desires of the arms manufacturers (who are more keen on the "from my cold, dead hands!" hardline stance, as the cash paid by a mentally disturbed person with a criminal record for an assault rifle is no less green and enriching than the cash paid by a sensible, grounded outdoorsman in the countryside for a hunting rifle or shotgun).
This is probably the most ridiculous and biased comment in this entire article. I know quite a few large and small gun manufacturing company owners... Not once have I ever even had this kind of thought cross my mind. This is a blatantly opinionated comment and it does a very great job of doing what the article is trying to say we shouldn't do... Point fingers and lay blame

I had this conversation with several gun manufacturers and distributors last week at a gun show. Every one I talked to is totally for regulation involving mandatory background checking (which most states in the US already do anyways) as well as including a mental health factor in the overall check to see whether or not they are capable of responsibly owning a gun.

This blind notion that all American gun manufacturers are greedy money grubbing suits, is a perpetuated stereotype from biased media and false accusation. So please... if you're going to put something like this in your articles, at least have some proof to back up this horrible accusation.

I always find it interesting that when gun violence becomes an issue, it's always the 'greedy evil gun manufacturers' that are to blame. Alright, let's take a look at some ACTUAL facts here.

We're looking at first world gun violence, some of which has been in the form of massacres and public shootings. Most of which, has been in the form of criminal activity in gangs an illegal organizations throughout the cities of the United States. Most of the guns involved in these shootings have been without serial numbers, or unregistered, or illegal fully automatic or illegally modified versions of semi automatic firearms. The supply of these guns typically comes from non-conventional (black market) organizations that don't give a damned about laws, and don't care one way or the other. Why aren't these people berated for their proliferation of deadly weapons. The firearms they supply to gangs and outlaws are way more destructive (and way more illegal), and cause way more gun violence, than any legally purchased firearm made by legitimate gun manufacturers. But for some reason it's always been the standard procedure to let the criminal activity slip under the radar and go after big evil corporations who are so obviously bent on amassing vast quantities of money from selling their firearms to somebody that pops more pills than kids eating candy at Halloween.

Now we should look at gun violence on a GLOBAL scale, because it's not exactly fair to place the blame entirely on one society. Let's look at the AK-47. The number of AK-47's and variants ever manufactured outnumbers all other primary firearms of all other manufacturers combined produced in the same time period. Militants committing Genocide in Africa, do you think they were carrying M16's and AR-15's? No... they carry AK-47's and FN-FAL's manufactured primarily in European countries like Russia (the origin of the AK-47) and China, and Belgium (FN). Terrorist organizations around the world, militant groups, organized crime syndicates, street gangs... you name it... The weapon you will find most often is the AK-47, and chances are it didn't even come from the US, but was illegally smuggled in by gun runners and drug cartels.

I'm not trying to place blame elsewhere, because after all, this article tells us we shouldn't do that anyways. But there are more GLOBAL factors to gun violence than just the lobbyists in DC and their associated faceless corporation.
The industry should enthusiastically support this move; if there are concerns about constitutionality, let those be handled by someone else, rather than having the ugly spectacle of a media industry fighting a legal battle to be allowed to sell M-rated games to kids, a practice which the industry (not entirely honestly) claims to be diametrically opposed to.
Do people not realize that pretty much EVERY retail store in the US has strict policies regarding the sale of rated media? Disciplinary action for not adhering to these policies is often termination on first offense. Many outlets (such as Target) actually have to scan a legal drivers license or photo ID upon the sale of a rated M game or rated R movie. I spent time as a manager for a GameStop for about a year and a half, they drilled that policy into our head from day one. A friend of mine was actually fired because he failed to ID somebody for a rated M game. It was a secret shopper deal and he was immediately fired the next day. Honest mistake, but the company has strict policy regarding the topic, and they were not followed. No exceptions.

What you CAN'T regulate, is the mom and dad that buy their kids these games without doing any research at all or not knowing anything about them. Instead they use the games as babysitters and incentives for things like doing their homework, or taking out the trash, or feeding the dog... Nearly every title to make it into a GameStop or Wal-Mart or target brick and mortar store usually has an ESRB rating label on it. The creation of legislation that mandates the use of a system that's already been widely adopted by developers/publishers/distributors alike, is a complete waste of time and a desperate attempt to grab positive publicity out of an overly negative situation.

Publishers have legally binding contracts with the ESRB to use their services and display their rating symbols. Distributors have legally binding contracts with the ESRB to display their rating symbols in the stores and/or online. These contracts include strict adherence to the prohibition of sale to underage customers.

I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of the press... but you can't put stuff like this in an article without actual proof to backup such claims. That's no different than the tinfoil hat wearing crazy people saying the government's trying to manipulate their brainwaves. Without proof, it's just another opinion.

Posted:A year ago

#4

James Brightman
Editor in Chief

226 266 1.2
Excellent piece Rob.

Posted:A year ago

#5

Elizabeth Bailey
Audio Production Designer

1 5 5.0
Popular Comment
I'd just like to say, as an American in the game industry, to the rest of the world: Half of the USA is in total agreement with you; these conservative people arguing about all the wrong things are completely nuts and we really wish we could stop being associated with them. The USA never really recovered from the civil war - people are still just as divided on how this country is supposed to work. If I wasn't so invested in this country via family and friends I'd have become a citizen of Canada ages ago. I'm tired of this madness.

Posted:A year ago

#6

Rodney Smith
Developer

81 40 0.5
What we need is a snappy slogan. How about: Games don't kill people, guns do

Posted:A year ago

#7

Mark Richardson
Independent developer

5 3 0.6
Nearly 1000 people have been shot in the USA since the Sandy Hook incident, I don't suppose those shootings were the fault of games too?

Posted:A year ago

#8

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
@Elizabeth
The USA never really recovered from the civil war - people are still just as divided on how this country is supposed to work.
Please tell me how this has any relevance to the topic. This sounds like more of a jab at 'southern conservative gun owners' than an actual helpful comment.

@Mark
Nearly 1000 people have been shot in the USA since the Sandy Hook incident, I don't suppose those shootings were the fault of games too?
Can you please provide evidence of this? I would really like to know where you found this statistic with the time period being so recent. Are you basing this on actual data, or an estimate based on trends from old data?

Posted:A year ago

#9

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
@Sandy
My honest opinion is the pro gun group have the "we must protect ourselves" stance to go on, and that's fairly seductive to most people. In a divided land, that just hits a nerve.
Sorry, this took me a while to find buried under all the other congressional papers.
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2003
SEC.2. FINDINGS
(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:

(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.

Say what you will about the self defense argument... many people refuse to acknowledge it as a legitimate concern.

Posted:A year ago

#10

Robert Hyder
Project Lead

1 1 1.0
@Joshua

A simple Google search pulls up the following when you search "gun deaths since Sandy Hook". I think that this is what Mark was alluding to.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

Seems well cited. Maybe a little less anger when you engage on this board would be in order.

Posted:A year ago

#11

Tim Carter
Designer - Writer - Producer

562 307 0.5
I hope you do realize that the notion that science can solve all of our problems is utterly irrational. It is to put extreme faith - indeed religious faith - in science.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tim Carter on 18th January 2013 6:59pm

Posted:A year ago

#12

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
I was not requesting citation out of anger. Far from it.

I was simply requesting a citation for data being present as fact in a discussion. I was not disputing the validity of the data, so much as the lack of appropriate citation for something that's presented as fact.

I don't about you, but I don't perceive a request for a citation as anger. More of a key component in any respectful debate.

Posted:A year ago

#13

Rubens Maximus
Video Game Artist

3 3 1.0
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

Regulating the market and free expression is not being positive, is being oppressive.

Posted:A year ago

#14

Kyle Wilson
Lead Software Engineer

2 1 0.5
"It has since its birth as a nation played host to a powerful streak of interfering, nannying ultra-conservatism."

Indeed. That's why there's unanimous agreement that we need to ban *something*. Sometimes it's guns. Sometimes it's violent video games. Sometimes it's carry-on toiletries. Sometimes it's comic books. There are lots of different acts, but it's still security theater.

Posted:A year ago

#15

Paul Johnson
Managing Director / Lead code monkey

823 1,061 1.3
The "debate" is actually about getting air time for the talking heads. Just leave it.

Posted:A year ago

#16

Tom Hunt
Game Developer

21 15 0.7
I think the statement about Japan being one of the safest countries in the world despite being an epicenter of video gaming speaks volumes. (would love to see some stats to back that up)

If this were to turn out to be based on solid statistical evidence (apparently, yes: http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1), then I believe it would warrant further inquiry as to why that is the case and what lessons we can learn from them and other countries and figure out how to integrate that into the US's own freedom-loving system. I think that discussion would be much more productive than this whack-a-mole game of "ok, what do we need to ban next so that we can tell ourselves that tragedy X will never happen again"

Posted:A year ago

#17

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
@Tom

Be careful asking for stats to backup a claim... you might get labeled as being angry =P

Posted:A year ago

#18

Tim Carter
Designer - Writer - Producer

562 307 0.5
@Tom Hunt: The idea that statistics is "solid evidence" by default is stupid. Some people will believe anything if it is dressed up in a number. Like, they won't trust a description of feelings, but they will trust a rating them on a scale from 1 to 10 when clearly the verbal description is far more accurate and truthful.

Statistics and numbers often only provide the illusion of truith.

Posted:A year ago

#19

Sandy Lobban
Founder and Creative Director

314 206 0.7
@joshua

I still think its seductive when making choices. Gun ownership has no place hiding behind video games from further scrutiny.

Posted:A year ago

#20

Ashley Gutierrez
Animator

21 13 0.6
Without a higher rating available, and with the whole rating system being voluntary rather than enshrined in law anyway, game creators have pushed ceaselessly at the boundaries of the M rating, aided by advancing technology which makes it possible to display increasingly detailed and gruesome violence. Were the AO rating to be available as a commercial option, M-rated games would inevitably calm down
This is where I take issue with the legalized system; I see censorship that will happen by our extreme-conservative Christians, who make up at least half of the nation now. I see them pushing for more and more to be considered 'mature.'
As a kid, I loved my M-rated games. I still do; most of them tend to have better storylines than others because of the level of maturity behind it. But if the censors come down, these games get harder to find for buyers; and it doesn't make the profit it should.
So they stop making games like that, to cater more to 'easier' audiences.

Now on the other hand, if this does go into play, it may not affect anything. Currently, parents rarely pay attention to the rating, unless they're one of those core demographics that want everything to be bunnies and rainbows. But most parents care more about the price than the content.
And that is exactly why this legalized version will do nothing; because parents will still buy mature games for their kids.
I know I never went to the game store on my own when I was young. Because my mom and dad had the money.

While I don't mind the rating system altogether, or even making it official/legal, I really don't like the attack on our first amendment that will undoubtedly come from the conservatives that like to use red herrings everywhere they go.
It's happened before, it'll keep happening.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Ashley Gutierrez on 18th January 2013 9:51pm

Posted:A year ago

#21

David Canela
Game Designer

49 91 1.9
@ Tim Carter:The article is clearly saying science isn't going to do the trick, so I don't see where blind faith comes in. What am I missing here? Also, while I can't check every scientific theory for it's validity myself before accepting it, if I had to pick one thing to put my faith in, the reason I'd go with science is the following:
Science is the only belief system built around the core concept of always questioning its beliefs and improving its theories and models. Unlike most religions, science doesn't claim it's never wrong; it says that if you prove it wrong, it'll happily swallow its words and congratulate you for advancing science another step.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by David Canela on 18th January 2013 9:56pm

Posted:A year ago

#22

Ashley Gutierrez
Animator

21 13 0.6
I hope you do realize that the notion that science can solve all of our problems is utterly irrational. It is to put extreme faith - indeed religious faith - in science.
How silly.
Do you consider yourself religious (in science) because you KNOW beyond reasonable doubt that your car will not randomly explode on you when you're driving?
No. Because that technology has proven itself to you that it will work. That it does work.

Faith is an illogical belief in something.
Looking to something that has already proven to improve our lives and helped us is not illogical.

Posted:A year ago

#23

Joshua Rose
Executive Producer / Lead Designer

191 81 0.4
@Sandy
Oh I totally agree with you. The NRA's bit trying to lay blame on video games was a cheap shot and they lost a good bit of my respect for having done so. I also agree that gun owners should not be placing blame on video games either.

Also, what do you mean by 'seductive when making choices'. Do you mean it's being used too much as a defensive argument to shed blame from gun ownership?

@Tim
I'm going to ask a serious question here. If statistics, gathered and confirmed by many reputable organizations, is not "solid evidence" than I'm curious to know what your definition of "solid evidence" is.

Posted:A year ago

#24

Justin Trautmann
Studying Digital Media & Multimedia Technology

24 35 1.5
I was under the impression one of the strengths of the ESRB was it was industry regulated; unlike fellow entertainment mediums (radio, television, film, music).

What value would the game industry get from having government regulation? In comparison to the Asian, Australian (SE Asia), and European markets - is the industry regulation of the States helping or hindering when it comes to the control and proper listing of what is and is not considered violent - or mature?

Posted:A year ago

#25

Sandy Lobban
Founder and Creative Director

314 206 0.7
@ Joshua.

I just think it's something that's easy to sell to someone, when they feel threatened for the slightest of reasons. It's no wonder gun sales go up when there's national news like sandy hook. The truth of it is though, the people aren't any less safe than they were before hearing the news, and upon buying a gun. They might just be a bit more paranoid going forward from it. These irrational fears that come off the back of something like that just make society a collectively more hostile place.

We'll probably disagree but that's ok. Just my view on the way fear and weapons play out :)

It's a shame consumers if video games have to suffer, that's all

Posted:A year ago

#26

Rodney Smith
Developer

81 40 0.5
Games don't kill people, people with guns do.

Posted:A year ago

#27

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

655 270 0.4
Statistics and numbers often only provide the illusion of truith.
Do not trust any statistics you did not fake yourself.

Posted:A year ago

#28

Gregore Candalez
Journalist and Account Assistant

53 3 0.1
Amazing article. Succint, objective and elightening. These are pretty much my thoughts summarized.
I think it's about time american authorities start distributing the blame to the real guilty: bad parents, bad culture, bad school, bad system, which breeds kids who grow up with terrible emotional and psychological problems.

Posted:A year ago

#29

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now