I would say just give it time. Nobody flips out when books inspire people to engage in acts of violence, or when music does it.

If we wait, within 10-20 years something else will come along and be the next big thing to blame our social ills on, while video games will be just another form of expression.

Bear in mind, however, that the authorities in charge of sports have not blindly ignored the violence either.

They have found ways to help prevent it and to lessen its effect when it does occur, for example through improvements to stadium design, crowd segregation, CCTV and imposing fines on clubs whose fans cause problems. They also recognise potential flashpoints and prepare for trouble accordingly.

Perhaps we as an industry should learn from these examples. Perhaps we should start regulating ourselves a little more, so that the most "dangerous" games are toned down, so that developers who cause upset are penalised. Let's face it, developers have made some mistakes, some bad calls. But by blindly ignoring them, we leave ourselves much more open to heavy-handed governement interference. If we cannot prove ourselves to be responsible for what we create, then it is a government's duty to step in and act to protect its people.

Mind you, there are a few obvious differences as well; when games cram tens of thousands of people in one place, it is only their avatars in danger - the real people are tucked up nice and safe at home. If you put ten thousand WoW players in the same stadium, able to see who was controlling their in-game enemies, I don't doubt you would see more than a few bloody noses...

I've never really understood the whole sport/game dichotomy that people set up. Sports are games. I had a lacrosse player in a class that I was guest lecturing for, she looked bored, but I could tell she was an athlete. I asked her what made games different from sports. The ensuing discussion ended up being a really interesting (and hopefully fruitful) conversation with the students (undergrads, largely first-year students).

I actually believe that there is a lot to be learned from women in sports (especially sports typically "owned" by men) that can be learned for those people designing games. But then again I coach a women's hockey team, so I'm biased.

One thing that is right on (and is what the latter part of this post is really getting at) is that there is a tendency to ghettoize games (and especially video games) because they are outside of the mainstream. I think tapping seriously into the rhetoric of video games as game, as a part of the human creature (Homoludens), having value as you say. At the same time, I think that there needs to be an effort on the part of developers to recognize that the uptake and public perception of games is something that they are responsible for.

I believe Zild is partly right. I hate to bring Jack Thompson into this, but beyond all the hate that gets thrown in and from his direction, when he says that the game industry needs better self regulation, he's right. And the most infuriating thing is how many gamers, bloggers and people in the industry say "just ignore him and he'll go away."

But the mainstream is paying attention to him, not Penny Arcade or Kotaku. That attitude will only push games further from popular culture.

I say "partly" because I don't think games should be toned down for fear of government intervention. That's exactly what Thompson is trying to do, and I don't agree with it.

The industry has made great leaps in recent years in terms of keeping mature games out of the hands of youngsters (too lazy to look up the stat, go to ftc.gov and search for video game sales). That doesn't mean they can't try harder. Roll out a PR campaign. Put out some public service ads. Create an anti-Jack Thompson pundit. Blogs like these are fine forums for intelligent thought, but they tend to preach to the choir.