Jonathan Cooper

Sorry, I’ve been writing a lot on video games at the moment – this is the last for now I promise. I want to talk briefly about the controversy surrounding violent video games – why do games like Modern Warfare 2 have such a bad reputation with some parents.

What many parents think is that violent video games cause violent behavior in real life. The truth is, there has been no evidence to back this up whatsoever. At all. Nil. Nothing. But, that doesn’t rule the idea out.

My opinion is that it strongly depends on the child. Some children are gonna be able to play Postal 2 and see blood go everywhere and not be the least bit effected at a very young age – others will be different, reacting very strongly and not wanting to see it if they are especially sensitive. It’s all a matter of maturity. It’s also whether you want to see it – some people don’t want to see violence, full stop. I, personally, played GTA at the age of 11 around a friend’s house very frequently. Didn’t effect me, but boy was it fun. I wasn’t allowed to play the game at home so I took it as something really cool…

Now to my second point, what makes violent games worse than violent films? Films like The Matrix, 300 or SAW are ultra-violent (and more realistic than video games) but it is safe to say many parents would rather have their children watch one of these films rather than play the game equivalent. Some parents are perhaps the opposite, thinking that ‘they’re just games,’ neither of these views are right in my opinion, you really ought to be somewhere in the middle.

Ratings – here in Britain we use the PEGI system as of recently, and the BBFC system if a game needs to be re-rated for whatever reason. These are fairly simple, U/3+, PG/7+, 12+, 15+ and 18+. The question is, should a child wait three years after playing World War 2 shooter Call of Duty: World at War to play the next in the CoD series, Modern Warfare 2, due to about 1 minute of gameplay in one mission? I’m not saying this is a nice mission, as you take on the side of a terrorist organisation, but should you let your 15 year old child play this?

Finally – studies have shown that people do not play the games to kill people, but rather to play with friends and have the achievement of winning. It’s fun to kill someone in a game, not because they’re dead but because it scores you points. You don’t get points in real life for killing someone, you get a jail sentence. So no one would want to replicate these actions in real life.

Okay, concluding my opinion. Violent games should not be banned. Anyone mature (and this can be at any age) should be able to choose what games they play as at the end of the day, only they know how much it’s going to effect them. It is the parents role to decide when their child is mature enough, but be nice – these games are fun, no matter who says they aren’t. Yes, the ratings are there for a reason – but they’re a guideline. Nothing more. We probably should take after America where the ratings system isn’t legally binding.

A common, and somewhat useless debate between gamers I tend to hear often. There is no answer to it, but I’ll quite happily give my opinion on the matter. Fairly, too. Let’s look at pros and cons.

Xbox 360 Pros Against PS3

• Simply put, more games. There are far more (good) exclusives on the Xbox 360 like Gears of War, Crackdown and of course Halo 3.
• Controllers – the PS3 controllers are flimsy and don’t feel too good. Xbox controllers are the perfect weight, don’t break easily and feel good in your hands.
• The Xbox 360 is sleeker than the PS3, and in my view looks better. Especially the elite consoles, which are black.
• Better online. Since we have to pay for Xbox Live Gold, Microsoft pays for dedicated servers for games and thus there is less lag. As developers have to buy servers for PS3 online play, they tend to get crappy ones that are laggy.
• Xbox 360s are far more popular, meaning that it’s more likely your cousin you see once every 4 years in Switzerland can play COD5 with you.
• Xbox 360s tend to be far far cheaper than PS3s, and are usually about half the cost of a new PS3.
• I usually don’t get into comparing graphics of the two as they’re so similar, but technichally the Xbox 360 has a superior GPU to the PS3 meaning that the output is better.

Xbox 360 Cons Against PS3

• No HD disc viewing unless you buy a HD-DVD accessory, however Sony won the HD disc war with the Blu-Ray, which made a huge PS3 selling point.
• Xbox Live Gold costs money, £40 a year in comparison to PSN’s £0 lifetime system.

PS3 Pros Against Xbox 360

• Free online game play. Something that all Xbox 360 owners tend to be envious of.
• Motion sensitive controllers means that the PS3 can pick up hand movements. However the technology here is nothing in comparison to that of the Wii.
• Built-in Blu-Ray means that you can watch all the latest films in HD hassle free, just like a DVD.
• You can use a Bluetooth headset to talk to others online, this definitely beats the tacky things Microsoft gives you.
• Blu-Ray compatibility also means games can be big without needing multiple discs, like they do for DVD versions – it also means textures don’t have to be compressed for one disk, meaning they load faster.

PS3 Cons Against Xbox 360

• It costs more. Much more.

In my opinion, the Xbox 360 is the better console overall. However, it’s really up to personal preference. The Xbox has features some people will love, so does the PS3. It’s the ones thats suit you best that should make your decision.