In short, it wouldn't.
The California state law prohibiting the sale of video games to children that graphically depict mayhem and harm to human beings led to California v. Entertainment Merchants (et al), a lawsuit that was argued today before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court seemed, fortunately, skeptical of the reasoning behind the law. The reasoning is that, in a video game, graphic depiction, including interactive control, of violent mayhem against a depicted human being has a greater psychological effect--harm--upon the player, especially child players, than printed literary depiction of such violence. Aside from the fact that there is no scientific evidence that this assumption is correct, it is contrary to common experience. There is a difference between graphic illustration of violent depiction in video games and literary depiction in print. Visual illustration separates the viewer from the object, creating a distance that buffers the psychological impact of the illustration. Literary reading, however, requires the imagination of the reader, which brings the action and object of the action into psychological contact with the reader. It is easier to invoke the empathy or horror of a reader than of a viewer. Vision distances; imagination embraces. Vision cools; imagination heats. Vision objectifies; imagination subjectivizes. Consequently, violent video games cannot be put in to a separate catagory that deprives them of first amendment protection held by print media.