Slashdot Mirror
Lieberman Weighs In On Grand Theft Auto
Thanks to Yahoo/Reuters for its article discussing Senator Joseph Lieberman's comments regarding Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto at a recent women's forum at Dartmouth College. Interestingly, Lieberman, a Democratic presidential hopeful and long-time proponent of views on this subject, comments: "Video games have gotten better over time", but continues: "There's a couple out there that are horrendous... You ought to see one called Grand Theft Auto. The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again." Although this isn't the specific goal of the game, he continues: "I call on the entertainment companies - they've got a right to do that, but they have a responsibility not to do it if we want to raise the next generation of our sons to treat women with respect."
I have to agree with him. I've played Grand theft auto, and I belive people should be horified about the kind of guy they are playing. Horified that they can find in themselves the type of person who would do that, even in a game. Never mind that it is a game and they can recignise the difference between a game and real life, they can do that in a game.
It isn't right to make that type of game illegal (unless someone proves byond all doupt that it really does lead everyone to bad behaviour...), but that doesn't mean it is right to enjoy the game.
wtf?
sure you CAN do that but there's a good chance the cops will lock you up if you do, wasting the mission you were currently on - PUNISHING the player rather than rewarding. and there's no distinction between a woman or a regular other character walking on the roads in gta in this aspect either.
maybe it's just HIM that enjoys beating up women in gta(thus getting a 'reward' from beating them up).
shouldn't it be illeagal for them to lie about such things? soon he has a memo 'full of names of people who enjoy watching women beaten up'?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
You have no idea how much I hate men because of what I've learned in GTA! I'm able to gun them down with an Uzi, run them over with a car, or even take out a chainsaw and cut them to pieces! In fact, I think I'm going to go take out a few masculine vagina oppressors RIGHT NOW!
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
...I think that would be a good title for a best-selling book.
Grand Theft Auto has always made any type of killing rewarding given the person has some cash on them. But killing people always comes with risk and doesn't make enough money to make it a viable way of going through the game. In fact, it becomes boring. Most of the time you'll really want to drive through town without even denting your car or attracting the police. The most reward comes from role playing your part as a bad guy and killing other bad guys! Imagine that...
So since gamers of the 80s grew up with games where you're constantly saving princesses, does that mean that generation is respectful, helpful and courteous towards women? Absolutely not. These bullshit arguments are always easy to deflate when you invert them.
Here's probably the biggest right-leaning Democrat to come around in a long time and has a major history of criticizing the entertainment industry. So when he goes to write a book, what's the first title he thinks of? Joe and Hadassah's Excellent Adventure. Granted a staffer/lawyer/publisher convinced him to change it to Amazing Adventure, but still. One side of his mouth he's criticizing games for teaching our youth to denegrate women, on the other side he's parodying (and giving tacit approval) of a movie that glorifies being stupid. I just wonder about this guy.
And then, since he was sorta surging in one of the NH polls yesterday, he claims he's doing well, because... he's "got joe-mentum". that sounds like something Jon Stewart and co-horts at the Daily Show would come up with.
Doesn't the senator from CT know that you can do the same thing to men of all different ethnicities in GTA3?
There's no discrimination here. GTA3 is a utopia of equality, where all cultures and genders can be run down with cars, thrown the ground, beaten, and shot at point blank range with a shotgun.
He should really have played the game before making such careless comments.
Really.
... and sometimes dem virtual hoes need bitchslappin' to the floor.
This is bullshit. You can ice guys in GTA too, so it's an equal opportunity slap-em-up.
When you hit a woman in a game, you get jumped by a ton of other guys and beat down. We want reality in games right? :)
that Lieberman is not against speeding cars and Dukes-of-Hazzard-type stunts.
how could I then be expected to not be late at work if I could not ramp-jump over gridlocked traffic???
"You ought to see one called Grand Theft Auto. The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again."
There's a game out there, it's a very popular game, it's called Crazy Taxi. You are a taxi driver trying to get people from point A to point B. Wanna know what happens if you run over somebody? Nothing! People magically jump out of the way! If you bang into another car, *bang*, nothing really happens. So, in playing this game, you develop reflexes that cause you to drive in a straight line, and not care about pedestrians as they don't cause you any problems.
In GTA3, yeah you can kill some little old lady, but you're not being rewarded for it, you're being rewarded for making the game significantly harder for yourself. If you go driving through the streets in GTA just like you are in Crazy Taxi, and you drive towards a pedestrian, they don't magically get out of your way. They get squished, just like in real life. And when you drive over them, you start having to worry about police, just like real life. Run over somebody in viewing range of a police officer, and he will try to arrest you, and if he succeeds you lose a lot of things that you have acquired so far. Just like in real life. If you try to get away and wreck your car during the chase, you can cause devastation of vehicles and people's lives, just like real life. The result? Reflexively, you avoid running over pedestrians like mad. In a split second, if somebody darts out in front of your car, you're going to swerve. (That happens to be the right thing to do.)
So I have to ask you, Joey, what is really better? Avoiding showing adults realistic consequences to the choices they make, or sanitizing the game of all 'disturbing' violence and instead using video game influence to teach you that nobody can be hurt?
"Derp de derp."
He just needs better researchers.
:)
He should have referred to the mission "Waste the Wife", an assination mission where a guy wants the wife dead, and hires you to kill her.
I hereby volunteer to be a researcher for his propaganda department. It'll be hard work, playing those games all day looking for things that can be spun for a specific demographic, but I'll suffer by somehow.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
It's about playing to the audience. I'm sure these women would not have cared if Lieberman went on about the whole "kill the haitians" remark in the game. He knew what would get them on his side.
:)
I hear next week he'll be speaking at a pedestrians meeting.
Oh, if I only had mod points...that's the best post I've read all day. :)
Finally, someone has admitted (and I would say emphasized) that they have the right to do such things. Huzzah to Lieberman for at least leaving censorship and "stricter video game laws" out of it and merely decrying the video game itself. Rare to see such politics these days.
--Stephen
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
I've recently discovered the joys of GTA Vice City. Its taken me a while because initially I was put of by the gratuity of violence. That kind of thing is not really my bag. However I do find the game highly entertaining and enjoyable due to the whole atmosphere of the game. I still get a personal feeling of guilt when I "accidentally" run someone over. There is a "lot" more to the game than just killing innocent passers by, and treating women badly.
Violence has been around forever, we all know this. For years people have complained that certain movies and videos have made people go out and do things they shouldnt. The usual argument is, to suggest that it should be the parents who control the exposure of children to these things. I agree very much with this standpoint, but the problem is there are a lot of parents out their who do not follow this logic. And quite often children find ways around their parents rules.
What can realistically be done to ensure that parents take the responsibility for exposure of unsuitable material to minors?
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Because you certainly can't repeatedly kick and kill men in the game. Just women! Oh wait...
The expression is "I could NOT care less." Think about it.
Don't forget kids, GTA killed your wife, shot your dog, repossessed your house, shattered your septic tank, stole $2 billion from Metallica, stole your girlfriend, and is the single cause of all the evils in society. Honestly. I'm not kidding.
On the serious side though, this game is rated M, that means your children, the kids that Lieberman is so sure are being desecrated by this game, are the same children that should NOT be playing the game. That's what the M rating is for.
So before you allow the government to control your children for you, why don't you try to raise them yourselves. How about you take an active interest in their life? Maybe keep tabs on what they're doing and what games they're playing. If your kid likes to sacrifice woodland animals, don't buy him GTA, and if you notice he's got it, find out how he got it and take it away from him. There is no substitution for good parenting, and allowing the government to parent for you is a surefire way to end up in a 1984-esque society.
GTA doesn't kill people. GTA doesn't teach people to kill. America's Army (the game) is just as efficient a society demoralizer as any other violent game, except it's sanctioned by the US. You'll note you never hear people complain that AA is too violent. It's ok to be violent when you're killing commies and nazis, but it's not ok to be violent when you have the ability (note, have the ability - there is much more to GTA than killing women and cops) to do things society frowns on.
In AA, you could kill your team-mates. That is just as demoralizing.
--- What preceeds is nothing more than opinion. If you take it for more than that, it is your own fault.
To the darkened skies once more, and ever onward.
Yeah, except that it would be pure fiction. Many people will agree it is a good idea, but few or none will actually live it.
Ok, to contextualize: I am no fan of Lieberman, nor of censorship.
Yet, I'm surprised that gamers, from fanboy populated forums to print media, generally have this completely defensive attitude to any kind of censorship or even discussion of violence in video games. It's as if we've been "Pavlovically" trained to automatically shriek "First Amendment" whenever we hear someone talking about excessive violence in games. I really have yet to see some intelligent discourse on why violence in games is acceptable. Why is that we can simulate purposeless murder on mass scale like exhibited in GTA and its ilk, but most of us would consider it abhorrent for a game to have a player able to enact even one simulated rape or pedophilic sexual encounter? What makes the simulated shooting down of 30 innocent people in a video game more socially acceptable?
Basically, what we haven't done is build up an apologetics of sorts for video games. We have no choice but to shallowly cite the First Amendment and quickly blame parents when people like Lieberman challenge us because we have yet to collectively think of anything better to say. Instead of developing a system of apologetics, our response is to release crap like Manhunt. What kind of piss-poor answer is that? It's not answering the cultural call to explain the violence, it's pushing back, but harder. That won't ever work and does nothing but to reinforce the idea that video games have "made" us violent. Sure, Lieberman and likeminded politicians would be saying the same thing even if we had an intelligent system of apologetics for video games (they are, after all, politicians), but I think it would, in general society, rob Lieberman of credibility nonetheless.
So, who's up for the challenge? Why is GTA's mass murder "better" than simulated rape?
One reason I voted for Nader in 2000 is I feared what would become of free expression with Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore in positions of leadership and Frank Zappa not around to help in the fight.
This year, my vote is there for the Democrats to lose, but if Lieberman is the nominee they'll need to do a lot of work to win it.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
We can't have the corrupting influence of video games infiltrating our society.. What happens when a violent video gamer makes it into public office.. Why we could have WAR as a form of making profit or something... absolutely horrendous!!!
I dont want censorship of anything. Guidelines and laws pertaining to its usage, sure, but those are already in place. Technicaly no person under the age of 18 is allowed to buy a M rated game, and is that way for a reason. GTA is rated M, so what are we worried about. Enforce the laws we have now before you make new ones.
I want 2D games back.
It should come as no surprise that hes making these comments at a women's forum, and making a particular point of how this game 'promotes' abusing women; this always pisses people off. He negelects to mention you can get 'rewarded' (if getting a couple points and cops chasing after you is a reward) for assaulting anyone/thing in the game. By Lieberman's logic, any of us who've play GTA should be beating the shit out of each other right about now since we never learned respect for other men/women. Honestly, this strikes me less as an honest swipe at GTA rather than a thinly veiled attempt to win over women voters by appearing to oppose an 'misogynist' video game, and so portraying the game in a rather singularly unpleasant light that it promotes abuse of women. Same old 'anti-misogynist' rhetoric we've been hearing for years in this PC world.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
You can play sim-sex-conquest all you want in some European countries and Asia (esp. Japan).
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
OK I'm not american and I don't live in America, so all this election circus it's just entertainement for me;
well maybe it's just because I don't know enough about US politics, but I could even think that sen. Lieberman is doing his crusade against violence in videogames (he started yelling against Mortal Kombat AFAIK) just because 1) to be against violence always sells, 2) people who play videogames are usually young and they can't vote (I know there are plenty of grown up videogamers around, myself for instance, but videogaming still considered as something childish).
With rights come responsibility.
The classic example is that screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre and inciting a panic is not protected speech. Everyone agrees with that.
Asking videogame producers to use due judgement and produce products that are socially responsible is not censorship and is not wrong. The videogame industry is moving towards the same inane and worthless content that network television and cable is moving towards -- taking Liberman's advice may be helpful in the long run.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Kill baby: Good
Video game: Bad
Sorry, but they have their priorities all fucked up.
Lieberman is now part of the advertising engine. GTA can't buy that kind of advertising. I mean h said that I should see the game, which now I just might buy it.
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
Its funny when you realize that these people think that videogames is for kids/young adults. A medium that was once targetted primarily to youths has now grown just like the orignal target audience has. We are pong generation all grown up we have jobs we have families and dammit we want our f'nin video games.
Are we going to let our 5 year old play Manhunt.. probably not, but should we have the government decide what we can play and what we should not. Hell no.
If Lieberman has a problem with violent video games then get the retailers to be more strict in enforcing the ratings. Video games should be classified like movies are classified, get rid of the game specific ratings and adopt the movie rating system. So then parents will have a better clue what there kids should play..
"Hmmm rated Teen.. what the hell does that mean.. rated R, well that means my kid isn't going to watch this."
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
Of course, not all technology is benevolent, so eventally Joe started up with his harangue about the resplendent evils of video games.
at that moment I turned around to glance at the hordes of assembled students filling the auditorium- all of them slack jawed in horror and amazement, surely. What struck me most resoundingly, was just how poorly Mr. Lieberman knew the folks he was speaking to; I'd reckon that most of the audience that day were familiar with the game, perhaps half had actually played it, and doubtless had a higher opinion than he'd have expected.There was a minor security "incident" toward the tail end of the talk that left me even more troubled; not because of any threat to our Senator [very little], but for his response to it, which
and He may be an adequate or even competent legislator, but didn't earn much of my confidence. I'm grateful that he's representing someone else's state.You can play sim-sex-conquest all you want in some European countries and Asia (esp. Japan).
Can you think of any specific examples? I've heard about a few Japanese games, but those seem mostly bathroom fetish oriented.
Honestly, it is mostly intellectual curiosity at this point, it's interesting seeing what cultures will allow. If it runs on a console (as opposed to a PC) I'm sure it has to be semi-illegal or at least unauthorized, I get the feeling the console makers won't license anything along those lines...
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
It's not going to encourage ANY behaviour except what the player WANTS to do (except maybe those related to the plot)....but then again, if you didn't like doing this, you would have never bought the game...it's not like the name of the game could be any give away...
What this guy doesn't understand is that games like GTA and specifically violent games are GOOD for society. It is a way of escape...it's not going to encourage violence in the real world...
In reality, these games allow mature adults to release their tensions...I'ld much rather see a guy spend a night of playing GTA than to shoot someone who cuts in front of his car on his morning commute...
I come to you today, not just as a Sociologist, or a Video Game developer, but as a citizen, a future father, and a voter.
Stop making videogames out to be worse than they are.
There is no excuse for this rampant inflammatory rhetoric. The sky is not falling, Iraq is not full of loose nukes, and Mario is not teaching your children to abuse prostitutes. Night Trap featured significantly less violence than a child would see watching U.S.A.'s up all night, Mortal Kombat's fatalities were no more realistic than what one would see on the Itchy and Scratchy show, Doom did not teach children to field strip a Desert Eagle, and Grand Theft Auto does not advocate the genocide of Hatians.
GTA is a game about criminal misconduct. That doesn't mean that wanton violence is rewarded, it is simply possible. It was possible to cause a nuclear explosion in Sim City, but it came with a price. Arbitrary murder in GTA is punished by a rather unsympathetic police force, and is detrimental to your overall goals.
Selecting one possible scenario out of millions of combinations is misleading. It is true that the player can find a woman, beat them up, and shoot them. It is also true that they can do the same to a man, a child, a police officer, or anyone else in the game. They can find an unfriendly looking cabbie, pull them out of their cab, run them over with their cab, kick the body, shoot the body, and run the body over again. They can also just look for the best cars, and race around the city trying to hit as few people as possible. The player can decide to run everyone over, or try to do tricks on the games many ramps. They can sleep with a prostitute, or they can hang out and listen to the game's extensive radio stations. They can even attack other criminals, making the city a safer place for its citizens. That's not to say that GTA 3 is appropriate for all ages, but to single out one possibility and claim that GTA will cause men to brutalize women is misleading, inflammatory, and irresponsible.
Beyond GTA 3, this disparity between rhetoric and reality causes a mistrust of politicians by the 10-35 year olds of America. It means they're out of touch, in some cases completely. Players feel a strong association with the games that they play. This is partly because of the interactive component of the game, partly because of the secret fantasy escapism, and partly because they require such a large time investment. Making remarks about a title that are fundamentally flawed will in no way endear you to those people who know the game and who play it. Saying that GTA is a game breeding violent cheuvanists is no more likely to be well received than saying that golf is a game for rich white racists. Either way it shows broad, inaccurate generalizations passing as fact, from the mouth of a presidential candidate we are supposed to be able to trust
I disagree with Liberman's assertion that videogames are getting better about violence. Perhaps after a rather odd obsession with red pixels that spawned Time Killers, it may seem that the number of games that feature ONLY violence has gone down. And that I would agree with. But singling out individual games should be done with care, as mistaken assertions about particular titles are incredibly common and detrimental to the cause of less violent games.
Stop making videogames out to be worse than they are. It only makes you look ignorant.
The ______ Agenda
Meanwhile, I worry about repercussions of a statement like that. Maybe it's because I read Slashdot.
So here's a politician who says someone has the right to do something, but in practically the same breath says that the thing is wrong. How long will it be before some politician (I wouldn't put it past Lieberman himslf) says that the rights themselves should be eliminated? And this is an election year, too, so any slippery slope that may exist has been lathered down with extra suck-up grease by pinwheels who want to sound like they're responding to issues (even invented ones).
There are still charges that need to be responded to. One concession does not mean the pressure's off. This could simply be the start of a new attack.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
There is a lot of "we and us" in your post, addressing, I'm assuming, video game players and developers. So to start:
"We" didn't release Manhunt. Rockstar did, and I think they did it to make money, not to prove some point about not censoring games.
"We" haven't built up "apologetics" for games because "we" tend to dislike censorship in all forms. There's the First Amendment, and it doesn't need to go any further than that.
Amoral politicians looking for attention will always blame video games, TV, movies etc for perceived societal ills. No amount of argumentation will change that.
Why is GTA's "mass murder" better? IT SELLS. Rape and pedophilia don't.
Uh the game doesn't require mass murder to "complete". When you're killing lots of people it's usually a "war" - they aren't really civilians - they're armed, they'd shoot you if you don't shoot them. Sure there are the optional kill gang member missions, but they actually make the game _harder_ to complete - since they'll always shoot at you after that (which makes it harder to do some missions).
:). In vice city there are motorbikes, helicopters and other stuff to play with.
;) ).
There's plenty else to do with GTA3. You could be doing stunts with cars or planes. You could be an ambulance driver. Or a cab driver. Or a fireman. Or a cop. One of the hardest missions was the optional ambulance mission. Complete it for infinite run.
In the first GTAIII you could fly the dodo, do loop the loops, fly behind the mountains. You could get on the lighthouse with a boat too, if you know how
If Senator Lieberman actually played GTA3 and the only thing he found out about GTA3 is attacking random women on the street for the few bucks they have, then it reflects poorly on him or the company he keeps.
Just because you can rip heads off dolls/action figures don't make em bad toys.
Think of GTA3 as cops and robbers. And you do get to play both (but mainly the robber - hey it's called GTA for a reason
I'm not saying GTA3 is suitable for all kids or people. But I know a few kids and many adults who'd be fine playing it.
But some Senators may need parental guidance.
Whenever he wants to complain, he pulls the GTA card and claims that it's anti-women. Funny how my wife doesn't see that when she watches me playing the GTA games...
Here's the key: keep the rating system and educate parents so they get off their asses and pay attention to the ratings. The next time I see a parent buying Vice City for their 10-year-old, I swear I'm going to start flinging other games at them until they pay attention...
I'm still undecided on which Democrat I'm going to support for President, but I know damn well it will never be Lieberman. Media whore bastard...
Maybe a more important factor to raising sons who are "responsible and respectful toward women" would be having FATHERS who are responsible and respectful toward women. In a society where the men are typically uninvolved (or often not even in the picture whatsoever) in a boy's life, what do you expect? Young boys are raised by a mother at home, usually taught by a woman at school. Their whole life is constructed by women and they don't have the example and influence of a strong, masculine, caring, reliable, duty-bound father.
Often the burden is put on women, by pundits, here. That women are raising a generation full of pansy men (who as a result have a hard time in relationships because they don't really understand what women want - only what they SAY they want). The truth is, if men were more responsible and hung around, then the job would be done.
Another complaint often made is "well, women have kids and don't want a father around or they are floozies that get laid, have a kid and then move on and raise the kid alone". The same answer still applies - the man should have had his head on straight and known the woman he was fucking before having a child with her. And afterward, he should be in the child's life and raise him to be a true man.
So no, I don't think it is hollywood's job (or anyone else's) to restrict the type of videogames or movies or music they put out. I think having responsible, present, consistant, quality parents in a child's life outweight the rest of society's input a thousand to one.
But, of course, pointing the finger at parents for bad parenting doesn't when you their votes. So politicians continue to pander.
To address just one part of your post, it's not violence. No-one gets hurt. Remember Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"? It's not real, it is a depiction of violence.
Games have long used ideas from films, but films have done darker stuff than any game to date.
The explanation for the violence has to come from elsewhere, I'm afraid.
Do yourself a favour and watch a Tom & Jerry cartoon some time. Then repeat after me, "Cartoon violence is not real."
What worries me are the people who cannot seem to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Senator Lieberman appears to fall into that camp.
superultra:
I agree that shouting "First Amendment" is not the end-all defense, and also agree that Manhunt crosses the line for violence in a video game, and you do bring up an interesting point about simulated rape or other socially inacceptable behavior, but it all returns to the fact of choice.
People choose to play games like this for a multitude of reasons. I, personally, play UT2003 (graphically violent) with my boss, as a way to alleviate tension. We'll chat on the phone while we frag each other a few times, then team up and frag some others. It is entertaining. I don't believe it has 'desensitized' or made the act of killing someone more 'acceptable' to me. Anyone who argues that point has no ground to stand on. I find it entertaining to digitally attack and kill digital representations of people. That does not mean I could or would ever enjoy the same act in real life. As an example. People watch violent / gory movies all the time. For this example, let's use the movie 'The Cell'. While not a particularly great movie, the graphic violence and gore in it make it a prime example. There is a scene where a character has disemboweled another character and is pulling their intestines out by wrapping it around a spiked spit. I did not vomit when I saw that on the television. As a matter of fact, while it was shocking to see, it wasn't as though I was actually seeing it. Had I seen the exact same thing in real life, it would have had a completely different effect.
Now-- why am I bringing this up? What relevance does this have? I'll tell ya. It's all about choice. Graphic violence is shocking, whether it be in video games or in movies or in television. It's shocking. Shock sells. Shock gets hype. Shock gets notice. People who are shocked (whether good or bad) will tell their friends about being shocked, whether good or bad. It's how it works. A long time ago, people were shocked by violence in video games, some people hated it, some people liked it. Games cater to the masses, not to everyone. Someone is always going to have a problem with something. For better or for worse, games have a right to be violent because gamers have a right to choice. If I want to play a game like Manhunt that has extreme graphic violence, it is my choice. There is no crime in playing a game like that. However, enacting a scene like one in Manhunt in real life, that's a different story. It's not taboo to kill people on a screen because anyone with a moral and ethical grounding will NOT re-create the same situation in real life. Game producers take for granted the fact that the people playing their games have a head on their shoulders.
Take for example, Mortal Kombat. That game had people up in arms when it came out because it was bloody, it was violent, it was gory. You didn't see an immediate increase in people uppercutting others heads off. I will say that violence in video games does lead to more violence. But only in video games. I like UT2003, when UT2004 comes out, with its updated graphics and better physics engine, I'll buy it too. And I'll play it. And I'll like it. But I won't go out with a gun and shoot someone just because I did it in a video game.
Now. As for why killing people in games is socially acceptable, and other things aren't, I'll bring you back to the movies point. People have been killing people in movies for years. Long before there were violent video games. There are parallels between gaming and movies, as the censors ban similar things and rate based on similar things. Rape and pedophelia are not mainstream. They are not in (many) movies. They are not a topic that is regarded with high stature. People don't talk about that great movie they just saw where the 14 year old got raped. But they DO talk about that great movie they just saw with that awesome explosion, or that great bullet-time effect, or what about when Neo beat up Agent Smith, or how about when John Wayne killed the indians. The point is, killing was
To the darkened skies once more, and ever onward.
Okay, I'm currently playing through GTAIII for the first time, and I can (as most of us can) that you kill, maim and pillage many, many more guys than chicks. I don't think I've come across a single mission, as a matter of fact, where you were supposed to kill a chick. Yeah, you can grab a hooker, go somewhere private, watch the car bounce (while you two sit in the front seats, not moving), and afterwards beat the hell out of her, but that's the limit so far for violence towards women. Every OTHER missions is "go kill this guy that's been following/dealing/stealing/snitching on me". In all fairness, this game is much more geared towards killing men.
--trb
Ok... I hear you. It's M rated, you should take an active interest in your kids, etc. etc. etc. This is a very shallow arguement that does not take the rest of America and the world in mind, only your little corner. I'm all for personal responsibility, but let's call it like it is, not like we view it to be.
Here are the facts:
1. Half of all marriages end in divorce.
Many, many of these have kids. One parent tries to woo the kid by giving them what they want. The other does the same. Pretty soon the kid has GTA... (this is not remote, it's common)
2. The number of children born outside of marriage is approaching (or overtaking) the number born within marriage.
There are millions of kids out there with no dads. Mom works... or doesn't. Leaves the kids at home... to do??? Get's GTA.
3. Many parents are idiots. The buy into all of this stuff that you guys are saying. Like... it's not real... or it's only in a video game... any healthy person can tell the difference...
They buy their kids GTA.
Don't take this post for what it's not... it's a simple statement of fact. Half or more of the kids in the country right now do not have responsible parents that are capable keeping this game out of their kids hands for whatever reason... and yes... it's their fault. But, your answer, to ignore it, won't work forever. Sure, Lieberman is a moron, but at least somebody is not naive enough to ignore this fact.
Someone, somewhere needs to wake up and realize that the dream world we live in, where everyone has two parents and a dog and goes to church on Sunday is not America anymore. Someone has to start encouraging society to at least set some sort of standards for itself. I'm one of the last people to want this to happen, but I see the wisdom in at least approaching the subject.
Certainly every man at his best state is but vapor
"...except for that inconvenient 'free speech' part of the First Amendment."
Um, sorry, he won't be getting MY vote.
"Hmm. Where's Linus' knighthood?"
Isnt Sweeden a monarchy? Maybe he could send his knightship application to the Sweedish King...
What happened to the days when parents took responsibility for what their children played or watched? Or even teaching them that things you see in a game aren't real and that the actions shouldn't be reproduced?
Perhaps if parents spent more time with their children explaining why these things aren't things you practice instead of working so hard to afford that shiny new Lexus SUV than maybe we wouldn't have as many concerns.
I don't ever remember my parents sitting down with me and telling me that I played D&D or that any of the games I played on the Commodore or NES that I shouldn't reenact what I saw or read. Maybe kids were just smarter back then, but I doubt that.
What I find interesting is that you get these people that criticize the games, but yet they never say anything about other forms of entertainment. What about movies? I can think of several movies that glorified violence. Heat, The Godfather, Scarface, Braveheart are just a few. Or books? I don't know of any off hand as I read mostly fantasy, but I'm sure there are plenty out there.
About the only reason I can think they never consider it is cause games are interactive.
but I really don't agree with everyone making such a big deal over GTA. I have a lot of respect for Lieberman, but I really don't like how he skews things. He makes it a point to focus on women (like men's lives are worth less somehow?) being beaten for a reward. But, as others have mentioned, other than the small amount of money on the woman, there is also a risk of being caught by police. So there are drawbacks to doing that action.
I have a respectable job and a Masters in CS. I am (hopefully most would say) an intelligent person who enjoys gaming in my free time. I am a moral person who does my best to do unto others as I would have done to myself. That being said, I have no guilt at all in doing horrible things in the game. Heck, my girl friend is worse. When I play, she tells me to go beat up that person, or try to pick up that hooker. Why? Because it is interesting to see the game and what it allows you to do. I agree with the rating, it is a game for adults. And being an adult, I want to be able to choose how I spend my free time. If GTA is what I choose, it is absolutely none of the government's business to tell me what is appropriate. Their job is to 1) educate parents on game ratings 2) enforce laws on vendors who sell these games to minors. The fact that the game is violent has no effect on my external life....at all. And anyone who claims that they were influenced by the game to do bad things and sues the company should probably not be allowed to have children, they are that stupid. I agree kids can be influenced more by this, that is why parents and the government should do a better job to keep it out of their hands. Seriously though, the kids shooting at cars driving by who claim that they were acting out GTA are liars and morons. No one is claiming GTA encouraged their careers as an ambulance driver or pizza delivery boy. The problem with that situation was bad parenting. Why were the kids allowed to play that game, and even more, why did they have access to guns, and why weren't they taught proper gun safety. The kids and the parents should both serve time for that.
I hope I made some sense. I just want to be able to play good games that have adult content. It isn't because GTA is violent that I enjoy the game. It is because GTA is a great game that allows you to do more than any other gaming engine out there ever has. The violence is appropriate to the plot (you are a criminal) and there is plenty of freedom to be as bad as you want to be. Stick all the violence you want in a new game, make it 10 times worse than GTA, I am not going to buy it because it has violence. All that matters is that it is a good game (i.e. it is fun). So please, politicians, rather than neutering adult content in games, educate and enforce. Other than that, try not to screw up the economy and piss off all our allies.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
What makes the simulated shooting down of 30 innocent people in a video game more socially acceptable?
Basically, we as a society are desensitized to seeing acted out death; that is to say, watching someone die but they don't really die. Movies, tv shows, games, etc, all show people dying in front of us, but we know they aren't really dead...it's just a virtual world or the person is acting.
Sexual crimes, on the other hand, we have not been desensitized to. American society is becoming less sensitive to sex (see Britney, Christina and half the women falling out of their dresses on the Golden Globes), but we aren't comfortable with sex to the point that we'll expose people to it and say "That's alright, it's just fake".
In addition, rape and pedophilia are most definitely considered 'icky'. We don't like seeing, hearing or talking about them. Death is more okay, mostly because it happens in legitimate forms all the time ("Grandpa died of old age yesterday"..."Fluffy died from being hit by that car"). Sexual assault doesn't have to happen, death does, so it doesn't take the same toll on our psyches.
--trb
Once again, it's wrong to virtually beat a virtual woman, yet no one's saying anything about beating up the males.......
Equal beatings for equal pay.
http://www.jastusa.com/ has a bunch of translations.
some of the games are actually quite good and not that simple to finish through all possibilities.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I want a GTA mod where the player is rewarded for attacking Joe Lieberman, pushing him to the ground, kicking him repeatedly and then ultimately killing him, shooting him over and over again.
I'm somewhat desensitized to rape, because I've heard so many stories about women calling sex rape after the fact. IE they feel bad about their decision for some reason, and then claim that they were raped, instead of just accepting their choices. It's disgusting, but it works, men go to jail for it.
Pedophilia still disgusts me, as does child porn. I doubt I'll be playing a game that incorporates either.
I'll agree, we hear a bit about rape, but you can find examples of death on nearly every television channel, any day of the week. Rape is still a taboo subject in our society, though I agree with you that both the act and the lie are disgusting acts.
--trb
but our princess is in another castle.
Don't expect any anwers to this question. A lot of the perverts who play GTA are secretly hoping there will be a rape option soon.
Or a TV show.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
You can choose to kill them with a bat or sword instead of a gun, and the result is appropriately gruesome enough for most normal people to either opt for a cleaner way to do it, or to just not do it altogether. You can be brutal, but there isn't a significant benefit, and it often gets you in trouble with the police--a fact that these people always fail to mention whenever this subject comes up.
...so long as exposure to the video game is not the *first impression* those kids receive.
If that's how kids are initially learning how to make contact with the outside world, then they're almost certainly going to end up the misanthorpic violent psychos Liberman claims to fear. If they've already learned, though, that other people are actually worth something from time to time, then I really don't think these things have quite the impact so many say they do.
Still, his statement was pretty well spoken. He never said anything about forcing them to stop, just that he thought it was a moral imperative for them to do so.
(Oh, and since I don't have any mod points, I just have to give Kudos to whoever mentioned Crazy Taxi. Well argued. *nod*)
--
viqsi - See "vixen"
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed.
Its pretty outrageous that all the condemnations we see of games in the mainstream media are coming out of the mouths of people who haven't played the games themselves. Not only are players not really rewarded for beating women, but there are no distinctions in the game between beating men or women. No distinctions between beating young people or the elderly. Grand Theft Auto is completely equal opportunity in its gratuitous violence.
Joe now seems to have a little more respect for game developers' first ammendment rights, but who the player beats up is really determined by their own free will so his arguement that the game might produce children with no respect for women is pretty dubious. It'd be nice to see some commentators in the media address the deceptive way these games are portrayed by opposition like Lieberman and the Haitian Civil Rights Advocacy groups.
I think one reason to defend the violence in gta is that video games should be held to the same standards as movies and other media. Movies containing scenes of violence equivalent to those in gta are common and there is no uproar when one comes out. Therefore, not allowing these scenes in gta discriminates against video games as a medium. Although there are movies depcited rape and even pedophilia, such scenes are typically controversial and are much less acceptable socially than scenes of violence, so we understand the fact that they will also be considered unacceptable in video games.
As far as I'm concerned, we should keep the "why is our society more accepting of graphic violence than graphic sex" issue separate from the "why are movies allowed to show things that video games aren't" issue. Defending violence in gta is fighting for the former, while defending graphic rape would be fighting on both fronts (much harder).
I'd rather be lucky than good.
I remember a few Law&Order episodes that dealt with a pedophile or a rapist... while you didn't see the actual criminal acts being committed, you heard the cops and lawyers describe everything in detail nonetheless...
Do you suppose that Law&Order caters to a specific audience?
I think that this would make an even better video game.
"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
Quote Liberman: "I call on the entertainment companies - they've got a right to do that, but they have a responsibility not to do it if we want to raise the next generation of our sons to treat women with respect."
Ignoring the question of whether his characterization of the game is accurate, what about my responsibility as a parent to "raise the next generation of our sons to treat women with respect"? To make a judgement about what my children should and should not watch/play? To point out whether certain content is right or wrong? Yes, I realize that working parents may not have a lot of time to spend on these things, but if THAT is the problem, then WHY hunt for a scapegoat?
In my view, the answer is sheer self interest on the part of Uncle Joe. For years and years he's been peddling this tired argument to tell parents that it's not their fault if their kids turn out badly due to their own neglect. A lot more popular than telling your constituents they're doing a bad job parenting. I don't respect Lieberman for this point alone, and hope he doesn't get the nomination - I don't know what I'll do in Nov if he does.
"the entertainment companies...they have a responsibility not to do it if we want to raise the next generation of our sons to treat women with respect."
Excuse me, isn't this the definition of Parenting?
Perhaps it's no coincidence that we don't see Liberman's name in the Headlines all the time.
Dolemite
_____________
Save the World! Use a Quote!
"The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again."
Has he actually ever seen GTA? Beyond someone giving him an outraged briefing?
There is absolutely no difference in reward between assaulting a male and assaulting a female. You can't assault them differently, you don't get more or less money, there is no difference.
Now, were it to only allow you to assault a given gender or race, that'd be one thing. If different, more rewarding attacks became available when attacking a woman, too. If women paid more... if women were easier to assualt yet still had the same reward...
GTA may be amoral, it may even reward immoral actions. Regardless, it has absolutely no specific focus on violence against women. Violence, yes. Violence [in any way] specifically against women, no.
Trying to claim it teaches a specific kind of violence, in order to gain sympathy and votes... At best that's missing the point. At worst...?
"Why is that we can simulate purposeless murder on mass scale like exhibited in GTA and its ilk, but most of us would consider it abhorrent for a game to have a player able to enact even one simulated rape or pedophilic sexual encounter? What makes the simulated shooting down of 30 innocent people in a video game more socially acceptable? "
Because there is no situation at _all_ in which rape or pedophilia are acceptable.
There are _many_ situations in which killing is at least somewhat acceptable (self-defense, executions, war).
Apparently Sen. Lieberman is not at all bothered by the fact that you can beat up and kill male characters in the game too.
This reminds me of something I saw earlier today. I was in a conference room and saw leftover presentation materials from an earlier meeting, on the topic of crime prevention. The statistics included such facts as "82% of society will be victims of violent crime in their lifetime" and "3 out of 4 women will be victims of violent crime in their lifetime".
This irritated me. If the percentage for women is 75% but the overall is 82, then for men it must be nearly 90%. But of course the presentation did not say anything about this; 3 out of 4 women being victims of crime sounds much worse than 9 out of 10 men.
Why can't a society value all human life, instead of taking this attitude as Lieberman has that crime against women is bad, but crime against men would be fine?
One of the reasons that murder is 'okay' in GTA and rape/pedophilia/sexual assualt is not is that while murder is obviously an evil, senseless act, it doesn't happen to that many people. It's easier to dissociate yourself from it.
However, compared to murder, sexual assualt is rampant in our society. I imagine that most people know someone who has been affected by it in one way or another. This makes the issue much more cultural salient and therefore, more offensive.
While the comment itself is true, in context it is being presented as a synopsis of the entire game, ie: this is what the game's about, isn't it horrible? That harms the reputation of the game, the developer, the publisher, and to some extent the millions of perfectly well-balanced people who play the game.
Someone convince me that this isn't libel.
Libel with malice too, it seems.
Nobody is forcing video games down your throat and subjecting you to commit violence. You're the one paying the 50 bucks at gamestop or 7 bucks for a one week rental. Also, its not the game maker/publishers fault for minors obtaining a copy of the game. Nobody blames Warner Brothers or Paramount when minors sneak into rated R movies. You know who people blame when that happens, the movie theater. Enforce ID checking at stores and inform parents that maybe their kids shouldn't play games rated mature. Just my two cents on the matter, I apologize if this ended up as a flame or a rant...
When GTA4 comes out, its going to top the charts again. They should put an NC-17 rating on it, and see how many children end up playing it. And then Rockstar should find a way to sue the parents of those children.
I play violent video games, I listen to Eminem, I'm Muslim, I'll have a black belt in kenpo later this year(hopefullly)- I've never hurt a single person, and god willing, I never will have to.
Something Awful has some reviews of some hentai dating sim games. As it turns out, if you can imagine it, someone has made a game twice as disturbing.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
This isn't about video games. This is about a candidate trying to get women voters to vote for him.
it's because murdering people in games is way more fun than raping people. did you play custer's revenge? that just plain old sucked. BOOORING.
seriously, though, our society has long embraced violence as good, sexuality is bad. hell, just watch an old episode of Popeye. Bluto kisses Olive Oyl. Bad. as a result, Popeye takes him behind the woodshed and beats the ever-living crap out of him. Good. I'll bet if a version of LOTR came out with no violence whatsoever, but just one piece of nudity, It'd been given an R so fast your head would spin. 'cause no, naked is bad. that is why we have clothes. cutting orcs to bits limb by limb is good, that's why we have...wait a minute, why WAS that pg-13? (oh, and I agree, LOTR without fighting would totally suck, no matter how many boobs were in it.)
"You ought to see this one" - Senator Joseph Lieberman
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
What Lieberman forgot to mention in his anti-GTA diatribe was that the player is rewarded for doing the same things to men in the game. In fact, I can think of many games in which the player attacks men. What I'm trying to say that if we can be violent against white males, we should be able to be violent against black males, white females, Asian males, Indian females, and anyone else who is out there. (Except for Haitians, we can't kill them.) If everyone wants to be equal, they have to accept equality - good and bad. Women's equality should mean that women are just attackable in GTA as men. I'll leave you with a quote from PJ O'Rourke: How much fame, money, and power does a woman have to achieve on her own before you can punch her in the face?
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
Except movies do not require an active role by their viewers to carry out such "dark stuff." In a game, you have to kill/rape people (etc.), yourself. No one else will do it for you. This is completely different from watching an NPC in a game commit such an act.
But thanks for assuming all media are created equal and trying to belittle the parent poster. Way to keep the Jihad alive.
True story.
I don't think your example of Unreal Tournament really addresses the issue, here. UT is not a terribly realistic game. The killings in UT seem more like a sport of sorts.
But what about games that are incredibly realistic? In GTA3 many people have pointed out killing random people does not allow one to progress through the game very rapidly. But people still do it and have fun in the process. I'm not saying GTA3 is realistic, but if it was realistic, what would your argument be?
Interesting side issue: what about a game where you kill other players online and it has real consequences for them? Like you could kill each other's characters on The Sims or something. I don't think such a game exists, but it would not be unreasonable to think such a game could exist in the future.
True story.
Graphic violence isn't the main problem from my perspective.
In games, YOU kill people. It is your responsibility. You can't just sit back and watch morons kill people as in a movie, you have to accomplish the task yourself in a good number of games.
Because the player is active in committing whatever atrocities in games (whereas in movies, the viewer only sees others do it) I think the standards for games and movies should be different.
An example would be watching Saving Private Ryan versus developing tactics and strategies within a realistic environment to kill "enemies" (by "enemies" I mean other human beings). The second situation is playing a game and requires much more input from the player than kicking back and laughing at a sniper getting shot in the eye.
True story.
I'd say only self-defense is a good reason to kill another, but that's nor terribly important at the moment (so don't reply about it =) In GTA3, however, the killings are not socially acceptable killings (not even the ones you listed), so I can't really agree with your conclusion on the issue.
True story.
Yes, I'm sure no one has known somebody that died. Makes perfect sense. Glad we're immortal.
True story.
Bullshit. I'm sure back in the days when movies were first being made people had the same arguments. Sure, violent books exist, but you don't actually see it.
I'm sure people made the argument, but that doesn't mean that it had any traction. Books and movies are approximately the same in my mind since you're viewing the acts. If you can explain to me how actually committing the acts in a virtual world is the same as watching someone commit the act in a virtual world, then maybe I'd listen to you.
True story.
Can I get one in metallic glittery near-UV violet? How often will I have to change the batteries?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Hi, I'm the guy you replied to, and that other AC isn't. Anyway...
Once again, because you seem not to get it, no-one is getting killed or raped. It is a fantasy. The fact that it's in some way "active" is a red herring. The real issue is that people like you and Lieberman don't see the difference between fantasy and reality. Or make connections without being able to back them up.
And as for your closing remark, I have nothing but contempt. I assumed no such thing, and I am part of no Jihad. Please keep your straw men to yourself in future.
From my other post: "If you can explain to me how actually committing the acts in a virtual world is the same as watching someone commit the act in a virtual world, then maybe I'd listen to you."
And no, you're not the guy that I replied to, you're just a whiny coward. He was... oh wait. Hey.
True story.
If Lieberman does well in NH, it will be because of right-leaning independents and Republicans voting in the Democratic primary. They like him because (a) he's about as close to their positions as you can be and still call yourself a Democrat and (b) as a mini-Republican, he has no chance of beating Bush. The Democrats, especially in NH, aren't going out to vote for Lieberman.
My prediction: if the Democrats lose the presidential election, he'll do a Zell Miller, whine about how much his party sucks, and retire. To which I say: good riddance.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
In 2000, Lieberman and Gore were in support of the death penalty.
Color me quandarous, but isn't it a bit odd that the merry old Rabbi is against a fictitious killing of women and minorities, but makes no stand against actual killing of minorities, and children?
I'm in the Northeast, so my state's electoral votes will very likely go with whoever gets the Democratic nomination, but if I were in a swing state, I don't think I'd be exercising my voting power for Lieberman.
He is no different than the ultraconservatives who protest against music.
People are afraid to speak against him because they will quickly be labeled as "antisemites" for daring to criticize some asshole who happens to be Jewish.
Don't take it from me, read what another Jew has to say about him.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I think another reason has to do with the way the US glorifies the military; so as a side effect we have to be desensitized to violence. Killing people (or at least threatening to) makes the US stronger and richer, people having sex does not.
echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >>
"I call on the entertainment companies - they've got a right to do that, but they have a responsibility not to do it if we want to raise the next generation of our sons to treat women with respect."
notice how he says "they have a right to do that" whereas he used to say "i want to pass laws to change this." it's interesting how language semantics change when a person is trying to run for president. Can't alienate anyone...
That's nothing, wait 'til you see Grand Theft Auto *III*
Ok so this isn't about GTA - sue me.
This one time I was playing Soldier of Fortune 2, with the gore level up to the max. Just for the heck of it, I was curious in how many ways you could mutilate someone. So I found some woman in a room somewhere, and proceeded to kill and maim her in various ways, reloading and trying again when she died.
After a bit, I started to feel almost physically ill because of all the horrible stuff I was seeing, and I stopped.
Now, after all that, I still play violent games, and kill people in them for fun, but now and again I feel slightly uneasy when I slaughter someone in some horrible way.
So my point is that realistic violence can teach people that violence is bad. Not that I didn't know it before (duh), but because of SoF2, it's all in a slightly sharper focus than before.
And if you'll excuse me now, I have to go kill someone.
What our ancestors would really think, if they were alive today, is: Why is it so dark in here? (Terry Pratchett)
ENOUGH with the ad hominem attacks, please. I'm posting as AC because I'm at home, and I use a different account here. I told you who I was for your information, and I don't deserve your "whiny coward" comment (I wasn't whining and I told you who I am.)
To answer your point, obviously those things are different from each other, but they are both different from committing acts in a real world, or watching the same.
Try reading that comment again. You'll recognise the word "murder". There's a difference between murder and death. Not that I disagree with whatever argument you're putting forward.
Is it a mere coincidence that Senator Lieberman looks like Senator Palpatine?
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
After all, it's the video game developers' responsibility to censor what your children come into contact with, right? I have a relative who has been playing games lika GTA from when he was old enough to pick up a controller and start playing. Contrary to what everyone else told him, his dad said he would be fine. It's been made very clear to him that it's all a game and you never do this stuff in real life. In that respect this kid is lightyears ahead of his peers. Not once has this kid been picked up for executing wrestling moves on school kids, sniping people in the street or kicking old ladies to the curb. Censorship is no substitute for proper parenting.
I think what we should be doing instead is trying to identify why the Grand Theft Auto series has been such a wild success.
-Zeecog
Your forgetting that "free speech" comes with that nasty little thing called "responsibility". Hasn't your teacher ever recited the "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre" line? problem is, no one ever defined exactly where that "responsibility" should kick in, and that, I think, is what Lieberman is addressing.
Okay maybe I'm wrong about this but isn't one of the main principles behind communism the idea that social change must be enforced? How has this trend of thinking become so widespread in today's US government? Good social structure should stem from proper education if you ask me. If you teach a person to think rationally they will in turn behave rationally and understand the place and meaning of games like Grand Theft Auto. Understand how games like that aren't setting exmamples for behavior to follow :P.
-Zeecog
I'm sure that my two cents will get passed over quick, but what the hey.
It seems every other week im in a store that sells games and looking at these clueless and naieve parents trying to pick out a video game for little Johnny's birthday or whatever. I have spent quite a bit of time talking to these people explaining the ratings system.
Keep in mind I'm just another customer! Shouldn't stores be doing this? Every single person I talked to in the last 2 months had NO clue about the ratings system.
One gentleman in particular was buying PS1 games as a gift to a ten year old child from a church organization. He was about to buy a "Finding Nemo" game, "Xmen mutant academy", and some other title I don't recall that was rated M. He stated that he wanted to get non violent games. I told him that the T and M rated games were the rough equivelant of movies rated PG-13 and R. He was shocked. "What do you reccomend?" I said "Look here at the ratings; look for 'E'... and this box will show extra detil about the ratings.
Long story short, consumers are not informed and are not paying attention to the labels.
I think it is kind of funny. The commercials for games are all listing the rating on screen and saying the ratings info out loud. And in my opinion, the ratings information is pretty clearly marked.