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.
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!
Boy, that list is just bursting with violent games.
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.
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.
very true.
.02
My father took me to see Alies when I was pretty young (8 IIRC). It was rated R. I specifically remember the ticket booth guy w/wide eyes when I was going in there. My mother was undescribable.
I played plenty of video games when I was a kid. Never thought twice if they were violent or not.
As I got older I was not interested in getting games for their "gore". If I enjoyed a game, then I played it. It wasn't b/c it was gory.
I have GTA3. I was 22 when I got it. It was a good game overall but I wasn't thrilled w/it either. I much preferred Gran Turismo and Madden...
So, exposed at an early age left me w/killing tendencies and horrid mental scaring.
Really, it did.
I will fight my S.O. to the death if she argues this w/our children...
Just my worthless
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.
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....
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.
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.
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
Children are not able to fully understand and cope, on their own, with the violence evidences in such games.
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?
Like many things in a childrens upbringing, this is a matter of BEING A PARENT. You would let your kids see Star Wars, wouldn't you? They know it is JUST A MOVIE don't they? Why shouldn't the same apply to video games?
A voluntary rating system was a great idea. It allows parents a quick and easy way to determine if a game is appropriate for their kids. If reading a box is too much, they have worse problems than video games!
... 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?
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
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.
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.
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.