Columbine and computer games and sex and violence

An interview with game designer Ernest Adams

Ernest Adams is a computer game designer, currently doing game design in England for Bullfrog Productions (a division of Electronic Arts). Prompted by the attention brought to the computer gaming industry (and to the violent nature of some computer games) by the Columbine High School shooting, Adams penned a Gamasutra column entitled "Reflections on the Colorado School Massacre." He has also lectured on the role of sex and violence in creative works, specifically in computer games, a lecture he titled "In Praise of Sex and Violence."

Deputy got in touch with Adams not long ago to ask him his thoughts on these subjects and the issues they raise.

Adams does defend the use of sex and violence in creative works. "Sex and violence are among the most effective mechanisms for making a story more interesting. They have been vital elements of literature and drama since those media were invented," he says.

Adams posits that Americans are acting on impulse – both sexual and aggressive – much more than they did in the early parts of the 20th century. And he points to an increasingly casual attitude towards violence that disturbs him. That casual attitude is tapped into by youth culture and the companies that cater to and try to market to youth culture. That includes computer game companies.

Computer gaming companies aren't alone in tapping into that attitude, but, as Adams puts it, "Interactive entertainment is more desensitizing than TV or movies for one reason: repetition. ... People play computer games for tens or hundreds of hours (and) when you see a violent act in a computer game, it's visually identical to a hundred violent acts that you've seen before. It stops meaning anything."

Though he believes the link between computer games and youth violence is tenuous, he does think there are some things the computer game industry can do to combat the possible public perception that violent video games produce violent children. "First, honestly study the issue to understand what, if any, role games play in encouraging youth violence. ... Second, fund education programs and other public-spirited services ... Third, label the games – not only with warning labels on the boxes, but with software flags that filtering software could catch."

He also offers advice to parents concerned about the gaming habits of their children: "Based on my own experience as a child ... I'd say it's really important to play games with your children, including computer game, even if it seems boring to you as an adult. ... Take control of the entertainment agenda. Children need some freedom to control their own leisure time, but that control shouldn't be unlimited."

These are just a few of the topics Adams touched on in his interview with Deputy. The full text of that interview follows. Though he works for Electronic Arts, Adams wants to state that the views expressed in the following interview are entirely his own.

The interview

Deputy: In your lecture, you drew a link between sex and violence and talked about the development of social mechanisms for controlling aggressive and sexual activity. I wondered if you might touch on those topics briefly or elaborate on those thoughts ...

Ernest Adams: First let me caution that I'm neither a neurologist nor a psychologist, so I'm speaking as a layman, not as a specialist. That said, I believe we always link "sex and violence" as problems for our society – even though they are quite different from each other – because of brain anatomy. It's generally accepted that sexual impulses and aggressive impulses are triggered by a group of structures in the human brain collectively called the limbic system. Most other complex animals also have a limbic system, and they exhibit similar behaviors.

To create an orderly and structured society, humans have evolved higher-function emotions and controls on their limbic system impulses. Notions like duty, rights, justice, honesty and responsibility are products of the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain responsible for logic, speech, and other advanced thought processes. These cerebral cortex mechanisms tend to prevent people from acting on impulse. As a result, we regard uncontrolled sexual and aggressive behavior as destabilizing to society.

Deputy: Do we see more exhibitions of sexual and aggressive activity nowadays? Are they just being expressed differently than they used to?

Ernest Adams: There's certainly no question that Americans are acting on impulse – both sexual and aggressive – much more than they did earlier in the 20th century. "Road rage" is a perfect example. Fifty years ago, people simply did not pull out guns and shoot each other in traffic jams. The traffic wasn't as bad then, but they also didn't have car air conditioning and CD players to make traffic jams more tolerable. And obviously, the same is true of acting on sexual impulse. Most people in the 1920's didn't dream of hopping into bed as quickly as they do today.

The reasons for our newfound sexual impulsiveness are fairly clear. During the past hundred years we've slowly been emerging from one of the most sexually repressed periods in western history, the Victorian era. With the sexual revolution and the easy availability of contraception, people are now much more free to act on impulse, without so much fear of the consequences. Some of our logical (IE. cerebral cortex) reasons for suppressing sexual activity – shame, stigma, fear of pregnancy – have simply gone away.

With respect to violence, the situation is similar but more complex. Victorian social mores – not to mention the class system – were so overwhelmingly restrictive that people had almost no personal freedom at all. The pendulum has swung away from this repressive situation, thank goodness, but I believe that in the backlash, we have created a culture devoted to individual freedom without its necessary counterbalance, personal responsibility. Modern psychotherapy has taught us that freedom is good for the individual, but of course it doesn't address what's good for the community. What we're failing to emphasize is the element of self-control – the notion that you have a duty to your society, regardless of how you feel, to behave decently. I believe that if we're going to celebrate personal freedom, we also need to encourage the personal responsibility that must go with it – particularly in young men, who are offered the privilege of behaving however they like much more than young women are.

Deputy: You have made an argument for the use of sex and violence in creative works. I wondered as well if you might touch on that subject ...

Ernest Adams: Sex and violence are among the most effective mechanisms for making a story interesting, and the most ancient. The Greek myths are full of sex of and violence – often together. So are the stories of King Arthur, although we tend to gloss over the sexual aspects when we tell the stories to children. Arthur himself was conceived during a rape. It's not as if sex and violence are recent inventions in entertainment. They have been vital elements of literature and drama since those media were invented.

When an audience reads about or watches sexual or violent activity, they pay attention. Their pulse rates pick up; their eyes dilate; they become immersed in the story. One of the quickest ways of creating sympathy in an audience is to give them a character that they care about and then put that character in danger. And sex is one of the most powerful of human motivators – there's an old saying that it's the human activity that takes the least amount of time and causes the greatest amount of trouble. History is full of examples of people doing incredibly stupid or dangerous things simply out of lust.

You're not going to get rid of sex and aggression out of entertainment. You might for a while (there's comparatively little in the novels of Jane Austen and Charles Dickens), but you cannot simply banish them forever, because they're fundamental aspects of human behavior. The question then, is where and how they should be used. To make a culinary analogy, sex and violence are essential ingredients in the spice rack of any storyteller. But they're extremely powerful ingredients, not to be used indiscriminately. The great dishes of the world are complex blends of subtle flavors. You don't win cooking prizes by putting jalapeños in everything.

Deputy: I was interested in your thoughts on the development of youth culture, and specifically, media devoted to youth culture. How have computer games tapped into or accelerated this trend? Why do you think this trend developed?

Ernest Adams: "Youth culture" didn't exist until around the middle of the 20th century, because prior to that, children didn't have any money. Youth culture is a product of two things – adolescents' desire to be independent of adults, and the media machine's desire to sell them things. Put the two together, and what you get is a string of movies and TV shows that tell adolescents exactly what they want to hear – that adults are uncool, incompetent, irrelevant. This trend developed directly in proportion to teen-agers' buying power. They're now one of the most important market segments in the United States.

A youth culture that teaches teenagers contempt for adults discourages both groups from interacting with one another. When you combine that with the fragmentation in family entertainment – the fact that both sexes and every age group now has its own entertainment niche – and you get much less communication within families.

I don't actually think computer games have contributed significantly to the culture of contempt for adults. In most computer games, you play the role of an adult, not a teenager or a child. I do think, however, that they've contributed to the fragmentation of family entertainment. Computer games are perceived as "children's entertainment" because that's how they were first presented to the public – the early arcade games like Pong, and soon after, the home console games such as the Magnavox Odyssey. Computer games are vastly more sophisticated than they were in those days, but the "for kids" tag still lingers.

Deputy: Why and how do you think this fragmentation of family entertainment happened? What can be done to encourage more whole family-oriented entertainment? Have we come too far down that path to turn back? What can parents specifically do to encourage more whole family entertainment?

Ernest Adams: Family entertainment fragmented because of the explosion in all forms of entertainment, especially media-based entertainment. The media companies are getting better and better at identifying precise niches and providing entertainment for exactly those people. For example, in the early days of television there used to be two kinds of TV shows: kids' shows and adults' shows. Now there are shows aimed at kindergarteners, young boys and girls, older boys and girls, teens, adult men, adult women, and older adults. Since cable TV, there are entire channels devoted to only one thing: animal documentaries, or sports, or shopping. This kind of variety was unimaginable in the days when people could only pick up two or three broadcast channels.

I don't think there's anything parents can do to encourage the media to create "whole family" entertainment other than to buy products, like Disney's films, that both children and adults can enjoy. We're certainly not going to turn back the clock to the days when television was ruled by the Big Three networks, nor should we. The range of choices now available is a godsend to the consumer. But it does mean that everyone in the family can have their own TV and watch just what they want... and the same is true of computer games.

I believe it's up to the parents to decide whether their family is going to entertain itself together or separately. In my own family, my brother and I were not allowed to choose how we entertained ourselves all the time. Some of the time we entertained ourselves separately, but at other times our parents decided that the family would do something together – play Monopoly or work a jigsaw or throw the Frisbee around – and these were not optional activities. For my parents, that meant spending an evening playing games with a couple of children. Most people might not think of that as a good time (given the choice of watching ER or playing dominoes with an 8-year-old, which would you do?) but they enjoyed it and felt it was an important part of my brother's and my socialization, and I'm sure they were right.

Deputy: How do you advise/suggest parents approach their children's computer game playing? How do you deal with these issues in your own home?

Ernest Adams: I don't have children, so I'm reluctant to prescribe solutions for others. Based on my own experience as a child, though, I'd say that it's really important to play games with your children, including computer games, even if it seems boring to you as an adult. The only way a kid learns to be a good loser or a gracious winner is by example – backed up by enforced standards of behavior. You can't be sure they're getting that example from other kids. Watch what kinds of games they're playing, and make sure they're appropriate.

And, as my parents did, take control of the entertainment agenda. Children nowadays often spend as much time with the TV or the computer as they do at school. Obviously children need some freedom to control their own leisure time, but that control shouldn't be unlimited.

Deputy: Your Gamasutra column drew a parallel between the casual attitude toward violence exhibited by Serbian paramilitaries in Kosovo, the Littleton shooters and James Bond (and by extension, characters in computer and video games).

Quoting from your column:

A young man and an old woman are walking down a road in Kosovo. They're ethnic Albanians, trying to flee to Macedonia. They're stopped by Serb paramilitaries who demand to know who they are and where they're going. The young man explains that they're trying to leave, but they have to go slowly because his grandmother is very weak. The gunmen pull the old woman aside and kill her. "Well," they tell the man, "that ought to speed up your journey."

One of the Colorado murderers pauses before a cowering girl named Cassie Bernall in the Columbine High School library. "Do you believe in God?" he asks her. "Yes," she says, knowing that the answer will cost her her life. The boy smiles. "Why?" he asks, and shoots her in the head.

James Bond shoots an opponent in the chest with a speargun. "I think he got the point," he says. In another movie, he knocks a lamp into a pool, electrocuting one of the occupants. "Shocking! Positively shocking!" he quips.

Killing people isn't a big deal any more. It's an occasion for a witticism, mild levity. Ha ha.

How close a parallel do you think exists between these examples? How much does exposure to violence (on TV, in games, in other forms of media) desensitize us to violence? Does it desensitize children more than adults?

Ernest Adams: The common link between Serbian paramilitaries, the Littleton murderers, and James Bond is casual brutality. All three made jokes while they killed, humiliating their victims in a display of blasé contempt. What I find disturbing about this is that James Bond is held up as a hero, an example. Killing isn't a big deal for him. He makes humorous quips while his enemies' lives ebb away.

When you think about it, there are really three kinds of criminal violence: hot-blooded, what the French call a crime passionelle; premeditated; and casual. The last of these is the most frightening and deserves the severest punishment, because it means that someone is killing for no particular reason, simply for the fun of it.

Exposure to violence on TV and in other media desensitizes adults to some degree, but most adults are aware that TV is make-believe. Children are another matter. They learn by example. Young children in particular have no idea how the world is supposed to work, so they naturally assume that everything they see is the way things really are – they don't have a clear conception of "this is real, that is make-believe." So when they're presented with violence, they have no reason not to believe that that's how they really should behave.

Deputy: You state in your Gamasutra column, "My own belief, for what it's worth, is that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold finally found a way to gain the respect they so desperately wanted. They killed a lot of people and tried to blow up their whole school. ... They did it because it was cool." Why do you think blowing up the school and killing people is "cool," or why do people perceive that it is? Who or what do you think taught Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold that killing people and blowing up things was cool?

Ernest Adams: I think it's a huge combination of things. I frankly think there's something about the human mind that likes destruction generally – why else would we turn out to see buildings being demolished? Demolition isn't "violence" in the usual sense; nobody gets hurt; but at the end there's a huge pile of rubble where there used to be a building. The computer game Sim City was one of the most non-violent, constructive games of all time... but then you could turn loose a tornado, a fire, or even Godzilla on your city to see what happened. The examples go on and on. When it's time for children to put away their blocks, do they disassemble their structures piece by piece? Of course not, they push them all over. Navaho Singers (traditional healers) create sand paintings and Buddhist monks create mandalas over hours and days, then destroy them in a few minutes. The act of destruction is a part of the process just as sacred as the creation.

The media pander to this curious impulse, showing destruction much more intense than people can make at home – but they pretend it's all harmless in the end. People in movies live through horrendous explosions and appalling fires that no one could really survive. Seldom do movies show the truth about bombs – the shattered limbs and gaping eye sockets, the hideous scarring and lifelong pain they cause.

Adolescents, being naturally rebellious, admire people who act on their rebellious impulses – people who can behave outside the norms of society and get away with it. James Bond is a perfect example; he has a license to kill. A great many movies are about variations on this fantasy, from Ferris Bueller's Day Off to Natural Born Killers. And even if the protagonists end up dead, it's not much of a cautionary tale. Teenagers are notoriously unafraid of death, and a good many of them would rather be cool and dead than boring and alive.

It seems to me that we have been experiencing a steady escalation in the brutality of our entertainment products, right across the board. The book American Psycho and the computer game Kingpin are among the more recent examples. To surpass its predecessors in titillation, everything must be more extreme than what came before.

Deputy: Is there something particularly desensitizing about interactive entertainment?

Ernest Adams: Interactive entertainment is more desensitizing than TV or movies for one reason: repetition.

In movies, television, and other story-based media, the authors try to make every event unique, because it would feel phony if you didn't. If you saw Indiana Jones shooting identical giant scorpions over and over in a movie, you'd say, "This is boring and unrealistic." So every challenge Indiana Jones faces is slightly different. That's something you can do in the course of a two-hour movie. But people play computer games for tens or hundreds of hours. Even with great graphics, we don't have the capacity to make every event unique for hundreds of hours. So when you see a violent act in a computer game, it's visually identical to a hundred violent acts that you've seen before. It stops meaning anything; it simply becomes a signal to the player, "you have beaten this enemy." It has the emotional weight of removing a pawn from a chessboard.

I'm hopeful that the increasing sophistication of computer games will enable game developers to evoke increasingly sophisticated emotional responses. There have been computer games with characters we really cared about; computer games that made people cry when the characters died. But they're few and far between. Many computer games are still just shooting galleries where the little ducks shoot back.

Deputy: Your lecture notes touch on the "monkey see, monkey do" aspect of learned behavior.

Quoting from your lecture:

Study after study shows, if you show kids violent activity, they will adopt violent behavior. Why do you think most child-abusers were abused as children? Why do you think most spouse-abusers are the children of spouse-abusers? We are primates, people, and "monkey see, monkey do" is a pretty good summary of how primate behavior works. That's how the other primates, that don't have language, teach each other things. Our understanding of appropriate behavior is obtained by watching the world around us.

I wonder if you might want to touch on or elaborate on that point ...

Ernest Adams: Human beings are primates. Unlike lower orders of animals, most of our behaviors are not instinctive, but learned. We can't even have sex without being told how it's done... hence the idiotic theories that circulate around the elementary school playground. If sexual behavior were instinctive, everyone would "just know."

Since so much of our behavior is learned, it's essential that children get accurate information. Unfortunately, movies and TV usually present violence in a fantasy context. When someone is shot on TV, one of two things happens: if he's the hero, it hurts a little and he bleeds a little, but he's basically unharmed; if he's a villain, he falls down and dies quickly and quietly, without any screaming and thrashing around. This presents false information to children. It gives the impression that guns are only dangerous to "bad guys."

The same thing is true about sex. Pornography (and, for that matter, many TV shows) show fantasy sex, sex without any social or health consequences. Now, if clued-in adults want to watch that, fine and dandy. But if children see it, they get the wrong message. If all teenaged boys know about sex is what they've learned from porn magazines, they're going to develop terribly unrealistic expectations about women.

I'm not against fantasy material for people who are able to make the distinction between fantasy and reality. But it mustn't be used as educational material, because it presents a vision of the world that is flat wrong. And a child is being educated every instant that his or her eyes are open.

Deputy: In your opinion, what would be the most effective means of curtailing youth violence? A ban on children carrying guns? More education?

Ernest Adams: There are actually two issues here: controlling the impulse to violence, and controlling the means to violence.

Controlling the impulse to violence is by far the harder problem. It's a question of changing hearts and minds, and that's very difficult. We're starting to get there with things like the "Violence, don't play that game" ad campaign, but it's an uphill battle. When you think about it, the story of America is a story of resorting to violence, of which we're taught to be proud. The farmers at Concord bridge didn't sit down in civil disobedience; they fired the "shot heard 'round the world." Similar ideas run all through our culture. Every western movie ends with a shootout. The message is that negotiation is ultimately doomed to failure, and violence is the only effective method of achieving anything. It's going to take a heck of a lot of educating to overcome that attitude.

The means to violence is a much simpler issue. If the impulse to violence is constant, then the amount of violence actually done is proportional to the number of weapons available times the lethality of the weapons. With fewer weapons or less lethality, less overall violence will be done. When I was a kid, teenage hoodlums were walking around with zip guns – single-shot pistols, handmade out of a piece of pipe. Now they're carrying fully automatic submachine guns. Some means has got to be found to take these extremely lethal weapons back out of their hands. It's clear that laws alone won't do it – we have to somehow make them unavailable to teenagers.

Deputy: Specifically referring to the interactive games industry, what can be done there to help curtail youth violence?

Ernest Adams: First I need to say that I believe the link between computer games and youth violence is tenuous. I believe there is a link between viewing violent media and aggressive behavior in children, but whether that actually translates into youth violence is less certain. People who condemn computer games for causing youth violence are like people who condemn the Internet for causing bombings. It's a simplistic response to a complex issue.

However, I do believe the game industry is at risk because of a public perception, fueled by the news media, that violent video games produce violent children – regardless of the actual facts. Therefore it behooves the industry to tread carefully. For the game industry to do something, it will have to do something collectively, because no game publisher wants their name associated with youth violence in any way, even if they're doing something positive about it.

I can think of three things the game industry could do:

First, honestly study the issue to understand what, if any, role games play in encouraging youth violence. And unlike the tobacco industry, act on the evidence rather than suppressing it, if they don't like what they learn.

Second, fund education programs and other public-spirited services through intermediaries, like trade associations and educational foundations, without connecting any one company to the problem.

Third, label the games – not only with warning labels on the boxes, but with software flags that filtering software could catch. We already have this mechanism for the World Wide Web – RSACi and the Platform for Internet Content Selection. RSACi (which stands for "Recreational Software Advisory Council on the Internet") is an excellent system – it doesn't just state "this web page isn't right for kids," it states exactly what kind of content is on the page, so people can filter out the things they don't want. If entertainment software automatically notified your computer what sort of material it contained, filtering software could be written to determined whether that game should proceed.

Deputy: Do you think the RSAC ratings for video and computer games are more effective than those used by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB)? Is there something missing from the ESRB ratings?

Ernest Adams: The ESRB system is by far the more widespread (of the two systems), because it's the one established by the industry trade association in the US, and they require that their members use it. They've also managed to convince a number of large retailers not to sell any products without it.

The problem with the ESRB's system is that it tells people "this game is suitable for kids of this age" without any explanation of the criteria used to make that decision – and like the movie ratings system, it's done by a secret group which is accountable to no one. Suppose instead of the nutrition labels we have now, food were marked with labels that said, "Not suitable for fat people" or "Not suitable for diabetics" – and you couldn't find out who set the standards. That's no good! We want to know what's in the food. Similarly, customers should be told what's in the game, not just what some arbitrary group of people think about the game.

Unfortunately, because the RSAC system doesn't have the backing of the major publishers, it's not very widely used. It's much more common as a rating system for websites, where it's called RSACi.

Deputy: Do you trust the computer game industry to monitor its own sex and violence program? Is the RSAC the best rating system? What would be the best system?

Ernest Adams: The game industry isn't a monolith – in fact, it's far, far more fragmented than the movie and television industries. I do trust the major publishers to monitor the amount of sex and violence in their own products, and to put honest ratings on their boxes. However, it is literally impossible for the industry to police itself completely, because there are so many people making games out there.

RSAC is currently the best rating system in America, because it lists exactly the levels of sex, violence, and strong language in each product. It's also an open system – anyone can find out how it works. I believe that is the best system – I couldn't ask for anything better.

Deputy: Are ratings systems for movies and games effective? What more do you think needs be done?

Ernest Adams: The movie ratings actually corrupt the movies by encouraging moviemakers to include more sex and violence, not less. Every moviemaker knows that a "G" rating is the kiss of death – if people see a "G" rating on a movie, they won't go. So the moviemakers include some breasts, almost always gratuitously, to make sure that they get a higher rating.

Movie ratings give the consumer a vague idea of what they're getting, but not much more than that, because the standards for the ratings aren't explained. They provide a vague guide to what you might find in a movie, but not nearly enough information. For example, I don't have any problem with nudity in an appropriate context (after all, most people are naked at least twice a day), but stomach-turning violence can leave me feeling ill for several days. So if I see that a movie has an "R" rating, which am I going to get?

Game rating systems that emphasize the letter grades aren't any better – they still encourage developers to aim for a specific grade by adding in more objectionable material. There's a better alternative, and that is to indicate the content specifically.

Deputy: I know that recent games (Kingpin, Nocturne) have come with very prominent warning labels – on the box, on the install and game load screens. There doesn't seem to be any toning down of content, though. Indeed, in the case of Kingpin, the violence and especially language seemed to have been purposefully ramped up. Do you think those sorts of labels are an appropriate response to this issue? Is it enough? What more should game makers be doing?

Ernest Adams: There isn't much more that game makers can do. The problem is that anybody with a PC can make a computer game, and anybody with a website can distribute their game. The game industry isn't like the automobile industry, where there are only a few large companies. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people making computer games, from large corporations to individuals programming alone in their spare time. The only way to police them all would be through government censorship, and I reject that.

Honest, accurate, detailed labels are the best way to inform the consumer, protect children, and preserve our First Amendment rights all at the same time. You read the labels on the food you give your kids, right? So you should also read the labels on the entertainment you give them.

Deputy: What do you think of the industry response to and since the Littleton situation? What has the industry response been? To this specific incident and to the issue as a whole?

Ernest Adams: The industry response to the Littleton massacre has been nil, as far as I'm able to tell. However, it's pretty obvious that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's problems were caused by something much deeper than computer games, and their enthusiasm for violent games was a symptom, not a cause.

Individual game companies are responsible to their stockholders, and in a market increasingly concerned with short-term profits, I don't imagine those stockholders would look kindly on a company spending its time and money on social issues. So far, the industry's collective response has been to establish rating systems for the games. That's a very good start, but there could be more.

Deputy: Do you think the gaming industry has a problem with violence? Why? Or why not? Is it a perception that the industry has a problem? If so, how can that perception be changed?

Ernest Adams: My own belief is that the industry has two issues that it must address. One has to do with public perception of computer games. We must start presenting games as entertainment for adults, not for children, and that means advertising them in adult venues – Time, Newsweek, the New Yorker. It doesn't matter that much if New Yorker readers don't buy computer games; if they see ads for computer games, they'll get the message that this isn't a kiddie medium any more.

The second issue is the question of how much violence computer games actually cause. There are a heck of a lot of things in our society that cause violence – drug addiction, poverty, alcohol abuse, dysfunctional families. Millions of people play computer games with no harmful effects whatsoever. We need some unbiased, rigorously controlled research to tell us what percentage of the violence in society is really attributable to computer games. My own guess is it's a tiny fraction – well under one percent.

Every time someone commits a violent act and says, "video games made me do it," it makes national headlines. But hundreds of people are shot every Saturday night in the US in bar fights or domestic violence, and it barely gets a mention. We mustn't let headlines alone determine social policy. We need to distinguish between high-profile anecdotes and statistical reality.

Deputy: What do you think of the common defenses used in response to questions about game makers' responsibilities in this area? Do you think game makers are owning up to their responsibility?

Ernest Adams: I've heard a lot of defenses from angry young game developers, but most of them have been pretty stupid. We can't claim to be "Art," (we're popular culture – our products are sold at Toys 'R Us, and Toys 'R Us doesn't sell art). We can't claim absolute First Amendment protection, because our products are still perceived as being for children, and people will usually sacrifice civil rights for the sake of children. We can't just ignore the problem, because we don't have the kind of political clout on Capitol Hill that would let us get away with that. If we split hairs about "proof" and "causation" we'll end up sounding like the tobacco industry, and in the end it didn't protect them; it just made them look weasely.

However, I do think most game makers are owning up to their responsibility, by putting warning labels on the products. Labeling a product is good for the consumer, and it also gives the publisher the moral high ground – enables him to say, "look, you were warned." The problem, as with all life, is the minority of people whose goal is to shock and offend for the sake of a quick buck. That tiny fraction of irresponsible game developers who make it hard for the rest of us. It only takes one idiot to give the whole industry a black eye.

Deputy: Where do you think the issue of video/computer game ratings and censorship is headed? Is the industry headed in the direction of one day being vilified like the tobacco industry is today? Do you think the recent fate of the tobacco industry has proven instructive for the games industry? How so? Is anyone in the game industry taking notice or drawing a correlation between the public perception of tobacco and the public perception of games?

Ernest Adams: The tobacco industry finally got its comeuppance when an incontrovertible link was established between smoking and disease, and it became clear that the tobacco companies had been ignoring it. I don't think there is an incontrovertible link between computer games and violence, but if one is ever established, that's when the game industry will have to watch out. I very much hope the game industry has learned from their mistakes. The tobacco industry adopted a head-in-the-sand, suppress-the-evidence approach that only did them more damage in the end. I believe that the game industry will be more proactive. I don't know of anyone besides myself who has publicly warned that what happened to them could happen to us, but I have no idea what's going on the minds of the CEO's of the major publishers. They're the ones with the power to act, and if they have any sense they're thinking long and hard about the issue.

Deputy: Are things moving closer to the possible censorship of computer games? Where, do you think, the mood of the public is on this issue?

Ernest Adams: A few years ago the industry came under pressure from Congress to do something about violence in computer games. Since then the rating systems have been established, and that has taken a lot of the heat off. I don't think actual censorship of computer games in America is very likely, although it is actively practiced in other countries.

I also believe that, as with so many things, the public has a better understanding of the situation than their elected representatives in Congress. A few Congressmen tried to make political hay with the issue, but it was obvious from their behavior that it was more a cynical attempt to stir up public feeling than a sincere desire to encourage reasoned debate on the issue. Americans love computer games, and millions upon millions play them with no ill effects whatsoever.

Deputy: You've mentioned the public perception of computer games ... your "In Praise of Sex and Violence" lecture noted the First Amendment protections usually afforded to print media, and that games, usually considered "toys," are not afforded such protection. Do you think games/computer media will ever be afforded the same sort of sanctity devoted to books?

Ernest Adams: Actually, I think that computer games are afforded some First Amendment protections, just not as much as books are. Computer games are somewhere on a continuum that runs from books to toys. They're treated rather like toys because they're perceived as being entertainment for children – partly because that's how they started out, and partly because many of them are still garish and unsubtle. I don't think games will ever receive the sort of protection that books get, but they're fairly well covered. If it came to a court case I believe freedom would win out over censorship, as long as some idiot doesn't deliberately try to sell a pornographic product to children.

Deputy: Do you think the primary audience of computer games will always be teenage boys? What can the computer and video gaming industry do to expand that audience?

Ernest Adams: No, the audience for computer games is expanding rapidly and will continue to do so. For example, thousands of people of all ages and both sexes play America On-line's "game show" style games. They're challenging, fun, and great for the whole family. And the traditional retail industry is identifying new markets all the time. The current hot market is younger girls, and although the first few games for girls were stereotypical and of low quality, they've already started to improve.

Deputy: Do you have any concluding thoughts?

Ernest Adams: I realize that my position, as it comes out in (this) interview, sounds a bit incoherent. I express concern about the consequences of showing inappropriate material to children, but at the same time I say that many people play computer games with no harm to themselves, and that the media coverage is disproportionate to the actual harm done, especially by comparison to the harm caused by drug and alcohol abuse.

I think the reason for this apparent inconsistency is that the truth is complex. Unfortunately, whenever a problem becomes politicized, people seek simple answers, and in this case there aren't any simple answers. When you get right down to it, we just don't know how much violence is caused by violent media. We may never get anything more than a statistical probability, and neither politicians nor lawyers like statistical probabilities – they want yes-or-no answers.

There are a couple of things I'm certain of, however. First, for its own good, the game industry needs to pay close attention to the tide of public opinion: burying its head in the sand is not an option. Second, parents must take responsibility for monitoring their children's activities, even if that means asking hard questions and laying down the law from time to time. The game publishers and retailers are not in a position to implement every family's different standards of what is and is not suitable for their children to do. The only people who can make that judgment and enforce it are the parents.