No matter what you try and do to change the fact, there's one thing that has refused to go away since about the time Mortal Kombat was released in arcades and on the Sega Genesis: protests from parents and members of Congress that videogames have grown too violent, that they should be censored or even done away with.

To someone like me, a person who has enjoyed videogames for most of my life (though I should be fair and point out that I don't often find myself lost in one of the titles that regularly falls under fire), this seems like a ridiculous proposition. Have videogames really grown so violent that they need to be censored? What about the ratings that come on the boxes? Isn't that enough?

To really examine the issue properly, we need to go back to Mortal Kombat. The game made big news once it reached homes. In the arcades, I suspect, parents were distant from it. But you can't ignore something that's in your living room. Mortal Kombat, a game in the fighter genre, featured some truly gruesome finishes called "Fatalities." An example of a Fatality is when one character ripped the still-beating heart out of his opponent, Indiana Jones style.

At that point in time, Congress wasn't immediately doing the censoring. Nintendo did it. They wouldn't allow all the blood and gore on their platform at the time, the Super Nintendo. And guess what happened? The Genesis version sold better. Much better, if I recall correctly. Gamers, like vampires, wanted more blood.

Eventually Nintendo stopped censoring, at least at that level.

Violence, however, has not gone away, even as Mortal Kombat fades from popularity (how many of you knew there was a new Mortal Kombat game on the Playstation as recently as August of 2000?). So the game some might view as the father of violent gaming (though there were others before it) is dying, and the controversy is still hot as ever.

Why won't Congress forget the issue? The answer to that is probably more complex than we could ever guess. But I can give a few likely reasons.

One reason is the surge of violence in schools. In Colorado, two youths wearing trench coats walked into a school and took out multiple classmates. They also set bombs in the buildings, before killing themselves at the end of their spree. Research found a testimony and quotes to the effect of, "It's going to be just like Doom."

Doom, as any fan of first-person shooters knows, is a videogame. And a violent one. The hero walks through corridors blowing monsters apart, using just about every powerful gun you can imagine. I'm not certain he uses bombs, though. Maybe the boys got that from one of the million other questionable activities in which they engaged. Congress, however, would just as soon forget that. They like to focus on videogames. And if they focus on the other elements, it's just because their in an especially censor-happy mood at the time.

But wait, some might say. Isn't there some relationship between violent videogames and violent activity? Yes and no.

As anyone who has played a good fighting or first-person shooter title will tell you (well, any honest one), there's a surge of adrenaline sometime after playing for a while. I first experienced it playing the arcade version of Mortal Kombat in a truck stop somewhere. I felt the same thing playing the much tamer Street Fighter series, as well. That adrenaline certainly doesn't make you want to go out and shoot someone, though, or even kick them.

True, it may give you the suggestion that violence is the way to solve something. And you might use your adrenaline to resort to violence. After all, you've just seen characters kicking the crap out of each other on your monitor.

But I think that, if you aren't a violent person in the first place, playing a game is not going to change you. What seems more accurate to me is this theory: if you're a violent person, you're drawn to violent games. You play the violent games, and you get more adrenaline. This causes you to act on the violence that was already there, while someone else might just go out for a long bike ride.

So what it really comes down to is a decision on the part of the one who buys the game. If you're a parent, you need to know your child. Does he have a tendency to over-appreciate violence? Better stay away from those 'M' rated games if the answer is 'yes.' They probably contain violence, and your child might react violently. If you have a casual gamer for a child, though, who happens to want to try out the latest craze, you shouldn't be worrying. Instead, worry about music with lyrics that implore youths to go out and shoot cops.

With the ratings system available, the danger is really past. You can avoid violent games, just like you can avoid violent movies. There's really little difference. Congress, let's stop attacking easy targets and move on to the big ones that you've been avoiding. Let's get racism out of this country, and let's make sure people can live with each other.

The videogames can stay, just as they are.

What do you think? Now you can provide feedback. Simply click on Message Boards in the adjacent frame, then log in or join to start a response thread (or to reply to one someone else may have started).

All editorials posted on the Honest Gamer site are the opinions of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Honest Gamer or its webmaster. In addition, all editorials and essays are copyrighted material, and may not be reproduced without the written consent of the author.