Lion And Lamb Project Lambasts Videogames

Thanks to Gamasutra for pointing to the Lion And Lamb Project's new listing of their 'Dirty Dozen for 2004', as the organization, which "works to reduce the marketing of violent toys, games and entertainment to children", singles out Rockstar's Manhunt for its 'Pushing The Envelope' pick, despite the Mature rating, mentioning that "69 percent of underage teenagers were able to buy M-rated games at retail stores." Interestingly, Sony's Teen-rated Jak II is also criticized under the heading 'Deceptive Branding: The Sequel That Isn't', with the comments: "The original game in this series - Jak and Daxter - was rated E for Everyone... parents who feel comfortable with this 'brand' are in for a rude surprise if they purchase the sequel for their young children." However, the project's Top 20 non-violent toys also include videogames, including Dance Dance Revolution and Zoo Tycoon.

Comments

the real problems here

[self assembled struc]

First, Rockstar games clearly says it's M for Mature.

Its up to the stores AND THE PARENTS to make sure that kids not old enough to partake in this entertainment are not. The game companies should no have to censor themselves anymore than CLEARLY labelling the box and the package. This is a problem not with Rockstar, but with society.

Second, from that list of "approved games" can we say MASSIVELY BORING? Who the hell EVERY enjoyed playing Math Attack over Missle Command?

Re:the real problems here

[Txiasaeia]

Here's a thought: why is there a difference between an adult video store and a local game store? Maybe they should have a "back room" at the local EB where they carry the mature games -- and not let kids back! This might seem extreme, but employees at EB or Babbages are getting paid minimum wage, and how many teenagers go video game shopping with their teenagers, really?

Re:the real problems here

[Skyfire]

The problem with doing that is that a video game rating of M is basically equivalent to a rating of R, and in video stores, R movies are featured in the main parts of video stores, whereas the video equivialent of NC-17 movies which are usually put in the back of video stores a rated AO (Adults Only). My point is that if you put M games in a special section, you have to put R movies in a special section too.

Re:the real problems here

[exick]

You most certainly do not. Film ratings and video game ratings are different. There doesn't have to be exact age correlation between the two rating systems. The Lion and Lamb project seem to be searching for the same correlation. They complain that a game that's rated T was made using a movie that's rated R, but R-rated movies are accessible by teenagers with (13-16) or without (17-19) parents, so how is it wrong? If you use movie, TV, and/or video game ratings as a concrete way of deciding whether some piece of media is appropriate for your child, then you're a miserable excuse for a parent anyway.

Re:the real problems here

[PainKilleR-CE]

There doesn't have to be exact age correlation between the two rating systems.

But there is, as R = 17+ and M = 17+. There isn't always an exact correlation within a franchise, though.

The Lion and Lamb project seem to be searching for the same correlation. They complain that a game that's rated T was made using a movie that's rated R, but R-rated movies are accessible by teenagers with (13-16) or without (17-19) parents, so how is it wrong? If you use movie, TV, and/or video game ratings as a concrete way of deciding whether some piece of media is appropriate for your child, then you're a miserable excuse for a parent anyway.

Obviously, there's either a difference between the way the ratings are decided, or there's a difference between the content of the game vs. the movie. I tend to think that the middle ground on game ratings and movie ratings tends to be a bit muddy (ie the PG/PG-13 area where sometimes a PG-13 seems like it should be R or sometimes PG vs. the T/E ratings in games where sometimes an E seems like it should be T and vice versa, and maybe, once in a while, a T seems like it might've been an M), but whenever a film-maker or game developer has discussed changing their piece for a lower rating there have always been very specific items that made the difference to the people deciding the ratings.

Of course, I agree that ratings shouldn't be the only decision maker in this, but in the end I think they're judging this on the ratings more than the product anyway. WTF does the back of a TMNT figure have to do with the game anyway? Hell, it's been well over a decade since I played with a TMNT figure anyway, and they didn't do anything unless you made them do it.

Re:Address the problem

[gmhowell]

Many of 'these groups' fight at all levels. One of the reasons Blockbuster doesn't carry NC17 movies is because of lobbying by similar groups.

The site questions the rating systems for games and movies. They wonder if a game with 'sniper mode' should be marketed to kids, and not have an 'M' rating. They question why 'Whale Rider' should be PG13 instead of PG.

What they should be doing is saying to parents: check out the game/movie your kids want you to buy. Talk to people you know (not anonymous busybodies on the internet) for their opinions.

list is of value (to busy/lazy anyway)

[Anonymous Coward]

of course any list like this seems silly, but the listing of JakII as not being in line with the first is a good point. Sure the blame is on the doofus who buys an inappropriate game for his kid, but assuming II is a continuation of I is an easy thing to do.

I think the main targets of these lists is "grandma" who is looking for a gift for the kiddies.

Of course, as a youth I would have much more preferred a "toys/games that aren't totally lame or out of date" list

Of course, the responsibility is shared.

[Sheetrock]

Parents picking up Grand Theft Auto or Doom for their children can't very well claim ignorance about the violence of the content. If they aren't maintaining a healthy level of involvement in the lives of their children they've got no one to blame but themselves.

Having said that, video games today are a virtual "pornography of violence"; characters are maimed or killed without thought to consequences in most titles, which are ultimately marketed to children when they share space among children's titles in gaming magazines or on review websites. It's highly unlikely even grown adults leave a session of intense gaming (or violent movies for that matter) without some imprint, as these games are designed to trigger and reward unhealthy responses.

I've got a certain amount of room for games like BF1942 in my free time, but I also enjoy games like Zork or Myst that are underrepresented in today's lineup on the shelves. Maybe they've got a point?

put them on a special mailing list

[gearheadsmp]

Be sure to put these ninny soccer moms on the mailing lists of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. Perhaps reminding that no matter how overprotective they are, they're going to register for Selective Service unless they go live on a Commune. So be sure and mail them CD's w/ America's Army for the ultimate insult.

It is a decent list

[Bishop]

I don't agree with everything they write, but overall it is a good list. One of their central complaints is toys marketed at younger children, but based off of movies or tv shows marketed at a much older audience. Unlike other groups, the Lion and Lamb Project seems to be more geared towards educateing parents about the dangers of violent toys and games, then legislating "violent" toys. A common complaint seen on /. is against parents who allow their children to play violent games rated M for mature. Here is have a group that agrees, and provideds parents with education regarding those issues.

That said this group may be involved in other activities that I do not agree with. I only took a cursory look at their web pages. But this is not yet another group who hates video game violence. Rather this is a group that hates violence marketed at children. A subtle but important distinction.