In light of recent events surrounding the tragic Tacloban school shooting, the Philippine Senate's decision to summon the developer of *GoreBox* has sparked a vital debate. Experts argue that questioning about the game should not be tainted by the presumption that violent video games directly incite violent actions.
Challenging Assumptions on Gaming and Violence
The dynamics between the game and the audience may not be the same as your typical *Grand Theft Auto* and *Counter-Strike* title.
Global Network on Extremist and Technology (GNET)
The recent school shooting in Tacloban has ignited fears about the influence of online extremism among youth. As the government grapples with this issue, experts recommend focusing on the underlying causes of violence rather than scapegoating video games.
Historical context is essential in this discussion. In the 1990s, the violent content of games like *Mortal Kombat* led to Senate hearings in the U.S., ultimately resulting in the establishment of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). This system provides guidelines for parents but has not resulted in outright bans.
Conversely, Australia has adopted a stricter approach, with various game bans determined by its own ratings board. With the Philippines facing a similar dilemma, the question arises: should the country establish a ratings or content review board for video games?
There is a pressing need to evaluate how children access these games, particularly with *GoreBox* being rated 18+. Parents must be vigilant about their children's gaming habits, while platforms like Steam and Play Store must ensure their age-gating measures are effective.
Ultimately, it is crucial for lawmakers to recognize that the challenge lies not in banning video games but in understanding the networks that prey on vulnerable youth online. Without addressing these underlying issues, any legislative action may only scratch the surface of a far deeper problem.