GTA and Rating of Video Games

Gamer writes "There is an interesting debate on Grand Theft Auto and rating of computer games going on. It started with Lawmeme's Paul Szynol wants 'distribution control so that minors don't get access to inappropriate material'. Greplaw's Mikael Pawlo has a reply saying 'Computer games are art and should be dealt with accordingly, without any references to the prohibition tactics of the 1980:ies.' Would the world not be a better place without the violence in GTA? I don't understand Pawlo's art argument, although I love gaming. I agree with Paul Szynol. Kids should not get violent games." I really don't have a problem with regulating violent games- its when the government tries to outlaw them that I have a problem.

Comments

Games don't kill people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this movie called Bowling for Columbine. Its in alot of the bigger theaters and looks at the issues of violence in teens as well as adults. http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com Games arn't the reason either.

Re:Games don't kill people...

[ChaosDiscord]

Until I babysat some kids and showed them Terminator II, I didn't see a connection between a violent movie and violent behavior, but now I am certain there is one.

Numerous studies have shown that in children there is a short term behavoral change when exposed to violent media. That's pretty clear. Children like acting out what they see, be it good or bad. (In fact, while children behave in more violent ways after seeing violent media, there are some very credible arguments that this violent play helps them work through and understand the situations presented, that real violence is almost never their intent and the majority is just play violence that may go slightly out of control.)

Less clear is the long term results in children. Studies found evidence both ways. For adults, there is clearly no significant connection. "Violent movies, television, and games leads to increased violence in society" is too simplistic.

Re:EU eclipses US in games market - what next ?

[sqlrob]

Have you seen the top 10 list for the second week of December?

1. Sims Unleashed from Electronic Arts (EA)
2. Harry Potter 2 from EA
3. Sims Deluxe from EA
4. Roller Coaster Tycoon 2 from Infogrames
5. Zoo Tycoon from Microsoft
6. Backyard Hockey from Infogrames
7. Age of Mythology from Microsoft
8. Sims Vacation from EA
9. Zoo Tycoon: Marine Mania from Microsoft
10. Medal of Honor: Allied Assault Spearhead from EA

Boy, that list is just bursting with violent games.

Greplaw down, here is my comment

[mpawlo]

Regulating Computer Games

Over at Yale's Lawmeme, editor Paul Szynol gives his opinion on violence in computer games. Szynol wants an effective ranking mechanism but conclude that computer games may exert a negative influence on kids. Excuse me, but who used the time machine? Computer games are art and should be dealt with accordingly, without any references to the prohibition tactics of the 1980:ies.

The contents of games like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City should serve well as starting point in any discussion on the ethics of computer games. It appears Lawmeme's Paul Szynol is not alone in his views on violence in computer games. Washington Post columnist Mike Wilbon put it even more clearly than Szynol in the ESPN TV show "Pardon The Interruption" stating in respect of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City:

"The people who put it together should be stoned in the street."

I think Wilbon is on thin ice when he wants to punish the artist. Computer games are the result of a creative process not different than other objects of arts, such as paintings or music.

In the 1980:ies in Sweden we had a very intense debate on violence in computer games. The most outspoken opponent to violence in computer games was Margaretha Persson, then representative of the precedent to the Children's Ombudsman (Barnmiljoradet / Barnombudsmannen). Any Swede with good memory can recount the events when Persson made the game distributors remove a plastic shuriken (ninja star) from the game box before selling the Commodore 64 game Last Ninja 2. Persson also wanted a ban on other games. The debate looks very silly in the light of today, especially since Last Ninja 2 then was considered to be a photo-realistic game with animated movie qualities. The graphics were worse than the graphics provided in latest Ericsson cell phones. The individuals beating people up in the streets of Stockholm in the 1980:ies most likely had others and more severe personal issues to deal with than playing Last Ninja 2.

I do agree with Paul Szynol that computer games should be rated. That is already done, as observed by Szynol. Rockstar's game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was rated by Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and there is no active marketing for the game targeting players that are less than 17 years old.

Personally, as a constantly immoral and bad person, I would probably play games with three skulls rating, but that does not imply that I think kids should do it. Parents must have a chance to understand and grasp the difference between BMX Kidz and BMX XXX. Yes, the latter is a game for Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube sold today where you can run a BMX bike with a topless female biker. The former is a old Commodore 64 game that would hardly be detected on the rating radar.

I believe society and the individual are affected by culture. That does not mean that I believe that anyone would place his wife in the trunk after listening to Eminem's song Stan. In accordance with most modern psychologists I think the individual is affected both by his heritage and his environment. The importance of the environment, of which the culture is a vital part, is most probably more significant during the early years of an individual's upbringing. If the individual is exposed only to extremely violent games and movies the individual may maintain a different approach to life than an individual that gets a more varied cultural diet. In either way, the parents must have the possibility to choose whether the kid should be exposed to a varied or strict video game diet. in practice, that is not the case today. Most parents can not efficiently exercise their guardianship because they lack knowledge of the contents of the computer games. In respect of movies, parents rather easily can decide whether the kid shall be allowed to watch a certain movie or not. There are effective rating mechanisms and it is easy to actually control the content by watching the movie. When it comes to computer games it is hard and time-consuming for the parents to learn that you may actually have intercourse with prostitutes in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and subsequently kill your sex partner. This particular part of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was removed in Australia following a ban of the game in the land of the kangaroo.

To be fair, Paul Szynol did not crave a direct ban on certain computer games, but distribution control so that minors don't get access to inappropriate material. In my opinion, the computer game vendors should treat sensitive material in the same way video stores do - comedy in one corner, violence in another corner. A sticker on the box with an independent rating of the content would further add to improve the situation. Then it is up to the market - that is you and me - to decide whether we want to have the violent games or not. Voting with the wallet is often extremely efficient and would supersede any attempts of regulation.

There are opponents to rating as such. In my opinion there are good and bad ratings and good and bad computer games. How ratings as such would be bad I find hard to understand. The market would benefit from getting more information.

Would it not be great if a certain association of parents make a list over computer games it considers dangerous to kids? I am sure there are several such lists in the loop. Any parent or grown-up may choose whether to consider the recommendations made on such a list or just ignore it.

Someone may want to buy only computer games that are rated by the Church of Scientology, someone may settle for ratings from Nation of Islam and a third for ratings conducted by the Catholic church. I have no problem with that as long as we all, individually, are able to choose our own filters and prejudices. But the debate run a risk of returning to the prohibition propaganda of the 1980:ies where we tilt towards apprehending the Swedish Last Ninja 2 uproar and the recent experiences from Australia. It is indeed hard to defend certain parts of the contents of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Paul Szynol's call for distribution control and review of the rating system are less tasty dishes on the smorgasbord of the computer rating debate. Some of the arguments should be placed in the time machine and sent back to the appropriate decade.

Computer games are art and should be treated with the equal respect we treat Rembrandt's painting The Conspiracy of the Batavians under Claudius Civilis. The painting may bear witness of a coming extreme violence in the uprising lead by Julius Civilis, but I gather few today would demand on moral grounds that the painting should be removed from the National Museum in Stockholm. Why should we treat computer games any differently?

Mikael Pawlo

Re:It's stupidity, not location

[slipgun]

This is all overgeneralising, us Europeans (i'm in the UK btw) play FPS games as well as the US, but the reason there are no high school shootings here is because you can't get guns.

Like this shooting, you mean?

Criminals and nutters will get their hands on guns regardless of whether guns are legal or not. And the number of muggings over here in Britain is significantly higher than it is in the US, partly because it is effectively illegal to defend yourself here.

Finally, here's a little know fact about the Columbine high-school shootings: About a year before they took place, a law was passed in the state making it completely illegal to take a gun onto school premises. Before said law was passed, the deputy principal of the school would take a loaded pistol onto the premises every day, and take it home again every night. After the law was passed, he left it in his car a quarter of a mile away. Interestingly enough, it was he who eventually disarmed the boys - except that he had spent several minutes running to his car and driving back with his gun, by which time the boys had managed to kill quite a few of their fellow pupils.

I wonder what would have happened if the state had trusted him enough to let him keep the gun on the premises?

Fact Checking Michael Moore

[SpikeSpiff]

In fairness, it is important to recognize that Bowling for Columbine is not a documentary. It is a political statement, based only loosly on fact.

For more details, consider Fact Checking a Polemicist which reviews many of the factual lapses in the movie.