Slashdot Mirror
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.
and if it was a game that involved raping and killing 3 year olds very accurately depicted?
Then it wouldn't make it past the development stage, dumbass. Companies want to make money, not be considered an icon of all that is unholy.
I personally agree- Kids should not have violent video games.
Great, so they're already rated. Every game these groups are worried about has a big Mature rating on it. Tell stores to stop selling to minors or tell parents to stop buying them for their kids.
The creators of the games have already done their job.
I don't even think outlawing them is a worthy conversation.. that's just ridiculous.
"'Computer games are art and should be dealt with accordingly"
Rubbish.
By that argument, all films are also art and should be unclassified...
I see nothing wrong with a classification system for games so that they are played by appropriate audiences, and so that parents can make informed desicions when buyiong games.
Sounds pretty responsible to me.
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
I don't believe in the "violent video games make you do violent things" theory. If this was true, then how come the "sports video games make you a better athlete" theory isn't?? I play Madden almost nonstop, but I'm not what you'd call an NFL player. In fact, I can safely say that Madden has not made me better one bit at actual football. So, why would Grand Theft Auto make me more violent? I believe that violent video games should be kept out of the hands of kids under 14, but after that age, they should be able to handle it.
Distribution control however might be a bit much. Only allowing sales in certain stores? Better that the stores enforce their own sale-to-minor policies, although it was proven over the christmas season they do not. (A figure in the high 80% range of how often underage kids were stopped when buying ESRB 18+ games)
---
When I grow up, I want to be a kid again.
you see, in the united states, the system is set up to catch perpetrators once the crime has been committed. Who is being physically harmed by these games? What crimes are being committed? As long as nobody goes out and hurts others (or does drugs), we have no problem with them.
Parents need to take a more active role in what games their kids are playing. Instead of just pulling the box off the shelf, paying for the game, and giving it to their kids they need to understand what kind of material they are allowing their kids to view. Rather then try to put more restrictions on games, wouldn't the effort be better spent educating parents so they can make choices for their own children?
"No Comm, No Bomb"
Okay anyone remember Columbine shootings?
Apparently the kids involved were known to play FPS game, mainly Quake comes to my mind.
So several victims parents sued the makers of the games.
What amazes me is that one of the parents of the kids who were shooting everyone admitted they had not been in their kids room EVER!
Personaly I think most of what we see still comes back to the parents doing the job of a parent! If you want kids then have them and raise them right, if you dont have time for them then get fixed and do not pollute the world with your gene pool!
Not saying that anything wrong with regulating games, but shit we can not even regulate cigarettes and keep them out of kids hands so what good will it do!
I'm so sick of this bullshit.
GTA is rated M for mature.
Content may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. May contain mature sexual themes or more intense violence or language.
Why isn't this enough?
And I think that most people who haven't been poisoned by the media think the same.
Smoking tobacco causes lung disease. Every single person who smokes tobacco, no matter how much, will damage their lungs to some degree. The more you smoke the more you damage your lungs. This is a fact.
Playing violent video games does NOT cause violence. In fact, most people who play violent video games do not commit violent acts. The same goes for violent movies and tv shows.
Now, there are some people in this world who should not play violent video games. These people are really disturbed people and really immature people. Really disturbed people were probably going to commit a violent act anyway. The violent video games they play do not cause them to be violent, but it gives them the idea of HOW to be violent. Some disturbed person who is going to kill someone might decide that instead of just shooting someone that they will take out their heart and hold it aloft after playing mortal kombat. Because they are disturbed. Then the video game gets blamed because some guy happened to be a nut.
Really immature people will act out anything they see. They have a difficult time telling the difference between fantasy and reality. Not being able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality is actually part of the definition of insanity. Some children CAN play violent games. I played violent games when I was little, yet I am very adamant against violence. But I still play counter-strike, because I realize I'm not actually killing anyone.
Legislation against violent video games is just a continuation of an ongoing american trend of the government forcing stupid americans to do things that they should. Social Security forces people to save for retirement (even though its not working so well). Curfews force parents to not let their kids out at night. Violent media laws force parents to not let their 5 year olds play GTA. This is ok because all the stupid parents who have immature kids are now forced into being slightly better parents. The problem is that some parents who teach their kids right lose the freedom to allow their children to do things that they are mature enough to do, but not old enough. Just like someone who is smart enough to save for their own retirement shouldn't have to pay social security.
Tobacco causes lung cancer. Violent video games dont' cause violence. They give violent people new ideas. They were going to be violent anyway. If anythign it draws these loonies out so we can lock them up. All anti-violent video game legislation infringes on the rights of parents to let their 8 year old play GTA if that parent is a good parent and the 8 year old is indeed mature enough. Instead we should fund schools on "how not to suck at being a parent". Parents these days all go to work, leave kids home alone, and let the television and the video game console, and not the internet, be the parent. This is where the problem lies. It should be a crime not to bring up your children properly. It shouldn't be a crime to play counter-strike.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
and if it was a game that involved raping and killing 3 year olds very accurately depicted?
At what point does "very accurately" come into play? I recently had to watch a movie called Pixote for a cinema class in which a ten year old boy is raped and killed by his peers just a few years older. I don't believe that games should be outlawed anymore than movies are.
The problem with this kind of law is that its completely arbitrary, there's no way to measure objectively the amount of video game violence that is harmful, and that kind of law should not be in the hands of law makers, which are subject to being over-zealous in laws that do not affect themselves.
Take Care
A1miras
Since the content of games is driven by the largest market, perhaps America can look forward to games with less violence, and more sex. With games such as Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament being directly responsible for the Columbine massacre, I think this change in emphasis could only be a good thing. I've always been puzzled by our American morality whereby it is perfectly acceptable to show a person being violently physically assaulted, and yet to show two human beings making love is completely censored by our prudish tv networks.
Games were directly responsible for the Columbine Massacre? I consider myself a very ethical person (it is my beleif that killing a person is one of the worst things you could ever do) and I cringe at the thought of hurting another person, but I play all those games you listed about (as well as some others) The reason I play those games is because they're fun, and I can tell the difference between something on a TV screen or computer monitor and something in real life. Playing Grand Theft Auto for an hour everyday is not going to make you become some insane car jacker. The people who do horrible things like what happened in Columbine have problems, problems that have nothing to do with games. What sickens ME is that in this day and age people never want to take responsibility for their own actions, and blame it on things like video games, and movies. God willing, they will never discover books, or they'll have ratings too.
and if a kid wants to play it, then I say let him. What makes it any worse for a kid to play a violent video game than an adult, other than the fact that a kid is supposed to be able to have fun and an adult should be working for a living?
Besides, games don't kill people. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
If the problem is that kids are becoming too violent, the solution isn't to sanitize the world, it is to teach kids that violence is bad.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of people looking for excuses for bad parenting.
CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
The world would be a better place if PARENT'S PAID SOME DAMN ATTENTION!
Sorry to yell. But a warning like "Mature: sexual acts, graphic human-like violence, profanity. Age 18+" on the back of a game should be clear enough to anyone but your common moron.
Whoops! If the parents are too burnt out on valium to flip over the game box and read it before buying it for junior, a video game is the least of their worries.
I have no problem with warning labels and ID checking as long as consenting adults are not prohibited as well.
What is music when you despise all sound?
One thing that is so often forgotten, or even presumed by all sides in discussions like this is that kids are stupid.
They aren't stupid. No more stupid as a class than adults are. As a class, their brain chemsitry is a bit different from adults and is still more flexible. But this doesn't mean that any old idea that comes along is going to inexorably pervade their thought processes until they dedicate their lives to slavishly carrying out some twisted schizophrenic directive.
Kids are perfectly capable of dealing with violence and sex in movies, games and books without becoming permanently drain-bamaged. Please, don't bother with the anecdotes about Columbine and the Menedez brothres and the like. If the adult population were so lucky as to have as few aberrant members as the anecdotal freaks are to the kid population our prisons system would be the size of just one hotel and the murder rate for the whole country would be less than that of just Los Angeles.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Schnapple
Prevention is good, when it can be effected without infringing on our rights as citizens. For instance, we could prevent all crime by putting everyone in prison... would you want that?
Prevention with the restrictions I have mentioned is neither easy nor cheap.
Also, I believe there are effects where violent games both sate the hunger for real-life violence, and those that fuel it further. Which is the dominant effect I wouldn't want to try guessing....
That's bull. I, for one, have seen the ESRB's influence first hand. They've done a GREAT job of keeping me from renting games. I can drive to the rental place, but i can't rent Resident Evil once i'm there, because i'm not 17. I can't rent ANY of the "mature" games there. The various incarnations of Silent Hill, Resident Evil, certain FPSes, etc., are all off-limits for me, even though i personally own many of them, and have played them millions of times. I can turn on Fox and see more questionable content than i would playing Resident Evil (Silent Hill is another story, heh). I can see the logic in the system, of course... but this guy's argument is bullshit.
* Based on the ranking mechanism, I'd like to see distribution control so that minors don't get access to inappropriate material.
For the most part, already in place. All the big chains bar minors from buying/renting games below their "age group". Wal-Mart, Target, Blockbuster, and most of the regional chains i've been to, won't allow me to rent or buy "mature" games unless i have a parent with me. There are, of course, small and/or independent shops where i can walk in and they'll pretty much sell me anything, regardless of my age or the content of the game.
* I do believe exposure to some of the content of some video games is prima facie problematic. This seems to be the point where I part ways with most of the people who responded, but so it goes. I don't think video games are inherently "bad", but I do think some of them can exert a negative influence on some kids some of the time.
And of course, who can criticise video games without playing the "games influence kids" argument? I'm sure everyone on Slashdot already has their minds made up about whether or not games influence kids. I'm sure anyone that has ever heard the argument does. However, he says himself that they exert a negative influence on SOME kids SOME of the time. Why stop with video games? Let's regulate TV shows (because no, they are not regulated to any great degree). Let's regulate driver's licences. Let's have everyone participate in a psychological evaluation before we allow them to legally have access to a car, because hey, cars contribute to road rage. I can walk into Target and buy a giant fucking knife, or a box of kitchen matches. Why don't we regulate those things? Why don't we regulate baseball bats? Lumber? Nails? Screwdrivers? Boots?
I'm being facetious, of course. The fact is, games are already regulated as much as they need to be. There is no need to get any more anal about it. Once again, everyone thinks it should be up to somebody else to take care of their kids. Let's see THE PARENTS take some responsibility, instead of blaming video games, movies, and music for their poor child-raising skills.
Excluding very small children (i.e. ~8 and younger), games don't influence people that aren't already fucked up in the head. Small children like that aren't going to be able to rent/buy games anyway. One, where will they get the money? Two, how will they get to the store/rental place? Three, what moron would sell a violent game to a little kid like that if they did happen to get past the first two hurdles? Those are the kids we needed to be worrying about with the game ratings, and we don't have to anymore. They're covered. The only problem now is the psychologically demented people that play Quake and then go out and shoot people. Mainstream society shouldn't have to suffer because there are screwed-up people in the world.
PS: I think Grand Theft Auto (all four versions of it) is a retarded and extremely overrated game.
That parents work too much and don't have enough time to monitor what their kids are buying, listening to and playing. Unless they're a single parent working 2-3 jobs to support their kids I have no sympathy. If you're going to have kids then you're going to have to interact constantly with them and keep them safe.
As one poster on FreeRepublic about the overwhelming tendency of people like this and the media cartels to resort to extremist tactics, the only solution is to keep the ammo dry and the guns oiled.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I was in my local EB last week and saw a woman in line with a child of about 10 yrs. (she looked to be his grandmother). She was attempting to purchase Vice City. The guy at the counter asked her who she was buying it for. She said it was for the small child with her. Counter guy asked if she was aware of the content of the game, and when she said she wasn't he explained the gist of the game to her. She put it back and walked out of the store. Why the hell do we need legislation when we've already got the co-operation of retailers?
do not read this line twice.
I simply dont see the connection between violent games and violent behaviors. I went to this violence awareness seminar, and one of the speakers claimed that violent games teach people that its okay to kill and that it warps their minds. The same argument could be said that taking martial arts makes kids violent, and teaches them that its okay to beat the crap out of people. I can attest that neither games nor martial arts can make anyone violent. In fact, few things help eliminate my need to inflict violence than playing a good round of quake, doom, or GTA. The kids of columbine (as well as kids around the country) are often violent because they are abused by parents or their peers, because they are outcasts. Take it from me, I was arrested four years ago (a few months after columbine) because I was seen as a very dangerous and violent person. Let me assure you that it had nothing to do with violent FPS (i didnt play them back then), but instead with my interaction with others. I am sure as fellow geeks, you were all picked on at some point (some more than others).
Etheir way, restricting these games wont stop kids from buying the games, they will simply turn to warez and hurt the gaming industry that way. In the digital age, cencorship is pointless.
YOU SUCK BALLS!
To me it feels like Michael Moore is saying, part of the blame goes to the media companies, that love to show news about shooting deaths, armed-robbery, commited by, adult black males. Then in the middle of the news you have ads. The corporations wants to keep us stuck to our TVs, and then sell us their products, they want to keep us afraid, and consuming.
Frankly, I just found Greg Palast's site and I'm disillusioned at how the world is actually run: Bush a just middle manager working for the big corporations of the world, where the CEOs try to extract profit from, not only single customers, but whole countries and governments at the same time. And the media companies, news sources? They're just the PR department of this "corporation", all working together lying to us. Read especially his take on Globalization.
The sad thing is, it looks like the corporations are winning. Or is that what their PR department wants us to believe?
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Let me see if I have this straight.
...this is the same government which claims to want to protect my child (yes, I have one) from the implication of violence?
The government that brought us arms sales to Iran's Ayatollah, supported al Queda et al when it was Russia they were fighting, funded CIA-trained death squads in South America, that has killed a million-plus Iraqi children with their embargo (and noted "we think the price is worth it"), who have so far provded Turkey with $15B (yes, billions) worth of weapons and training to fight the Northern Kurds (who the U.S. claims to be protecting from Saddam)
If I want to keep my daughter away from violence, I think my best bet is to turn off the nightly news and give her permission to skip history class.
My
Limekiller
I'm 28, have also been playing games of all types since I was 8, and I have never been in a fight either. I too have had plenty of opportunities, but that's just not the sort of person I am.
Think about that for a second - that's 20 years of gaming, starting from an impresionable age, and I'm still not a violent person. That's ignoring the films I watch, too.
Violent games and films aren't the problem, they're just a convenient scapegoat, something that can be controlled with little or no effort on the part of parents. The problem is a lack of discipline, self control and moral awareness. These are things that kids mostly get from their peers and their parents.
Too many parents let the TV babysit their kids all day, don't spend enough time with them, go far too easy on discipline, then wonder why they turn into tearaways and start looking for something to blame.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
It may be insulting to you that people think something as simple as movies could affect the way you behave, but this happens. Obviously, people are not all going to respond the same way to the same stimuli and obviously, there is an infinite number of other factor that could affect ones behavior and obviously, most people who talk about the violence of popular culture usually have insidious plans and impractical plans to control popular culture, but my main point remains: violent culture does affect the way we behave to some extent.
"Art, eh?"
Absolutely. I think GTA3 is a modern artwork more effective than any sculpture, painting, or interpretive dance I've ever seen. It shares an experience with people - MANY people - and spawns thought and discussion about moral and ethical issues. That's the highest form of art, as far as I am concerned.
You can draw all kinds of meaning from it: It's a brutal depiction of reality, maybe it's a warning. At more of a meta-level maybe it's making a point about how humans have the ability to seperate fantasy and reality, almost at a level of protest. Maybe they had no idea what they were saying, but that doesn't mean it doesn't say something, and that doesn't mean it isn't art.
-If
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
coding: don't you DARE not calling this an art...
Now that's just the problem with coders today (and yes, I am one myself). Code IS NOT art. There is no way it should be. Code is just a set of instructions to make a machine do something. We should be able to generate this without bugs in the most efficicent way possible to get the job done. In my experience the people who think their code is art write the most hard to follow, hard to maintain, bug prone code out there.
... but I'm too sleepy to read the entire thread right now.
YES, kids should probably not usually have access to violent video games.
YES, parents need to have access to information about the games their kids want to play.
NO, it's not the government's job to deny access to the kids. It's up to the parents to look into a game and decide if it's right for their kids. Same as movies, books, television shows, and everything else in this world.
But parents are throwing up their hands. We've got a Fundamentalist Christian ethic taking over that's letting people get stuck with kids, and we've got people putting off becoming parents until they're older than 40, and we end up with a whole lot of kids whose parents have no clue how to raise them. Then we reinforce that with more and more regulation of schools and children's entertainment, letting parents know "It's ok, you don't have to worry about it, we'll control what your children get."
But it's not about absolute denial or permission. It's about putting art and entertainment in context. It's about explaining the difference between realistic violence and fantasy violence. It's about letting kids talk about how a movie or game or whatever makes them feel.
Heck, if we don't allow children any fantasy outlet for violence, we'll cause just as much as if we treat violence as normal recreation. That's why we have these images in popular media, for crying out loud. When we get angry, we can't go out and shoot a whole McDonald's full of people... but we can watch Arnie do it for us.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Reality Master 101 writes:
"It's worth pointing out that the movie is by Michael Moore -- second only to Chomsky when it comes to biased, selective viewing of facts. I don't waste my time giving that clown any money, and recommend that others should bypass it also. Moore is an idiot, and yes, the messenger does make a difference even if the blind squirrel finds a few nuts. It's what he leaves out that's often important."
Provide examples of Chomsky or Moore being selective in their facts. By American standards I'm fairly far to the right of both of them (I'm pro-gun, for example) but my differences with them are in their interpretation of the facts. To their credit I've found both of them to be quite reliable and unselective when it comes to the actual reporting.
Provide something more than your say-so.
My
Limekiller
You know what, I played tons of violent games as a kid, and as an adult I'm still much of a pacifist. When blowing my friends into little fragged kibbles, I was fully aware that the game did not depict reality, and I don't think that the bloody bits were overly influencing, except for the occasional "cool, gross!" when somebody got crunshed in a closing door, etc.
That being said, ratings aren't a bad idea. Parents should be aware of hte game content when making purchases for their children, and should make an educated decision based on how easily influenced the child is. Just because somebody is between the ages of (for example) 12-18 doesn't mean that giving them GTA means they're going to immediately feel the urge to go jack cars and blow away real people with a rocket launched.
There are a lot of adults who are probably more unduely influeced by such things than the 16-yr-olds. Personally, I've always found that a good deathmatch is a way to get together with friends and just have fun or even vent frustrations without physical violence.
If the ESRB (game ratings) has the same values as the MPAA (movie ratings), then it's going to be twisted. For example, Star Wars II has dismemberment, decapitation, hundreds of deaths and mass destruction, and only got a PG. However, a movie with no objectionable content whatsoever except for saying the word "fuck" twice will get an R. For that reason, Amelie got the equivalent of a PG or PG-13 in most countries, but an R in USA.
Truth is, kids don't learn profanity from TV or movies, they learn it at school. And it's simply impossible for a movie with casual nudity to be aimed at kids.
At least there are movies that make the MPAA look stupid. Too bad video games aren't there yet.
This is the most ignorant thing I've seen on /. today. Of course, this is only the third story I've read into...
Making drugs illegal has created new classes of criminal. First are those who are guilty of victimless drug crimes, those who are not hurting anyone. These are people who have been busted for posession (misdemeanor) or erroneously arrested for posession with intent to sell just because they had a couple ounces on them. I mean, if you can't smoke two ounces in a week, you're not trying...
So given that the drugs we're talking about here are illegal and therefore expensive (drugs have only become more and more illegal and expensive over time, given that more drugs are always being invented, and eventually made illegal) they create a certain amount of monetary desire to be able to buy them. For most people desire isn't enough to drive them to steal. For those who are, you're right, they will still be criminals if you legalize all drugs. They'll want something else they can't afford honestly, and they'll still be of a mind to take it from you. Or whoever.
But for those who do have scruples, there are two further types. Those who have become addicted, and those who have not -- ignoring the reasons why they have or have not, which are outside the scope of this comment. Those who have become addicted really need these drugs to think "straight", or in other words, to feel any way other than wrong. People experiencing even slight withdrawal will have serious problems thinking, making judgement calls, et cetera. It's hard enough to think with a hangover, imagine drying out from a week-long heroin binge.
This is not to say that you should feel sorry for these people but let's face it, if you just legalized marijuana then drug crime would drop off so significantly it would amaze you. Lots of people really just like to smoke weed and have no real interest in other drugs. It might have an adverse affect on productivity but I guarantee you if you increase the amount of weed people are smoking, the country will become a more peaceful place. There will always be those who aren't interested in it, or are allergic to it as well.
Face it, responsible use and posession of most drugs will hurt no one but yourself, if that. I don't think anyone has tied marijuana to anything other than some of the same problems as cigarettes when smoked, and basically no long-term problems whatsoever when eaten (for example.) So it's stupid to make it illegal unless you have something to gain from doing so.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Games don't make people violent.
Games don't make kids violent.
LIFE makes people and kids violent!
How many of you remember your own teenage years? Remember all those hormones? Remember the peer pressure? Things are just as bad today, if not worse... and guess what? THIS generation has far more parents who don't do the job of parenting.
It's up to the parents to protect their kids and teach them right from wrong, not by passing laws to water down violent games or movies, not by whining about how terrible things are... by talking to their kids and helping them with their problems instead of ignoring them and then crying when they turn to hours of violent games to try and escape the lives they can't figure out yet.
IMHO, anyone who says we need more laws to "protect" our kids is saying the government can do a better job of raising them than they can. Maybe they're right... but they should have thought of that before becoming parents.