With the controversies surrounding videogames and their contents effect on people growing up around them, the argument popped up of how regulated they should be to protect societies values. On September 16, 1994 the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, or ESRB as it’s more commonly called, was created to introduce a ratings system in order to inform the consumer of the item they want to purchase. This was in reaction to several controversial videogames being released that were bought for the wrong audience because there was nothing to inform the customer of the content, although the titles Death Race or Mortal Kombat should have been a good indication of what was to be expected. Nevertheless after public backlash the ESRB was created and is still around today creating labels for games everywhere. This rating system that is implemented is much akin to the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system used to rate cinematic movies, both animated and live action.

In order to discuss how we should deal with the regulation of videogames, we must first decide what exactly to classify videogames as. Are they just a game meant to be played and used, or are they something more than that? Many people argue whether or not videogames are considered art and the debate is still out there so I’m going to do a simple breakdown of videogames as they exist today and how they hold up to a widely held definition of art. Merriam-Webster defines art as “something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings.” Videogames fit perfectly within that definition. They involve complex worlds, characters, and storylines that have to be near flawless and allow exploration of the player, not to mention all of the game mechanics and balancing that has to happen in order to complete the game and make it a pleasant experience for the player. While some games are meant to just be played through and give just a couple of hours of enjoyment and not leave an impact, it is becoming more and more common for games to involve the player themselves and the creators love bringing satire into their games and having the player get involved in the issue. Some games are even entirely created around that fact. Other games however might not include social satire, but instead invoke strong feelings within a player by showing a grand cut scene of an area to get an emotional response or even by showing a characters death. The emotional response that a game creator can get is usually greater than that can be achieved by any other type of median due to the involvement the player has in that world. Another great thing about videogames as a type of art is that the game creator is able to let someone wander around and get immersed by the world that they have created. The player sees and hears the world the way the game creator intended.

Since videogames are a form of art, however untraditionally, we must look at precedence to see if and how art has been regulated before deciding how videogames should be regulated. As far as I could read, and not having a major in art or art history, art currently has no regulations placed upon it. However, with this being said I feel that I must also add that it has historically been controlled by governments in a way that would promote certain ideas or to silence others. So then why when art today is unregulated should we lock down on videogames and strictly control what is produced by game companies?

Many people say that videogames lead to an increase in youth violence and there have been about 300 studies done that back this allegation up. In fact, many mass shooters are linked to playing violent videogames. With all this evidence it seems pretty obvious why the populace is let to believe that violent videogames are a huge problem in today’s youth. However, the studies conducted were all considered flawed in their procedures, had external forces on the study, or were conducted with bias making them scientifically null and void along with being an inaccurate reference. As far as the link to mass shooters and violent videogames, an ABC news survey in 2007 revealed that 91 percent of children play videogames and the number is steadily increasing. With that large percentage of children playing videogames it makes sense that the mass shooters would also play videogames just out of probability, and that’s without adding in their mental state. Most mass shooters are socially introverted and it would make sense for them to retreat into a world that they can control and hide in. It would also stand to reason that someone who is already violent would tend to gravitate towards violent types of videogames. While there is a connection to mass shooters and violent videogames, there is no causation. As far as the overall tendencies of videogames causing widespread youth violence, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, youth violence in America has dropped drastically from just under 4% in 1980 to under 1% in 2013.

Another argument that could be used against videogames, violent videogames in particular, is that children are the primary target of videogame developers. This is not the truth however. According to recent research done by the ESRB only 25% of gamers are under the age of 18 while 49% are from ages 19-49 and 26% are ages 50+. People under the age of 18 are actually the smallest demographic of gamers out there, and games with the most mature content, rated “M” games, only consist of 17 percent of the total sales. A very low number considering that it is specifically targeted at 75% of the gaming population (ages 18+).

There are also many positive aspects of the videogame industry that are actually beneficial to society. Videogames have been proven to improve hand-eye coordination, problem solving, creativity, learning abilities, and even help people become more sociable due to the widespread sweep of online and multiplayer gaming in today’s games. This area in itself could turn into at least a ten page essay, but with my current primary focus being with talking about the regulation of videogames, I feel that it is much more pertinent to address why videogames might be a detriment to society and prove otherwise.

Videogames are a form of expression for both the game developer and the gamer themselves and thus is a form of art. Art is supposed to be a free exchange of thoughts and ideas expressed creatively, and thus in order to keep art true then there must be no restrictions placed on it. It is meant to start a discussion, bring up controversies, or to just bring out a particular emotion be it happy or terrified. With this being said however, I do not advocate for the disbanding of the ESRB or the removal of the rating system as certain forms of art are not meant for everybody. The same way you wouldn’t show a 6 year old the painting Saturn Devouring His Son by Francisco Goya, you would also refrain that child from playing a game from the Call of Duty franchise which their whole aim is to accurately depict warfare and immerse the player in it. The current restrictions placed on videogames are perfectly fine as they do not infringe upon the game developers creativity, but they also provide protection to the consumer by letting them know the content of the game they intend to buy as well as stop underage kids from buying videogame content that is not suited for them, and lets the parents themselves censor what their kids play.

Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.

Jenkins, Henry. “Reality Bytes: Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked” Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric With Readings Ninth Edition.ed. John Ramage, John Bean, June Johnson. Pierce. 449-452. Print.

“How Much Do You Know About Video Games? Share.” Video Game Industry Statistics. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.

“Youth Perpetrators of Serious Violent Crimes.” Http://www.childstats.gov/. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.

Rhetoric is constantly evolving and will never reach a point where it cannot be improved. Ever since humans were able to communicate, the basic thing that needs to be improved upon in rhetoric is how the information or message is transferred and received, so the improvement of availability and clarity are the main things to focus on when trying to improve how rhetoric is passed along.

Availability means having the ability to readily write down thoughts and ideas as quickly and conveniently as possible and being able to also have easy access to other people’s thoughts and ideas that they have written down or shared. Before the development of the first written language (cuneiform) all information was passed around orally. Oral communication is fine, and is still used today, as long as the information is coming from a primary source and is not being communicated through long distances (time or length). As the information gets transmitted orally from one person to another and so on and so forth the information gets distorted and lost in the transfer from one person to another. A good example of this happening is the telephone game. One person comes up with a phrase (i.e. “Cadre are patrolling the stoops from 2300-2315.”), and they proceed to tell the phrase to a person who then relays it to the next person and so on and so forth until it reaches back to the initial person and the phrase is now “RDC and Cadre are patrolling the stoops making us push from SRC to taps.” The same is also true with time. As time progresses, people’s memories fail to fully recollect information and parts of the phrase will be forgotten, changed, or even the whole phrase could get lost or forgotten. This seems undoubtedly true with rat bible knowledge and then your complete lack of recollection will be graciously pointed out by cadre and/or RDC. In order to clearly pass on a verbal message sentence structure is vital. If a sentence is put together incorrectly when spoken then the meaning could be misunderstood or completely incoherent to the point where the message cannot possibly be derived.

With the development of written languages information can now relatively withstand the test of time, which means that as long as the object it is written on still exists then the information also still exists. The downside was that early forms of writing were carved into rock, which meant that it was a laborious, difficult, and an intensive process to write anything down. It also meant that the information could not be moved or easily accessed by everyone because of its immobility. Because of this only a very select few people could read and write. These select few consisted of prominent state and religious figures. This is a nice first step, but the idea is to make the information available to everybody, not a select few. However this was improved with the invention of papyrus and paper, which helped increase the effect of literacy. It made writing lighter and easier making it so that texts could travel through cities and even countries as long as the paper was cared for correctly. Literacy expanded to almost all religious figures (i.e. priests) and state figures (i.e. noblemen). It was also easier to write and put your thoughts down on paper as long as you had a quill and ink to write with. Coupled with paper, the biggest innovation in literacy is the invention of the printing press. Before the printing press it took dozens of monks days to copy a book by hand making books expensive and hard to come by, but with the invention of the printing press books could be made a lot faster, a lot cheaper, and more uniform. Because of these advantages of the printing press, books were much more readily available meaning that the lower classes could afford them and then they learned to read and write as well. This was the biggest spread of literacy in terms of availability to date. It is the reason why most people in the world are able to read and write, and is very uncommon to run across someone who is unable to. Now that language was in a written format it needed new rules to be made on top of sentence structure to ensure the clarity of the message. Those rules consisted of punctuation, spelling, and other early forms of grammar that we, today, learn at a very young age. These new rules ensure that everyone’s writing is uniform enough so that anyone who can read that language can read any writing of the same language.

Another thing that helped with the advancement of literacy is how texts were stored. Libraries gathered many different texts together in one place so that people can come together from other places and learn. Libraries have existed since around 2600 BC and the most famous of these ancient libraries is the Library of Alexandria (3^rd century BC). Libraries are still the main icon when people think of knowledge and learning even today. It just proves how effective it is to accumulate knowledge in one place for the masses of people is in terms of education and literacy.

A great modern advancement that rivals that of the printing press (in terms of rhetoric anyways) is the internet. It is a readily available collection of most of mankind’s knowledge and literacy all compiled into one place and weighs as much as whichever device you use to access it. It’s a huge advantage to literacy because it’s always readily available and easy to access as long as you can afford it. And with the increase in technological advancements devices to access the internet are steadily becoming cheaper and more available to anyone. A large downside on the other hand is that just about anyone can publish anything on the internet, and nobody is there to check and make sure that the facts are correct. So when you are reading an article online it is very possible that you are being misled by the author, intentionally or unintentionally, and all the information that you have just retained is false. This is a lot less of a problem if you are able to authenticate the work. A good thing to look for is references and if those references, because that means that the author has researched and studied the subject before writing about it and it is usually a trustworthy source.

In rhetoric, clarity is a necessity when trying to use rhetoric to convey an idea or thought to someone else. If they can’t understand what you’re trying to convey then they won’t be able to learn or do what you are trying to convey to them. Without clarity in rhetoric, rhetoric itself becomes invaluable because nobody can actually obtain anything from it. To solve this problem society has created grammar which sets down a bunch of rules to guide how we communicate. Without it there would be incoherent sentences everywhere and nobody would end up having the same way of communication like we have now. Grammar lets you express stylistic writings, spelling, and punctuation to add emphasis in a paper or just separation. Grammar is constantly changing to suit society and is never set in stone. Just over the past couple of years passive verbs such as “were” and “was” have been replaced by got”. So instead of the sentence being “the rats were RDC’d”, the sentence would now be “the rats got RDC’d”. That is just one example of many on how our usage of language and grammar constantly changes with society.

Rhetoric has changed a lot since it was first developed and will continue to develop even further in the future. Grammar changes with society’s needs of communication and will always be in constant evolution. Accessibility of rhetoric will also continue to change as new technology continues to make it easier and cheaper to access and also more portable to the extent that you are not bounded by your Wi-Fi signal. It is exciting that we live in a time where we are at the beginning of a major revolution of rhetoric where the internet gives everyone their own private Library of Alexandria.