A Plea To Game Makers To Act Responsibly?

Thanks to AVault for its editorial discussing the responsibility videogame makers have to use their powers for 'good'. The author expresses concern about games' influence on the young: "My love of digital maiming is tempered by the fact that, at this stage of my life, I can tell right from wrong. I have a fully developed set of ethics. I wouldn't say my nine-year-old nephew has quite had the time to develop these tools." The article ends with the exhortation: "Developers and publishers, hear my plea: start injecting a strong sense of right and wrong into your stories. I don't want you to pull back on the gibs, I don't want anything more than a stronger sense of ethics and perhaps a small dose of moral fiber. Take into account the fact that kids are playing, no matter that they shouldn't be."

Comments

There is a reasonable complaint in there

[*weasel]

Personally, I'm with you:

I emphatically disagree with the editorial in question. I don't think content creators should care about 'acting responsibly'. I think they should tell their story, paint their picture, try to entertain. If they're so irresponsibly bad, the market will tell them so, and show them the door. Social responsibility for content is not something any creator in any media should be concerned with as a matter of course.

However, social responsibility for industry business practices is something that needs more attention and positive action.

The problem with your analogies are that the MPAA's rating system is well understood, and local legislation in the U.S. dictates that magazines like playboy be kept behind the counter. If a 9 year old asks his mother to see an R movie or buy him a magazine from behind the counter at 7-11, she knows (more or less) what to expect - regardless of how that 9 year old might want to convince her otherwise.

What gaming needs is precisely that same thing: an honest attempt at achieving consumer awareness of content rating. It needs a system that actually communicates the sort of content provided by the media, so parents can decide for themselves what they want their children to see and play.

Parents have no idea wtf an 'M' rating means, and the ESRB either can, or chooses to, do nothing against retailers who don't restrict the sales of 'M' titles to minors. Hell, the ESRB doesn't even require retailers to post an education poster that breaks down game ratings for consumers the way the MPAA still does.

If the ESRB is unwilling to even try to educate consumers, or enforce its policies upon retailers - at the very least they could lift the MPAA's system wholesale, replace 'M' with 'R', and let us move on with life.

What the ESRB should do, is take a nod from satellite and cable content ratings, and simply spell out all the themes in question.
If the game has cartoon violence, say so on the box.
If the game has graphic realistic violence, say so on the box.
If the game has brief nudity, say so on the box.
If the game has sexual themes, say so on the box.
If the game deals with substance abuse, say so on the box.

The problem is, game publishers don't want that. They don't want 'R', 'graphic violence', or 'sexual themes' slathered across video game shelves. But why not? Are they afraid that parents might actually parent? Are they intentionally leveraging ingorance to drive game sales? What logic can there be for intentionally obfuscating their rating scheme and doing nothing against those retailers who ignore it?

The longer the ESRB pussy-foots around the problem, the more they make such questionable policies and decisions, the more steam Senator Lieberman builds up - and the closer we come to legislative intervention. And no-one: not the industry, not the consumer, not Senator Lieberman himself - wants that.

All these pressures would evaporate overnight if the ESRB would be honest with its consumers.

Re:There is a reasonable complaint in there

[fireduck]

regarding ESRB and putting specifics on the box:

I think they already do. Or at least some game makers take the additional step to do so. Checking out the ESRB rating for Warcraft III (bottom of page), you'll note it got a T for blood and violence. Checking out the ESRB for Metroid Prime, and it's a T but no mention of specifics. So there are some thorough developers/publishers and some not so thorough developers/publishers. (To Nintendo's credit, when you try to access any game with T or higher rating on their website, a warning will pop letting you know the rating and asking if you want to continue.)

What will happen is Lieberman and other congress-types will hold more hearings and eventually the ESRB will cave and be forced to enforce their ratings both at the publisher side (i.e., more acting like Blizzard) and at the retail side (i.e., don't sell the M games to children). Hopefully, it won't make it fully into the realm of regulation. (both the music and movie industries averted that, no? I know the MPAA rating system is voluntary, and I presume the parental warning stickers on albums were a self-regulated thing, rather than a governmental mandate)

Re:There is a reasonable complaint in there

[ElleyKitten]

Parents have no idea wtf an 'M' rating means, and the ESRB either can, or chooses to, do nothing against retailers who don't restrict the sales of 'M' titles to minors. Hell, the ESRB doesn't even require retailers to post an education poster that breaks down game ratings for consumers the way the MPAA still does.

I don't know why people still don't understand what "Mature" means. Game stores have posters, pamphlets, and employees who know exactly how the rating system works. The ESRB doesn't do anything against stores that sale games to minors because it can't. Though mostly, parents buy the game for their kids because they don't care enough about the ratings rather than the store clerk selling it to the kid.

If the ESRB is unwilling to even try to educate consumers, or enforce its policies upon retailers - at the very least they could lift the MPAA's system wholesale, replace 'M' with 'R', and let us move on with life.

They can't. The MPAA has a copyright on the ratings. Besides, the ESRB ratings are more elaborate and specific.

What the ESRB should do, is take a nod from satellite and cable content ratings, and simply spell out all the themes in question.
If the game has cartoon violence, say so on the box.
If the game has graphic realistic violence, say so on the box.
If the game has brief nudity, say so on the box.
If the game has sexual themes, say so on the box.
If the game deals with substance abuse, say so on the box

They do. Go in a video game store and look at the boxes. The labels are very easy to read.

Every post I ever see about game ratings tell the ESRB to either do what it's already doing, or do what it can't. Please, look at the game ratings before saying what game ratings should do.

Re:I Have A Solution

[Grave]

A parent came in to my store (GameStop) the other day to buy a PS2 and a couple of games, and mentioned wanting to buy GTA: Vice City for his 4 year old son when he had some more money. I told him that was a Mature rated game and not something I'd recommend for a kid of that age. Quite frankly, I don't think I could sell it to someone who had just told me they were going to let their 4-year-old play it. That's just plain wrong, and at that age, there can still be very permanent damage done to the child's sense of right and wrong, especially with a game such as Vice City.

Responsibility for the games played by anyone under 17 is up to the parents. Video game makers put ratings on their games, and if parents refuse to care about it (as so many do), then it's not fair to blame the makers.

Re:I Have A Solution

[Strange Ranger]

> Anything else is a cop-out. Even a very young child is capable of understanding "right" vs. "wrong" and knowing when they are breaking "the rules".

I'm going to need to know this in a few years: How do you explain to your child that it is "Right" for you to own a game that he sometimes sees you playing, but that it is "Wrong" for him to play it?

I agree with 99.9% of what you said. But aren't some areas gray? You don't leave the door wide open when you and your wife have sex and just tell him its wrong for him to look or listen.
That's all I'm saying, I'd like to be able to "close the door" on mature themed games in the same manner, but still abide by everything you said in your excellent post.