Video games have been around for 50 years, but they're always a convenient scapegoat
In the wake of violent incidents at three Philippine schools, Senator Bam Aquino has stepped forward to interrupt a familiar cycle — the rush to blame video games when young people harm one another. As chair of the Senate's education and science committees, he draws on decades of research to argue that the medium is not the message, and that a ban would be a gesture of certainty in the face of complexity. His call is not for permissiveness, but for precision: enforce what already exists, hold developers accountable, and resist the comfort of easy answers.
- Three schools shaken by shootings and stabbings have pushed the Philippines toward a policy crossroads, with the presidency signaling openness to an outright ban on violent video games.
- Senator Aquino warns that scapegoating games is a reflex that has repeated for decades — emotionally satisfying, scientifically unsupported, and ultimately a distraction from harder causes.
- The tension sharpens as Malacañang's sweeping instinct collides with Aquino's demand for evidence-based governance, turning a moment of grief into a debate about what counts as responsible action.
- Aquino's proposed path is narrower and more demanding: tighten enforcement of existing age ratings in stores and online, where current rules go largely unwatched.
- He places additional responsibility on game developers to police their own platforms against predators and extremist recruiters who exploit the spaces where children gather.
When shootings and stabbings struck three Philippine schools, the country's first instinct was to look toward video games. Senator Bam Aquino, who chairs the Senate committees on basic education and science and technology, has seen this reflex before — and on Monday he moved to interrupt it.
Aquino's argument is straightforward: video games have existed for fifty years, and the research accumulated over that time does not support a causal link between gaming and violence. Yet they remain the first suspect. When Malacañang signaled that President Marcos Jr. was open to an outright ban, Aquino rejected the premise entirely. Games are an art form and an entertainment medium, he said — not a threat to be eliminated, but a space to be better regulated.
His alternative is enforcement rather than prohibition. Age ratings already exist for video games, as they do for film and television. The problem, Aquino argues, is not the absence of rules but the looseness with which they are applied — in physical stores and especially online, where access is difficult to police. He called on developers of games aimed at younger audiences to take active responsibility for their platforms, particularly against predators and extremist groups who use online gaming spaces to reach vulnerable children.
The senator's position holds that the real drivers of youth violence are complex, and that banning games offers the appearance of action without the substance. Whether that argument survives the political pressure of a nation looking for answers remains an open question.
When three schools across the Philippines saw violent incidents unfold—shootings and stabbings that left the country shaken—the familiar reflex kicked in: blame the video games. It's a pattern Senator Bam Aquino has watched repeat itself for decades, and on Monday he pushed back hard against what he calls a convenient distraction from harder truths.
Aquino, who chairs the Senate's committees on basic education and on science and technology, made his position clear in a statement: video games have existed for half a century, yet they remain the first suspect whenever a young person commits an act of violence. The logic feels intuitive. The evidence does not support it. "More studies have been done that say there is no correlation between video games and school shootings," he said, a point he emphasized repeatedly as the pressure mounted to take action.
The pressure was real. Malacañang had already signaled that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was open to the idea of banning violent video games outright—a sweeping measure that would treat the medium as a threat to be eliminated rather than a form of expression to be regulated. Aquino rejected this framing entirely. Video games, he argued, are an art form and an entertainment medium. They do not cause violent behavior. A blanket ban, he said, would be solving the wrong problem.
But Aquino is not arguing for a free-for-all. Instead, he proposed something more surgical: enforce the age restrictions that already exist. Video games, like films and television, carry ratings meant to keep certain content away from children. Those rules, he suggested, could be tightened. "There are many games that are not for children," he said. The gap lies not in the existence of rules but in how strictly they are applied—both in physical stores and online, where a child with a credit card can access anything.
He called on game developers to take responsibility as well, particularly for online games where children congregate. The risks are real but specific: predators, extremist groups, and others who exploit vulnerable young people. Developers who create games for younger audiences, Aquino argued, must actively monitor their platforms and remove content that could incite violence. This is not about censoring art. It is about securing spaces where children gather.
The senator's position reflects a growing body of research that has found no causal link between gaming and real-world violence. Yet the impulse to ban persists, especially in moments of crisis when action feels urgent and the culprit seems obvious. Aquino's argument is that this impulse, however understandable, misses the point. The real work lies in enforcement, in developer accountability, and in addressing the actual drivers of youth violence—factors far more complex than what appears on a screen. Whether that message will hold as the political pressure builds remains to be seen.
Notable Quotes
Video games have been around for 50 years, but they're always a convenient scapegoat whenever there's an incident of violence— Senator Bam Aquino
Banning video games in general or as a whole, I don't think that's a good solution to our problems— Senator Bam Aquino
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does the video game argument keep surfacing after these incidents? It seems almost reflexive.
Because it's visible and it's easy. A child plays a game with violence in it, something terrible happens, and the connection feels obvious. But obvious isn't the same as true. The senator's point is that we've been having this same conversation for fifty years, and the evidence just doesn't bear it out.
But doesn't something in these games desensitize young people to violence?
That's the intuition, and it's worth taking seriously. But the research—and there's a lot of it now—doesn't show a causal chain from games to real violence. If it did, we'd expect to see it clearly by now. Instead, we see the opposite: violence has declined in many places even as gaming has exploded.
So Aquino's saying we should just let kids play anything?
No. He's saying the rules already exist. Age ratings exist. The problem is enforcement. A thirteen-year-old shouldn't be buying a mature-rated game, but right now, online, they can. That's the gap to close.
What about the developers? What's their responsibility here?
Aquino's asking them to monitor their own platforms, especially online games where kids interact with strangers. Not to censor content, but to watch for predators, for extremist recruitment, for the actual harms that can happen in those spaces. That's different from blaming the game itself.
Is this position likely to hold up politically?
That depends on whether the next incident happens before people absorb the research. If it does, the pressure to ban will spike again. Aquino's argument is rational, but it requires patience and nuance. Those are hard sells in a moment of fear.