MCV reports that ELSPA has supported statements made by anti-game conservative Labour MP Keith Vaz, who argues that politicians don't need to play the games in order to "be informed about the video game agenda". Mr. Vaz, who successfully campaigned to remove last year's Canis Canem Edit from selected store shelves without having seen the game, claimed that MPs can discuss policy associated with publishers, distributors and retailers because "most will have families and children who enjoying playing".
ELSPA retorted:
"Clearly you do not have to be a gamer to suggest policies on the games industry any more than you need to be a doctor to do so with the NHS...
However, games are rated on their content and senior politicians need to make sure they are properly informed of the content before making a public statement that could possibly be damaging to an important British industry."
While few of us can claim to be doctors, however, most of us will be treated by the NHS at some point in our lives. We therefore have a more situated experience and can base our suggestions on personal experience rather than observation.
I do accept that the computer game medium does present a steep barrier to entry, and politicians or others who speak openly about interactive entertainment cannot hope to be as entrenched as, say, we are. Yet it is always distressing that they make no attempts to understand them before making public statements damning them. Perhaps there should be a special governmental committee -s separate to ELSPA or TIGA - comprised of the spectrum of gamers whose sole purpose is to explain firsthand the context and the content of these products to distressed politicos? Gaming whips, as it were?
