Slashdot Mirror
Feedback on Government Regulation of Games
Today, as we're reporting on the House investigation into Rockstar and the Illinois violent games law, Gamasutra is offering up industry responses to a question concerning the role that government should play in games. From the article: "Government legislation would be a disaster. The ESRB rating is a good enough system. I seriously doubt that the number of employees at retail stores selling 'Mature' games to minors is greater than the number of parents who let their children buy the game. If their parents won't let them play it, chances are they have a friend who has it and they play it at their friends' house. If parents want to censor their kids, they need to be the ones to do it; the government is not responsible for raising children.
-Cari Begle, Stardock"
Think it was Gremlin Graphics, or maybe Imagine, who did that one. Despite being largely unmarketed outside of Britain, the game generated uproar in the real congress, with politicians of all sides condemning it and it even leading to US-lobbied-for Scotland Yard investigations of the game's author, Roy Dallstute. To a certain extent, you could understand it, you'd be playing the game and suddenly a message would flash up: "WARNING: CONSENSUS APPROACHING. KILL MORE REPUBLICANS!" if, say, the Republicans had a majority in the other house and were close to one in the one you were playing in. If I was a politician, I'd not be overly happy about that kind of thing being flashed up in front of kids.
The hubbub only really died down when Al Gore, of all people, made some speech where he claimed it was important to recognize free speech even extended to those who oppose democracies or something in a comedic sense, and that if nothing else the game was increasing those who played it's awareness of the US political system and that wasn't a bad thing. Dallstute himself defended the game by arguing that (a) it was a game and (b) while the methods may have been unusual, the notion of politics being a game where passing laws was considered a bad thing was new, and he hoped that message would reach a new generation of politicians.
It remains to be seen what the investigation into Rockstar turns up, but I suspect compared to CW, it'll be a storm in a teacup. We might see ESRB ratings carry some legal weight, but I think it'll be meaningless outside of that.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"While it is beyond doubt that 'parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society,' [Ginsberg v. New York (1968)] the question here is whether the County constitutionally may limit first amendment rights as a means of aiding parental authority. We hold that, under the circumstances presented in this case, it cannot."
-Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County, Missouri.
It's pretty obvious that parents on some scale are refusing to take enough of an active interest in the lives of their children to prevent them from acquiring content that may not be suitable for them (or anyone else for that matter). Rather than policing their children, some people would rather have the government do it. If Bob and Jane won't stop little Billy from getting his hands on a "murder simulator" then someone has to, obviously. The government could say, "No! Raise your own damned kids," but would likely find themselves replaced by a government that says "Sure, we'll raise your kids." Some would argue that holding the parents responsible as a good alternative, but which is easier for a government: Give in to the voting public and stay in office or alienate the voting public and get replaced by someone who will give in anyway?
If anything, the Federal government should stay as far away from this as possible. If California, New York, or Illinois wants to do something about it within their own state, they can go right ahead. What those particular states might want isn't necessarily something that my state might.
If the government did have to do something on a national level, I'd suggest creating an organization to replace the ESRB, which really has little to no authority or power to do anything other than assign a largely inadiquate lable to any game that is given to it for review. I'd like to see three primary elements of a game catagorically rated: violence, profanity, and sexuality. Games like GTA would score quite high in violence because of the ability to kill anyone in almost any manner, moderately high in terms of profanity, especially given the more recent installments, but on the low end in sexuality even with the Hot Coffee mod. Although I've never played Playboy Mansion, I'm sure that while it would score high in sexuality, violence would probably be a big zero.
A rating system that scored games based on individual attributes rather than taking it all into consideration and giving it a broad rating that encompasses several different factors. For instance, as one of the comments in the article mentions: "Finally, the ESRB's rating system has a fatal flaw of not distinguishing between games like Halo (scifi, shooting aliens) and games like GTA (shooting cops, sex with hookers, drugs, etc.). They're both rated M. Since AO is retail suicide, everyone avoids it like the plague and it has become useless."
Having such general ratings really limits an easy method of choosing content that might be suitable for you or your children. An M rated game about bashing someone with profane language and various racial/religous slurs is much different than an M rated game about bashing someone's head in with a claw hammer. you might not mind some raunchy language but violence might sicken you. It's much the same way with movies. A movie can be rated R for excessive violence, language, or sexuality. In a similar fashion you might not mind if your children of age 16 see a movie with a lot of fowl language, but you might not want them to see anything with a lot of sex or violence. A rating system that breaks a game into a few core catagories and gives rating for each catagory would better serve parents and people in deciding which content would be suitable for them or their children.
Two things going on here, very easy to understand. Whether or not you agree with them....that's another story.
1) The U.S. Congress is making an example of Rockstar. In a move that may, ironically enough, herald video games' *true* move to the mainstream, Congress wants to show other publishers how hot it can get if they choose to turn up the heat.
Just like every industry that comes of age, Congress shows the cattle prod to let you know who the true alpha is.
2) They want bullet points for political campaigns. "Senator Y opposed a bill that would protect our children from violent, pornographic video games", all the while sneaking some legislation into the bill making it legal to dump nuclear waste into great Salt Lake. Of course this is an exaggeration, but you get the point.
My observations.
1) If they really gave a shit about our kids there would have been a shitstorm over GTA the FIRST time around. Not the THIRD. Who knows? Maybe Rockstar didn't capitulate to Congressional extortion.
2) What's the deal with sex in our country? If all that the Columbine kids had done was get their girlfriends pregnant or get the clap, it would hardly have made the evening news.
3) This will not affect people over 21 getting the games they want. Period. With the amount of midget-hurling anal porn available for purchase in this country, the genie is already out of the friggin' bottle. So we've got a congressional strong arming (a little later than expected) and a whole lot of grandstanding and hoopla. There's nothing really to see here. Move along.
I can't understand why Congress actually waste time and money on stupid things like this.
Why must everything in this country be cured by legislation? Why can't we as a society take responsibility for our own action and the actions of our children? It's common sense yet nobody, especially the media (for obvious reasons), ever actually says "Hey we don't need you to tell us what we can or can't do".
M$ it's whats for diner!!!!!
This is so stupid it makes me nauseous. Where did these whiney politicians come from and why the f did we put them there?
Sometimes stupidity humors me but now its getting ridiculous.
It just reminds me of the South Park movie. "Violence is ok, as long as they don't use any naughty words!!"
Ultimately, this reminds me of a friend I had in college. She grew up in a strict home. She didn't care about video games, so her parents never touched that one, but she did like sweets, which her parents limited to a notch above ZERO. So of course she would take any opportunity to eat some at a friends house, because their parents were "down with sweets".
Fast forward to college, when she didn't live under mommy and daddy's roof. She got fat. Not freshman 15, we're talking 30-40 lbs. No, not booze, CANDY. She made meals of the stuff, because it was so taboo in her house and now she was free! Keeping sweets from her only made her want it more. If had been exposed and educated on the cow-like effects caused by twinkies and twix, maybe she would be hot again. sadly, not the case.
I hate to sound like a hippie, and I mean HATE to, but seriously education is the answer here. That and taking a moment of parents sweet, precious time to PAY ATTENTION TO THEIR KIDS. I played any and every damn game I could get my hands on, violent or not. My parents didn't care, because they made sure I understood the difference between video games and reality (its not too far fetched...). I grew up around a buttload of guns too, my dad being a fan of hunting, and I've yet to be violent, let alone shoot someone, because I know guns == DANGA'!
my parents raised me, not let the government do it. And when I screwed up, I, me, the perpetrator, suffered the consequences. Not the Publisher/Developer of PAPER BOY, and certainly not Canada. Although Canada IS to blame for their silly looking "Mounties".......what a name.
i don't care
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=158
Okay, so we've heard from Hillary Clinton, and the head of the ESRB, and various representatives, but nothing from the people this impacts. I have yet to see an article titled "Parent complains that she didn't know game about hit men killing prostitutes also included sex."
As far as I know, this law would imapct parents. But the parents aren't complaining. So why is anyone wasting their time passing laws about it? If the constituents aren't interested, why bother? What's the drive?
These special interest Congressional inquiries are a complete and total waste of American Tax Dollars. Let's compare it with steroid use in baseball. Both are internal issues in a self-regulated system. Both will change their policies to match the perceived societal "norm." Both fixed the problem to the best of their abilities prior to inquiry. There was/will be no new information uncovered by this inquiry. Finally, the "problem" is so vast, it will never be fixed.
In the case of video games, unintentional Easter Eggs will remain, people will cheat, and people will mod. What is really the key to this issue is that the difference in ratings between M and AO is arbitrary.
I understand where folks are coming from with the slippery slope aspect of this, but I really think that we would be much better served to focus on protecting speech that is a bit more ... errm... substantial than gory video games.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I draw the line at his 14yo sister wanting Britanny's Dance Beat or DDR. _Those_ are cruel and unusual :)
So, just pass a law called The Parental Responsibility Act :
Any parent who allows his/her child to purchase an age-inappropriate game and later complains to the authorities or brings suit against the publisher shall be required to
- attend 3 government-sponsored parenting classes within 1
year or pay a $3,000US fine,
- work 100 hours in community service, and
- play the game for 20 hours
For subsequent offenses, the above penalties will apply plus the following:Any parent who allows his/her child to view any age-inappropriate content on the internets and later complains to the authorities or brings suit against the publisher shall be required to
- Obtain A++ certification (or government-approved
equivallent) within 1 year or pay a $2,000US fine, and
- attend 2 government-sponsored parenting classes within 1
year or pay a $2,000US fine, and
- surf for porn for 12 hours with only a 15 minute break
every 3 hours
Second offense will be identical to the first. The third offense will result inYeah, right.
The ESRB has done a fine job so far. However, bland "T for teen" or "M for Mature" ratings can only convey so much. Even the more specific stuff, such as "suggestive themes" or "nudity" doesn't really tell parents that much. For example, "God of War" was rated M for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Sexual Themes, Nudity, and Strong Language. (game site here).
The violence primarily consists of killing monsters and an occasional civilian in an extrememly brutal way. (One boss dies from being impaled through the roof of the mouth, with the lethal stake coming out the beast's eye socket). So the violence and blood and gore count is dead on. But the nudity merely consists of a few bare breasts (mainly in a few cutscenes), some on female civilians, others on female monsters. All this is done in a natural context; no strippers, no hookers, just a style-of-the-time kind of effect. So its there, but not emphasized. As for "Suggestive Themes" there is a 30-second sex minigame (with the bare-breasted female civilians) amounting to a few moans and an offscreen bouncing bed. I have no idea where the strong language came from. There is no profanity (aside from Hell and Damned, both used in a literal sense). There are some death-threats and battle taunts ("This city will be your grave"; "I have taught you many ways to kill a mortal"), but little other than that. The thematic elements are definitely not for children, though i can't go into that without spoiling some plot twists.
The problem with the characterization given by the ERSB rating is that the M definitely came from the violence, not the nudity. However, without playing the game, one would look at the rating and think "hmm . . . intense violence, nudity AND suggestive themes... must be one of those rape-and-pillage games" instead of a more accurate "ultra-violent, brutal monster bashing with some bare breasts and a tiny sex scene on the side."
So how do we get parents to actually know what they're getting before they buy it? Fewer buzzwords, more specifics. Let them know that the brutal violence is throughout the game and far outweighs the sex. Let them know exactly why the game was given the specific rating. Let them know the full extent of all buzzwords used by the rating.
My rating would go something like this: Rated M for intense violence directed primarily at monsters. There is extensive in-game as well as cutscene bloodshed and gore. There are also cutscenes and in-game sequences containing bare-breasted women in a non-sexual context. There is also a brief, implied scene of consensual sex between adults. This scene is heard but not seen. There are also some plot twists involving brutal violence not appropriate for children. The language is coarse but not profane.
On a side note, I would say that it is the parent's job to check up on the stuff their kids play, but that has been done to death. Also, the US really needs to get over its Puritan heritage and realize that sex between two consenting adults is not necessarily a bad thing. And this fixation with topless women is only going to end up badly . . . but again, thats another rant for another day.
With so many ppl on
I can think about 50 things that are more important than sex in video games.
High gas prices and email spam being two of them.
And then there are those life threatening war related things such as finding WMD's and Osama Bin Laden or just making making a big fuss on why on earth we didn't find either instead of spending all this effort into complaining about sex in a video game.
It's like complaining that the radio is too risque after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. To sum it up bluntly:
FOR F***S SAKE PEOPLE WE ARE AT WAR!!! PEOPLE ARE DYING ON A DAILY BASIS AND ALL YOU CAN THINK ABOUT IS SEX IN A VIDEO GAME!
So... Umm... Yeah... I should write a letter to Hillary, because I would like to see a woman in the Whitehouse, but I think she needs to talk about important issues instead of things like this.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
last I heard other then porn. they dont. so why should video games as well?
I got in trouble with mom because our preteen kids were playing Halo and Halo2.
The funny part is she bought both of them. Then she listened to the dialog and watched some game play and complained as if it was my fault they had a somewhat inappropriate game. All I could is point to the big M on the cover and ask her why she thought I didn't get it for them--because she'd be upset with me.
Legal enforcement of ratings won't change much, parents will still buy M rated games for kids, and then complain that they had to go buy it for them, and then complain the content was inappropriate...
So, I work for a big name video game specialty retailer, let's just call it... "GameShop" >.>; . I'm the store's assistant manager. And I just have to tell you, that Yeah, this really is the parents fault. My management team and myself insist that EVERY game sold with an 'M' rating HAS to have a parent/guardian present and we tell them WHY the game is rated 'M', and they MUST approve. The problem is that parents just don't seem to care to listen to us. Parents in general don't seem to care if there kids play violent games. I had an experience a couple weeks ago with an older lady and her, let's call it 12 year old or so, son who wanted to buy GTA:SA before it got pulled. My employee was starting off reading the ESRB Descriptors on the back of the box, and he gets through all of the violence and drugs and everything and finally gets to "Mature Sexual Themes" and suddenly her faces goes from one of "I want the f*** out of here..." to just outrage, yelling "SEX!? You didn't say anything about SEX!" and she became offended with us for carrying game with sexual content, saying "these games are for children, they shouldn't have SEX IN THEM!" (Gotta love that double-standard. Shooting cops is good for kids, but SEX!?)
/. awhile ago about the average gamer being some 28 years old? More mature games are made because there are more mature gamers. It's up to the parents to distinguish what is good and bad for their kid. Not legislature, and CERTAINLY not Retail employee's (IMHO). I've heard far too many stories from parents saying "The guy at Toys R Us said this would be good for my 10 year old" while holding GTA:SA. Face it, the average teenager that a "big box" retail outlet hires is not going to be professional enough to distinguish what is good for kids and what they like themselves. Don't get me wrong, I don't like my job or my company for internal politics, but I am proud that such a large company is trying to go the extra mile we are to insure that kids are NOT getting these kinds of games from us. It's just seems so self-defeating when they can just cross the street to Toys R Us or Wal-Mart and get them there.
The general feedback I get from parents in my area is that they don't care if they're younger children are playing games like GTA or Manhunt. Yanno. As long as there isn't sex. I think the biggest misconception that still fogs parents and legislature's perception is that "Video Games are made for Kids", but I believe I read an article here on
So it seems to me, as I bring my rambling and whining to a close, that two things need to happen: Parents need to become more educated towards what their kids are playing, including how the ESRB system works and more retailers need to hold their employees accountable for selling games to Minors.