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.
Art, eh?
;)
I would agree, the splattering of 6 Hare Krishna's on the pavement certainly is an art form
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.
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.
By banning them, They increase demand exponentialy.
These games are costing ~$45+, do you really think little timmy is buying this himself? Of course not, His parents buy it for him. So who really cares if they'll sell it to minors?
Personaly, I used to play plenty of M-rated games when I was 7+. Never tried to perform a fatalaty on anyone. No mental scaring, either. Shielding children from content is just going 1)Make them want it more 2)Increse effect when they finally do get it (they will).
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
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"
Well, I think that like any other medium there is the potential for art. In the written word, there are tabloids and there are novels like War and Peace. On the screen there is Lawrence of Arabia or there is Dude, Where's My Car? Some is trashy, or just designed for entertainment but some is art. As a relatively new medium video games don't have many axamples of "art" yet, but there are some exceptions. ICO for instance, on the Playstation2 was a mind blowing experiance, not because of snazzy visuals or any particular aspect of the game, but the overall love that was put into the game was above and beyond what one normally sees. Other contenders could be the Myst series, some role playing games like the better Final Fantasies or Bungie's Marathon series. Of course the last 2 examples are mentioned mainly, but not entirely because of their storytelling. Thing is, Games can tell stories but as a medium they're capable of a lot more, and it's a great opportunity for us to watch it evolve. Anyway, back on the topic at hand, I love GTA but it's hard to say it's art. Then again, it is a very satirical work and even the visuals are intentionally caricatured. It's content is questionable, but it is something more than trash. I'm against censoring, but I do think they need an adequate ratings system that really explains itself on the package, so that parents buying things for their kids will not just see "M" but the reasons for the rating. I think this is one of the main issues here, parents buying games for kids. They control the pocketbook, they are usually above any age limit set by ratings, so really the only option is to inform them.
Yup...
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!
and I'll say it again.
The answer is not regulation, the answer is parents getting off their lazy butts and paying attention to what their kids are doing. I grew up with violent video games, just like most of the rest of you. For the most part, we turned out alright. Granted, they're getting more violent, more realistic, more graphic, etc... But you know what, so is everything else. Video games should be like the movies. Kids cant get into Rated R movies without their parents, and they shouldnt be able to but Rated M games without their parents. That's the only acceptible way I can think of to "regulate". Really though, I think it should just be done the way it's always be done, and try expecting parents to be responsible for a change.
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?
Boy, that list is just bursting with violent games.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
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!
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.
Nor do draconian restrictions like attempting to ban something completely. The Prohibition experiment in the USA should have told us that if nothing else. Of course, no one has paid any attention to that example when it comes to the "drug wars".
If something exists then it is available. If an attempt to ban it is made it becomes even more widely available.
Look at alcohol. When it was banned it was available to anyone. Since the demand was great enough to create a large supply irrespective of any penalties, then there was no reason to worry about whether it was available to kids. There was no greater penalty attached to giving kids booze.
Once it was legalized - and controlled - then several things happened. The quality improved because suddenly you could be put out of what was a lucrative business if it made people sick. And just as suddenly you could go to jail for sellling it to minors (which, coincidentally, also put you out of business.)
Whether or not this game is "art" seems to me to not be an issue. There are some well-known artists whose works depict nude children and no one is advocating that his shows be open to elementary school field trips. There are clearly some things that affect immature minds in adverse ways.
The only really pertinent question is: "If we choose to control who gets it, how do we go about it?" Computer games aren't like bottles of whiskey in that they can be made available to anyone via a download. Just how does a society "control" this? By assuming that anyone with a credit card is an adult (like the on-line porn industry)?
If these are available in stores then how would we ensure that the store personnel keep them away from children? Lock the CDs up with the cigarettes?
And what sorts of penalties would be attached to not following whatever rules society thinks up?
It does seem clear to me that the gaming industry has gone too far with this particular game. There is an outcry now and even if it's unjustified it will result in "something being done". They had better hope that it's the right "something."
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
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.
I am 15, and play voilent and nonviolent games, yet I do not end up fighting with people. To be influenced by a game you have to be stupid (or at least highly impressionable), and if you can't distinguish real life from a virtual creation then you need help rather than censorship for all people under 18.
What ever happened to parents acting like parents? Having one gaming child below the age of 12 (my others are older), I make sure I know what my kids are playing - both in my house and at their friends house. My kids know that "No" means NO!! And no amount of whining is going to get them a game I don't think is appropriate for them. Our decision to purchase of a GameCube over the other systems was made after reviewing the types of games that were available.
We've since lightened up a bit on the gaming violence (example: Star Wars Bounty Hunter), but my wife and I always make sure we know what's going on, and keep the game playing in balance with other activities - sports, music, etc.
****
"I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
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
The art argument is quite a novel approach and the more I think about it the more i like it. If you accept the premise that games are works of art based on the creative effort that goes into their creation, then if follows that they should be treated as protected speech, much as any art form such as paintings of nudes, displayed in galleries, or the work of war photographers, who try to capture the horrors of war (and sometimes exteemely violent scenes) on film.
Art is perhaps the most carefully protected speech, so if it's possible to successfully argue that video games are a form of art, this represents a powerful protection for the games themselves.
As for preventing children from playing such games, this responsibility should most definately lie with parents, much as the choice not to take a child to an art gallery exhibiting nude photography, or the choice not to place marble statue of a nude female (or male) in the bedroom of a small child.While these art forms are not inherently objectionable, and are in many cases quite beautiful, it would be bad parenting to expose a young child to some of these works, until he/she has developed an understanding of the artwork and it's place in society.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I don't care if they rate games, but I don't want to get carded when I go out to buy Doom3. It's rediculous. Video games have to be played somewhere. It's not like a movie theatre where you go and see the movie on the business's premise, you have to bring the game HOME in order to play it. At home, there is this concept called parenting. This parenting process involves censoring your child of whatever you see fit. Ratings are a great tool that a parent may choose to use in the interest of censorship. And that's all they should be: a tool for parents.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Idle hands are the devils playground. I would rather kids play these violent games while their parents explain to them the difference between a game and real life, then have the kids out on the street bored and getting in to trouble.
I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I got in to the most trouble when my and friends and I were bored.
Why does the government always insist on censoring things, when educating the kids to know the difference between a game and real life is the real, long term answer? It's the parents responsibility not the governments! Not to mention you would have to be pretty naive to think that little Johnny isn't going over to his friends house to play the violent games that a older brother bought.
Open Source Time and Attendance, Job Costing a
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.
I refuse to do your homework for you, freshman!!
Some of the Vice City missions are evil (like the "wipe the wife" one), and this game probably shouldn't be at Walmart or Fred Meyer. There are, however, many good distribution channels for adult materials. My wife and I have puchased non-porn-but-adult items at the local porn shops; they have DVDs now... is the placement of video games there really such a far stretch? I think most of the resistence will come from Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft though; who wouldn't want to be the first system to offend soccer moms' sensibilities. On the other hand, the system that does open this door will have an advantage in the market in the future (methinks).
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
How about concerned parents petition the government to fund non-profit educational software development? How about people who don't think kids should be playing these games do something to provide an alternative? Saying "don't" without a "do" to replace it is ineffective and possible worse than saying nothing. I've always felt that the government should spend more on encouraging good social policy in soft ways rather than enforcement. The U.S. Army put out a wildly successful video game. Why can't the U.S. Department of Education? Why can't the Library of Congress develop tools to teach kids how to do research (as opposed to clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky" on google)?
What the hell??? Have you looked at the list of Nintendo games recently? There are hundreds, if not thousands of "alternatives" for kids to buy and play with, and not just Nintendo. There's plenty of educational and kid-friendly software and games out there to act as competition to the likes of GTA.
The fact of the matter is that kids like violence and they don't want to play those kid-friendly games as much as they want to beat up hookers. Is it appropriate for them to do that? I don't think so and that's why our democratically elected government is trying to do things to help parents have more control over what their kids play with. If the parent wants to buy an "R" rated game, let them, but don't let the 8 year-old buy it him/herself if it's labelled as a "mature" game.
I am against the government outlawing these types of games outright, but I am for them regulating them. It's completely appropriate and draws a good balance between "child protection" and the freedoms of adults. And yes, "protecting the children" is a valid reason at times like this, even it it's become a cliche.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Isn't prevention better than punishment? Perhaps a system that stops crimes is better than one that punishes them? 100 criminals in prison better than 100 would-be-criminals-who-didn't-commit-the-crime on the streets? No victim, no investigation/prosecution/incarceration/rehabilita tion (cough cough) costs.
On the other hand, banning violent games isn't going to stop the violence. I've got the sneaky feeling that if the German vets of World War I had access to combat and strategy games, their taste for violence and warfare would have been sated, denying the National Socialists their basic appeal to the masses "Violence and the Volk".
Now I can boot up my computer, install GTA, and... control a bunch of pixels driving over other bunches of pixels. Wow.
The phrase 'yeah, right' comes to mind.
OTOH, parents should be aware of what their kids are playing... but that's hardly a lot to ask, now, is it?
The linked article calls for a third party to rise up and implement distribution controls similar to those used for movies.
In the US, the government has no role to play in the movie ratings system. For it to do so would be unconstitutional. There's nothing illegal about making a film that would be rated R and not controlling it's distribution.
So how does the system work? It's controlled by the MPAA. The studios are affiliated with the MPAA, and so are the cinemas. To show those movies offered by MPAA studios, cinemas must agree to enforce the MPAA rules about not letting minors into certain films. Likewise, studios must obtain a rating from the MPAA before distributing the films to cinemas. Some "art-house" cinemas that don't play MPAA movies don't use or enforce the MPAA's ratings system, and they're under no legal obligation to do so.
The movie ratings system only works because the vast, vast majority of the industry is under MPAA control. What the article's calling for would require, say, a Computer Games Association of America (CGAA). The industry already generates more revenue than Hollywood, so it's not like they couldn't afford to form it.
Given the effects of the centralisation of the record and movie industries, do you really want another xxAA?
The answer is not regulation, the answer is parents getting off their lazy butts and paying attention to what their kids are doing.
The issue of mandating ratings and the like has nothing to do with either. The main reason the government is getting involved in this industry, is that politicians can't help but notice the money it's making. If politicians can wedge themselves into an industry by threatening legislation for this, that, or what have you, then it opens up a brand new channel for payola from the companies to the politicians.
The videogame industry could stop putting out games with guns in them yesterday, and if the market stayed as large as it currently is, the politicians would be holding congressional investigations on the effect videogames have on teenagers, and reckless driving.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Alright, the obligatory rant. Really, the media is becoming more and more of a scapegoat for things like Columbine etc. The thing is, the number one influence in a kid's life is his parents. It's a parent's job to teach their children right from wrong, and I think in a lot of cases, the kids most likely to pick up a gun and go postal in their school, are the ones whose parents don't really give a damn about them. Long story short, when parents use the TV or videogames to babysit their kids, of course bad things can happen. Is that a video game or TV show's fault? Not entirely. If a parent has done their job well, most will know the difference between fantasy and reality. We have a ratings system in place. I don't think banning violent video games is going to solve the problem of violence in schools, or whatever else the government is worried about. If someone's going to go psycho and kill people, I think the reason is a little deeper than a video game in most cases.
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
Pawlo.com
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 don't know about you, but when I was a kid I got in to the most trouble when my and friends and I were bored.
amen...8 counts of criminal mischief's worth of trouble. and then the DA had the balls to say "i grew up in West Virginia and i NEVER heard of 'mailbox baseball' until i moved up here"...scumsucker.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
There are psychopaths out there who will get ideas from violent games, but they are more likely to get violent ideas by coming into contact with street gangs, caught up in drug trafficking, or by being abused by their lousy parents.
At the moment we have a legal system which, perhaps rightly, insists that people cannot be locked up until they commit crimes, or parents and institutions cannot have children removed from their care until the child has actually been abused. Because of this, we are constantly being asked to regulate access to things that could do harm. Society is being designed on the basis that it contains a hard core of psychopaths and so no-one must be issued with sharp objects.
Past attempts to remove dangerous people from circulation have usually been carried out by governments in which the psychopaths are in control - liberal governments do not like to infringe civil liberties. Meanwhile, the percentage of dangerous people seems to be going up, if the prison population is any guide.
I don't have any solutions, liberal or otherwise. Our choice seems to be somewhere between the Roman Empire solution (which might well be to kill every teenager and adult male in violent inner city areas, and spread the women and small children around into culturally alien areas)and the Japanese Imperial solution (completely disarm the entire non-military population and control tightly their access to unwanted ideas.) The debate is, where on that spectrum should we be?
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
When I was 16, I went to see Hollow Man at the theater. Since it was rated R, the attendent would not let me in without a parent. My mom came with me to the attendent, and told her that I had her permission to watch the movie, yet the attendent still wouldn't let me in. The conservatives, who think that a nipple in a movie automatically makes it inappropriate for those under 18, had won. They had effectively imposed their (in my opinion rather twisted) world view upon my mom and me. What was sad was that the government helped them do it.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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 think Frank Zappa effectively summed up my major concerns whenever the government and/or "public interest groups" start talking about how private business "must" do this or that to their product because it's perceived that it's "upsetting" a percentage of the population.
The comment I'm referring to is when he asked the PMRC "All I want to know is who's going to pay for it?".
All too often this is a very overlooked factor. My personal opinion is because the people pushing for the changes realize that if they say "oh, and everybody who is allowed to buy this product gets to pay extra for the labeling that does a shoddy job of making sure little johnny doesn't see 'bad stuff' on the shiny screen in his room" that all of a sudden the folk who at first react emotionally with "you know, maybe little johnny shouldn't be seeing this stuff" would all of a sudden react rationally with "why don't I just keep my money and let little johnny's parents worry about his emotional adjustments".
RFC2119
Y'know, I'm not sure this is humor at all.
When GTA3 appeared in our music studio, there was some pretty serious gaming that went on for a while (an unusual circumstance; usually, the toys we play with are exclusively musical, but the appearance of the PS2 caused a weeks-long hiatus). Now, I rarely drive cars at all, as PDX is an extremely bike-friendly town. However, I noticed that on those occasions when I remained sober to drive those alkie bandmembers home, I noticed that some part of my brain had associated the act of driving a Real(TM) Car with playing GTA3.
At no point did I seriously consider flattening pedestrians or ramming cops off the road. Keep this in mind - my ability to distinguish fact from fiction remains intact, despite a world-class suspension-of-disbelief-generator mounted on a microscopic rack bolted to the inside of my skull.
However, when I looked to the left or right of the vehicle, I sure did use my index fingers on the steering wheel as if I were holding a PS2 controller - L2 for looking left out the window. I would spend a microscopic instant considering flight everytime I saw a guy in a black European Audi-lookin' car - those are Mafia, they have serious ordinance, they'll fsck joo up!
Most disturbing, every time I heard a chopper overhead, even when on foot or bicycle, the most proper and immediate response in my mind (for an instant, mind you) was to whip out the bazooka and take it out.
This state of affairs lasted for about a week and a half, during which time my daily consumption of GTA3 could be reckoned to hover somewhere around 2-3 hours a day, every day. I haven't played any game that much since ultima 6. As soon as I stopped playing daily, these sensations went away.
BUT WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
1) I wasn't kidding about my world-class suspension-of-disbelief generator.
2) Even though I can cause myself to temporarily believe almost anything for a while, these GTA3-inspired beliefs never caused me to take any untoward actions. Every time I felt a desire to ram that guy in the Patriot off the road, I was able to recognize same as a game-generated impulse and squash it without effort.
3) Lots of folks are better at separating the rules and regs of the mundane world from their digital fantasy worlds better than myself.
4) We're going to have to assume that some folks do NOT perform this separation as competently as we might hope - certainly less competently than myself.
5) Perhaps some of the people in #4 also play more games than do I.
6) Perhaps some of the remaining people found in #5 are quite young.
7) I know I'm not alone in having GTA3 leak into my brain when I'm not actually playing. Many of my friends have reported the same sort of sensations that I described above, similar to that which the AC poster described (perhaps humorously). None of us, of course, have gone and DONE any GTA3-inspired crimes, but we have carefully reinforced grips-on-reality.
See, what we want to make in our music studios and game-design thinktanks and writer's groups is art that moves people - that comes back to haunt them long after they've put the book down or pressed STOP on their (insert media-reproduction device here). That's why I make media, anyways - because my life has been permanently altered by the stuff I put in my head, and some of that stuff haunts me forever after, and I have basically unlimited respect for the folks what make it. Right now, I'm particularly haunted by the works of Neal Stephenson, Scott Herren, and Arvo Part - they've made stuff that follows me around everywhere.
However, for a few brief days, I was consistently haunted by a piece of media made by the guys at Rockstar Games. That GTA3 is some pretty potent mind-altering stuff. Just like the booze, just like the prescription drugs, I say: keep out of reach of children.
In fact video games may well be one of only a few new art forms to come out of the nineties. (Yes I know there were video games before then, but they were amateurish compared to the games that started coming out in the mid-nineties.)
/. articles on the various FPS vendors making sure their game engines are easily available to modders. But we need the other types of game engines to do the same thing. And we need some way for modded games to get into the console market. This will put many of the big gaming houses out of business though, the surviving vendors will be those that produce the best game engines and do the most to encourage third-party development.
But they are 'art' in the same way that cinema is 'art'. In other words they are 'collaborationist' art, requiring the efforts of many people to create. Because of this fact it requires a great deal of money to complete a decent video game, and no-one will put up that money without expecting a return. So video games must be commercial. You must make, or at least attempt to make, video games (and films) that will return a profit.
This results in many comprimises. One of these is the fact that sex and violence sell. Don't believe me? Count the number of R and PG-13 rated films and compare them to those PG and below. Or just go see 'Adaptation' (in theaters now) and try to catch what Charlie Kaufman was really trying to say with that script...
The danger is that the governement will find excuses like this to use in an attempt to control the video game market -- and will be able to get such controls past the courts because of public opinion. For this reason one of two things must happen; either the video game market implements its own system akin to the movie rating system, (which it has done) and puts out an equivalent effort to enforce it (which it is not doing). Or, my preference, someone produces tools that allow people to create video games on their own quite easily.
This last is coming to pass, we have all seen the recent
I suspect the game vendors will prefer the first scenario. But I think the second will result in things that few people would argue are 'art'. They may not be games as we now know them though...
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
For more details, consider Fact Checking a Polemicist which reviews many of the factual lapses in the movie.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
I'm not opposed to the idea of restricting access to violent content to minors on pure principle. I 'm opposed to it because it's a band-aid on a bullet wound. It simply doesn't work. A fascination with violence can exist quite well with or without video games, and the government would be a better servant of the people (its true role, IMHO) by working to facilitate parents, teachers, etc. to develop people of character who do not desire to beat on hookers, rather than focusing on controlling people's actions. Enforcement of laws restricting things people want doesn't work (prohibition, drug war). If you want that behavior to change, you have to change what people want.
I would much prefer to live in a society where sick, violent, awful things are readily available and people choose not to partake of them rather than one in which access is restricted by the government. Look what happened the day the Taliban fell in Kabul. Everyone went crazy, shaving off their beards, music, dancing, etc. Not that those were necessarily bad things, but the iron hand of the Ministry of Preventing Vice and Promoting Virtue was only able to push those things to just beneath the surface. They didn't promote anything but superficial conformity.
Today I am 25, I have a job, degree, girlfriend, etc. I'm not violent, I'm not a pervert, etc. According to many advocacy groups, I should have snapped by now. Why didn't I crack up? Good Parenting, it is all about how a child is raised. Great parents can even raise children in terrible surroundings and wind up with fantastic well adjusted children. Unfortunately, there are no advocacy/lobbying groups for ensuring good parenting and probably the biggest problems is the people who are least qualified to be parents are having the most children! My grandmother use to call it, Devolution.
Amazingly, no one seems to ever get this. At least, not people as a whole. We're basically divided up into 2 camps: those that think 'really bad' stuff should be outlawed, and those that think it should be available, but *not for children*, as if children are some retarded semi-race of people incapable of making decisions for themselves, or evaulating material on their own without becoming violent/perverted.
As always, anecdotal != evidence, but come on now: most of us who grew up in the 70's and 80's watched one hell of a lot of violent movies as children (Friday the 13th, anyone?) and yet managed to somehow deal with it. Most children are exposed to insanely graphic literature (Shakespeare, anyone?). Hell, read the Christian Bible sometime (insert most any other religion here I'm sure, but it's the one I'm most familiar with). Death, revenge, glorified violence, sexual deviancy, you name it. Yet somehow children manage to absorb all this without society turning into one massive kill-fest every 20 years.
Every single new media or art form that comes out is inevitably looked upon as something we should somehow keep away from children (let's see, so far we have books, television, movies, comics, music, video games). When will people figure out that by and large, children are perfectly capable of dealing with this, at LEAST as well as adults are?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Just on the principle of it, I don't believe that games or anything else for that matter should be regulated at all by the government. The government has no place in peoples' bedrooms, they have no place in peoples' living rooms, nor do they have a place in peoples' houses. Why do some people find it neccesary to look to a higher form of authority outside their own judgement to place regulations on themselves? I've never seen why some people are in favour of a governing body regulating what they can or cannot do. Christ people, think for yourselves and enjoy doing so. Don't mindlessly look to some big brother to think and make decisions for you!
If children are free to purchase such games, so be it. If the parents don't want their children to play them, they will stop them. Confiscate them, whatever. Any parent knows what's going on in their living room. If their 14-year-old is hiring a prostitute and then killing her for her money in a gem like GTA3, odds are the parent will hear this and catch wind of it. If the parent is rational and realises it's just a game, then so be it. If the parent makes the decision that this is not acceptable for their child, then that's ok too - I guess. Who am I to judge?
People: be your own regulator. Those who are in favour of a government deciding what you can or cannot do are sheep.
I don't think you can generalize this issue like you are. You have to take government control one issue at a time. In this case, like I said, I don't agree with the governmnet outlawing something for everyone. However, I do agree that they have the power to restrict what is available to minors, so that it then becomes the choice of the parents to determine what their kids have access to, allowing them to better develop their children into mature human beings who can differentiate between right and wrong. Just as minors shouldn't be exposed to addictive substances, such as tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, etc., they also shouldn't be exposed to excessive and immoral violence, *unless* their parents determine that it is appropriate. I agree with the government giving parents more control over what their children can access on their own. If it goes too far, then we can put up lawsuits to challenge it, but I don't think in this case that it's too far to limit a child's access to games like GTA.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Have you ever tried writing a decent 3D engine? or creating soundeffects/music for a game?
You could even say that one single game is a collection of different arts:
show some respect to these people who spend hours on hours creating masterpieces in their own area
"The majority is always sane, Louis." -- Nessus
http://slashdot.jp
First of all, what right does the government have to make laws depriving people of any rights solely on the basis of age stereotypes? There are many 17 year olds who ae more qualified to vote than a lot of 40 year olds. The vast majority of the population is hoplessly stupid and ignorant. (That's how Worst Buy, Scientology, and the Mormon church make money, after all) Those few among us who know their ass from their elbow should be voting, regardless of age. The age-stereotype is no better than the poll tax was at improving the credentials of the average voter, and maybe worse. Think voting elegebility should be determined solely on the basis of a multiple choice test that you would have to not be an ignorant dumbass to pass. That would filter out the 75% of the population who don't know their ass from their elbow, and leave the decently intelligent people of all ages, races, creeds, sexes, economic conditions, etc to rule.
Now, how this applies to the topic at hand: The government has no business using age stereotypes to restrict acess to something accross the board. There are plenty of 15 year olds mature enough to handle alcohol responsibly, and alcohol in responsible moderation is completely harmless. There are also plenty of (if not all) 7th-8th graders can play GTA3 with no harm done whatsoever. IMO it should be the PARENTS regulating what their kids can have, not some heavy-handed and futile government rulemaking that attempts to stereotype about all adolescents of a certain age and merely turns the items into forbidden fruit without actually stopping kids from getting them.
Repeal the DMCA!
On so many levels. From the actual coding, to the sound design, and the artwork, every step of game production rivals movie production in one form or another.. Both are legitimate forms of art! I am totally against BANNING of games, but I don't mind if people want to ENFORCE game sales like they do with rated R movies. Michigan just passed a bill that if outlets are found selling mature games to minors, then they will get a $10,000 fine and up to 90 days in jail. It's a start. I just hope the fine is equal to selling a rated R *movie* to a minor, or I would think it would be unfair.
Though I sympatize with your overall point, that statement is not true. But we have to be careful with details here.
I've reviewed much of the psychological literature on violent effects of video games, and attended discussion on the topic at the Videogames and Cultural Policy Conference.
What we know thus far about the effect of games can be summarized as follows:
And that's what the data shows. With some luck, we will have more information within the next 5 years or so.
My other car is a cons.
Unless the video game makers state their intents for the game, it is next to impossible to know if the company is providing violent entertainment for the purpose of making sales, or because they might have a hidden agenda, or maybe even because they personally like the idea of running people down in cars (arguably disturbing). If a game company produced a game that allowed you to become a terrorist and choose Suicide Bomber, Fly Plane Into Building, etc. would we treat that game the same way as a game that lets the player run people over using automobiles, or the same as a first person shooter where you just blow things away?
We don't necessarily know the intent of the game company, but we can make informed decisions about the game based on its content, or own values, and/or the social politics of the day. Therefore maybe it's not a bad idea to enforce the rating system on video games just like ratings are (usually) enforced in the movie theatres for age groups. For example, don't let minors purchase violent video games, whether they have to wait to a certain age or need consent of a parent might work. However we all know the realities of computers and how easy it is to electronically distrubute bits and bytes. Most likely the kid will get his or her hands on the software eventually. However I don't believe that's an argument for not enforcing the video game rating.
Maybe a parent who doesn't mind their kid joining the army, doesn't mind the "recruiting experience" offered by the U.S. Army video game (which involved killing people). However the same parent might not let their kid become a terrorist offered by another video game. However in another country this situation might be reversed.
I guess I still think that it's not the government's job to limit access, but the parents' job to control their children. I think the fact that most parents both work and spend precious little time interacting with their kids doesn't mean we solve social problems by putting more laws on the books. People want to think they can leave their children unattended in society safely. That's bizarre to me. Kids lack discipline, they often don't understand the consequences to their actions, and need adults around to guide, instruct, love, and punish them. If the adults are there, you don't need a drinking age and video game restrictions. If they aren't there, no laws are going to stop that anyway. I never had a problem getting alcohol when I was a teenager.
... 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?
Here is the original quote
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." - Kristian Wilson, Nintendo VP, 1989
The poster wrote:
:)
I don't understand Pawlo's art argument, although I love gaming. I agree with Paul Szynol.
This bugs me. There's more than 2 sides to most issues. You don't have to agree with _either_ of the folks debating.
It's not like the choice is "they are art, or they should be regulated". Try 'none of the above'.
Short of the hackneyed "for the children" argument, the concept that any issue is Yes/No, Win/Lose when discussed really is seductively evil.
Otherwise you get things like "DRM: evil, or not?". "Liberal or Conservative?" "Christian or Doomed to Hell?" "Vi or emacs?"
Of course, you can either agree with me, or not
A.
Children are not able to fully understand and cope, on their own, with the violence evidences in such games.
Assuming that is a true statement, define children. How old does a child have to be before they can cope? Do we suddenly get granted this magical ability at 18?
Children growing up in an environment where such media violence is taken for granted often take real violence for granted in their life.
Really? Could you show me the scientifically valid survey that prooves this? Because everything I've read has show that the research on the subject is, at best, inconclusive.
The big problem I have with ratings systems and regulation of games, etc, is that it doesn't take into account the fact that children mature at different rates. This is less of an issue with video games because, regardless of rating, the parent can always buy the video game for their child. That's what's important here is the parents right to choose what's okay for their child to see.
I remember parents who wouldn't let their kids listen to Madonna thinking it would corrupt them. That's ridiculous in my opinion, but I fully support that parent's right to make that choice for their kids. As long as video game ratings remain a voluntary advisory system they are all okay in my book.
What I've loathed for a very long time is the movie ratings system. When I was 15, I was mature enough to deal with anything I've ever seen in an R rated movie but I still couldn't go see them in the theater unless my mom really wanted to come sit through it (which did happen on occasion thankfully). She couldn't write me a note of approval, or even just show up to buy me the tickets, she had to sit through the whole damn movie. If she had no desire to see it, I had to wait for video or HBO. The greatest irony was that the strict enforcement in the theaters did nothing to stop me from seeing the movies, it just delayed it.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
If the game involved raping and killing three year olds, yet won GAME OF THE YEAR by pretty much every video game magazine, like Grand Theft Auto did, I wouldn't see a problem with it on the market, I would just feel dissasociated with my fellow man, though I do already. Do kids want to play GTA 3 because you can have sex with prostitutes and then kill them, or because everything they read and see is praising its name? I believe it's an issue of marketability. That will limit the gore of games. As seen with BMX XXX there isnt a huge market for porn. People like porn, people like games, people don't like porn in games. The market will limit anything that isnt commercially viable. So to answer your comment, a game where you killed and raped 3 year olds, i wouldnt think that would be commercially viable, but if it won game of the year, to each their own.
You know the REAL QUESTION here isn't whether it's a good idea to do something or not.
In America the subtext of any political discussion is "who's gonna get paid" and "who's gonna pay?"
You see, GTA set themselves apart from the other games, and made too much money. All the middlemen are jealous and want a piece. How are they going to make an exception of this GTA game?
Bottom line is that bad parenting is going to screw some kids of bad destiny into a life of crime with or without GTA. What's wrong here is people can't admit they're saying "I don't want anyone's kids playing this game because I have different ethics." Do you have any kids? No? Then your proper avenue of influence over other people's kids is through the parents. Why do you feel the need to involve the government or the industry? Trying to exert a little more influence over other people's children (private domain)? Want a little more than your share of power? Think that your ethical high-ground justifies it?
Remember that one person's rights extend infinitely, as they are basically free so long as we live in a free society. Their rights are limited only as far as they would infringe upon another's rights. This is the fundamental principle of a free society. Do you want to live in one one or not?
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
If your kids are old enough to go to their friends on their own, then they are old enough to follow the rules when out of sight of their parents. If you can't trust your kids by the time they are 11 or 12, you have bigger problems to deal with than video games. I don't let my kids play any of the GTA games (its the concept more than anything else that offends me), but if they play it once or twice at a friends house it isn't the end of the world. The reason I don't let them play the game is to reinforce to them what is right and wrong. I don't think the game will "corrupt" my kids if they play it a couple of times. The important thing is that they know I disaprove of the game, and that the actions it depicts are "bad".
Anarchists never rule
The people who put it together should be stoned in the street.
Gosh! Proof positive that GTA causes violent tendencies.
I really don't have a problem with regulating violent games- its when the government tries to outlaw them that I have a problem.
/me gets out a zip gun and starts mowing down pedestrians...
An interesting point, Taco, especially when you consider the United States, Japan, and Germany are the only three countries in the world that do not have government-run censorship of movies.
The American film classification system is a rarity in the modern world. Films are classified by choice. The director makes cuts which are eventually given approval. There may be critics of said system, and tempers may flare, but when you consider the alternative in countries such as India or China, in which nothing of interest makes it through the system, it has its merits.
Governmental censorship sucks. Well-minded people are generally just as dangerous a force for quelching art as are dictators.
However, it's very common in the rest of the world. Fight it every chance you get. You don't know what you stand to lose until its gone.
-Brett
FUD Alert! FUD Alert. I smell a lie.
I've been to walmart many times and have found M rated games right on the shelf. I think you meant to say the fact that they only carry music with censored lyrics is hypocritical when they sell firearms in the same store.
If you don't believe me, take a look at this and this . Oh yes, they carry M rated games. Its just odd that they carry M rated games and R rated movies, but no explicit music.
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
Ok, but why should I believe Mr. Sullivan any more than I believe Michael Moore? Mr. Sullivan does nothing more than assert his own "facts" and gives no useable references to back up his views that Michael Moore had lied.
For example, the issue that the Columbine kids were *not* bowling that morning as tossed out by Sullivan in his article in opposition to Moore's view that they were:
From the "Bowling for Columbine" FAQ page:
The title is taken from the little-known fact that the two killers, Dylan and Eric, were supposed to be in bowling class at Columbine High School on the morning of the murders. At least five witnesses, including their teacher, told the police that they saw one or both boys that morning at the bowling alley for their first hour class. Some school and law enforcement officials later maintained that the two boys skipped that class that morning yet no other witness has come forward to say they saw Eric and Dylan anywhere else that morning.
One reason the film is called "Bowling For Columbine" is that, after the massacre, all the pundits and experts started blaming all the usual suspects that are wheeled out for blame whenever a school shooting occurs--evil rock music (in this case Marilyn Manson), violent video games, and bad parenting.
My point is that those scapegoats make about as much sense as blaming bowling. After all, Eric and Dylan were bowlers, they took bowling class at Columbine--was bowling responsible for their evil deeds? If they bowled that morning, did the bowling trigger their desire to commit mass murder? Or, if they skipped their bowling class that morning, did that bring on the massacre? Had they bowled, that may have altered their mood and prevented them from picking up their guns. As you can see, this is all nonsense, just as it is nonsense to blame Marilyn Manson.
From Sullivan's "source" Dan Lyons of Forbes magazine:
TITLE: Moore titled the movie Bowling for Columbine because, he suggests, the two kids who shot up Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., went to a 6 a.m. bowling class on the day of the attack.
ACTUALLY: Cool story, but police say it's not true. They say the shooters skipped their bowling class that day.
I'm sorry, but while I don't have links to the actual witness statements and police reports, I'd say that Michael Moore's explanation is better than Mr. Sullivan's "proof" from Dan Lyons' two sentence statements.
In fact, the FAQ page goes on to debunk quite a few of the "facts" stated by Dan Lyons (what's Forbes magazine doing trying to debunk a documentary anyways? why don't they stick to money articles?):
Q. Is that bank that hands out guns for real?
A. Yes. North Country Bank (with branches throughout Northern Michigan) offers you a wide choice of guns when you open up a certificate of deposit account. In effect, they are giving you all of the interest the account will earn in advance in the form of a gun. The bank is also an authorized federal arms dealer so they can do the quick background check right there at the bank. I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, walked out with my new Weatherby--just as you see it in the film. (I did have a choice of getting a pair of golf clubs or a grandfather clock, but they didn't have either of those hanging on the wall like they did those three rifles). I learned about the bank's gun offer from an ad in the local paper that showed a gun across the top with the heading, " More Bang for Your Buck" from North Country Bank. I still have the account and the gun to this day (though I plan to legally "auction" off the gun for charity, and creatively have it destroyed--more on that later!)
and...
Q. How did you convince Lockheed to let you in their missile factory in Littleton?
A. Well, first of all, the Lockheed PR people would disagree with your use of the term, "missile." They now call their Titan and Atlas missiles on which nuclear warheads were once (and still are but in less numbers) attached, "rockets." That's because the Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them).
Lockheed Martin is the largest defense contractor in the United States. They gave us the MX missile and are now heavily involved in developing the nutty Star Wars missile defense shield. They have five facilities in and around the Littleton and Denver area and they are the #1 private employer in the school district that contains Columbine High School.
How did I get their permission to film there? I threatened them with bombing, of course.
and...
If you believe Mr. Sullivan's suppositions that all of the US money to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan went to "aid" not to the government, then you should check out this link on Moore's site. It is, unlike Sullivan's article, well-linked and referenced to the State Dept reports and other sources which explain how the money was sent to Afghanistan in order to support the Taliban (not the people).
When it comes to fact-checking a documentary on how our culture is skewed in some places, I'll trust Michael Moore, not Andrew Sullivan and Dan Lyons.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
"Kids should not get violent video games..."
Nobody here will argue with that, well, except the kids, but...
See here's my basic problem. Everybody will tell you it's just common sense that a really young child (say 5 or 6, maybe as old as 10 depending on the child and their parents...) should not be playing GTA and the like. But I'm thinking most of those who oppose violence in video games really don't want it there in the first place. They keep screaming about ratings and keeping them out of the hands of children only because they know that you won't ever truely keep it out of the children's hands. Kids like games. Kids will get games. If kids will get cigarettes, they're going to get games. Nicotine doesn't have half the addictive properties of a really good and violent video game.
When those in opposition to violent gaming are proven right by the lack of effectiveness in ratings, they'll call for even more strict distribution guidelines and harsher rating systems. Most developers will buckle and most games will stray from the current trend of violence. Whether or not someone can make a good game without the violence is totally beside the issue. The real issue here is that artistic expression and our rights to play what some of us want to play are seriously being juggled here.
Don't kid yourself, the religious zealots and the media superpowers (i.e. those in Hollywood who stands to lose out to the video game industry) don't want to take the best of violent video games from the children, they want to take them from EVERYONE. When I say adults, I'm talking about anybody past the age where they figure out you don't shoot cops and you don't beat hookers with a baseball bat to get your money back.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any control over this issue, but that control should be in the hands of the parents. Their collective incompetence (as demonstrated) should not be a burdon on the rights of video game developers and video game players. And I'm just about getting sick and tired of every little dickless zealot out there getting pissed off about what other people want to see, hear, play, or do in their spare time.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
So far, I've avoided the temptation. People just wonder why I'm grinning like a lunatic.
Jouni
Jouni Mannonen | Game Designer, Consultant
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.
First they took my Custers Revenge -- I did nothing
Then they took my GTA III -- I did nothing
Now all I have left to play is Super Mario's bible challenge and Tetris....Damn them
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
You might want to own a gun because:
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.
If you watch the Marilyn Manson "Guns, God, and the Government World Tour," you'll see that Wal*Mart (note the * branding on their US branches) doesn't carry Marilyn Manson CDs, even though they carry guns.
Yay for guns! Do you love your guns?
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Whoever moderated this up is stupid. EB doesn't want game returns any more than they want unhappy parents. If you've ever looked at their tills, they do mention "At least one of the titles on this receipt is rated M for Mature, please verify their understanding of this [ F5 - Ok ]."
Why would a company want to sell something, only to have in come back in an unsalable condition? That's stupid.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Most parents are not keeping up with the advances in gaming, 3D rendering, and the like. When most parents see a Violence rating on a game box, they probably think in terms of movies, where such things are doled out sparingly; you don't see two straight hours of Hale Berry's breasts or Ah-nold slicing out eyeballs.
Games are different. They push the envelope. They bathe the player in blood and expose him/her to graphic images for several days at a time.
Sure, parents bear some blame for not keeping up. But as an IT person, even *I* don't feel like I'm keeping up with everything that's going on.
And of course, there's always situations that parents have no control over, like their kids going to someone else's house to play games, or kids grabbing warez off the newsgroups.
Personally, I enjoy a good first-person as much as the next guy, but I also have no problem recognizing that the game industry is oftentimes reckless and irresponsible. Children still make up a significant portion of the gaming market, and game designers know that games with mature themes will be a hit with kids.
Were any 3 year olds murdered in the making of this game? If not, I don't see a problem with it. There are books out there that depict such things(not many mind you, but they are out there -- psychos exist, as do overly graphic horror writers), and they are just as protected as the cookbook.
Here's the thing; Killing is illegal and immoral. writing about killing is not illegal, and while distasteful at times, isn't really immoral either.
Despite what some would like to think, there's no difference between writing a book or short story and making a game besides a slightly different medium. As such, video game creators really shouldn't have to justify themselves to anyone the writer of a book should.
It's been a long time.
That depends. Are you willing to strap a muzzle on someones personal individual expression because you don't like what they're saying?
Are you willing to be muzzled because someone doesn't like the fact that in message 4899630 you made an "in soviet russia" joke, or the fact that in message 5014332 you made a controversial comment about the "kids don't know any better" mentality, are you willing to be muzzled because you caused so much controversy?
Just a thought.
It's been a long time.
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.
sorry, rather "As such, video game creators really shouldn't have to justify themselves to anyone the writer of a book wouldn't have to"
chalk it up to typing without sleep in two days.
It's been a long time.
The main reason for the violent crime in N. America which Michael Moore gives is that the media has you Yanks shitting yourselves because the media gets you all riled up by showing you nothing but murders, rapes, bombings, stabbings and muggings. This fear is exacerbated by the racial divide (at least according to Moore) between blacks and white suburban America.
I may have exaggerated a bit, but that's the gist of it.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
I refer to #5, Zoo Tycoon. It's an absolutely awful game. However, The Sims was pretty lame before the first expansion, so perhaps it got better with them. My fiancee was a Roller Coaster Tycoon adict and has been trying to avoind installing RCT2 until she finishes a consulting job she scored.
:)
Sims Unleashed is pretty cool, however.
Alex
That is a pretty broad statement to make. I played Wolf 3D when I was 9, 10 years old, Doom after that, Quake after that, so on. I knew full well it was a game. It was fun dammit! What makes you presume you know the maturity level of any given kid?
Exactly. As a kid, I played Popeye on my TI-99/4A all the time. The Old Hag threw bottles at me, and I learned how to punch them away. And look at how I turned out. I'm posting an unsolicited comment to a geek website at quarter to four in the morning while smoking a cigarette and waiting to take my next Prozac. Overall, I'm better adjusted than most people I know.
Hold on just a sec... Fscking cat won't stop meowing to be let out... SHIT! No more empty beer bottles! [digging around, lobs an empty rum bottle, makes a mental note to wear shoes when going to the bathroom after bedtime]
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
First off, I'm in the games industry, so take any of my comments with an appropriately sized block of salt.
Which is really more likely? That violent games create violent people, or that people who commit or desire to commit violence are drawn to violent games?
The first has no clearly demonstrable casality. Smoking doesn't cause cancer in everyone, but at least it's statistically significant enough to show that it does cause it. In all honesty, more studies need to be conducted to be sure there isn't some sort of link, but the statement "If you play violent video games, then you will be compelled to commit violent acts in real life," is clearly far from the truth.
The second would suggest that violent people are committing fake violence rather than spending their time committing real violence, which would seem to me to be a vast improvement. Kids love violence as it gives them some sense of power, where they otherwise have none. That's not really a problem of violence, though, as much as it is a problem of discrimination.
Seems to me just a further attempt to diminish personal responsibility. Perhaps this is the crux of the matter - a free society requires an intelligent and informed populace who can look after themselves and take responsibility for their own actions. Unfortunately, there is an enormous chunk of the population who are either unwilling or unable to carry that responsibility, and they demand that we prove they are so weak-willed that they can be influenced to do practically anything.
Once again, the few are screwing it up for everybody else. It was a nice civilization guys, hopefully we get it right next time.
sig fault
I object to this! Dude where's my car was a classic of american filmmaking. It's so stupid it's art... The art of stupidity.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Oh, where would those games come from - maybe Europe? What did you think, that only Yanks can write Games?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck