Slashdot Mirror
The 64% Violent Pacman
DreamWinkle writes "During the recent Senate hearings on video game violence, one expert claimed that the ESRB underrated violent games. They went on to say that Pacman was 64% violent. To some, this means you shouldn't play Pacman; to others, it highlights what's wrong with Senate hearings. Whether a game is violent or not depends on how you classify violence, and the ESRB has the job of doing just that. They're not regulated by the government, they let the game makers recommend their own ratings, and don't play every game they rate. Is the ESRB to be trusted?"
Saying Packman is "64% violet" is like saying the meaning of life is "42".
I'll say Pac-Man's violent. Have you ever seen what he does to those poor ghosts? Eats 'em and leaves nothing but the eyes. Gruesome stuff, man.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Of course it's violent. Power pellets have feelings too!
"...US Government declares eating violent."
Where the hell did that number come from?
...G rated movies that are more violent than pacman...what was this guy smoking? This definetly highlights what's wrong with the Senate.
If they're using int for that number, I suspect that games like GTA come in with a rather nice ranking, somewhere around -17%...
What happened to the other 44%? Is that just the start and hi-score screens?
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
Obviously, the context-free statement that Pac-Man is "64% violent" is pretty silly. I doubt you can really measure a game's violence that way. "Percent" implies certain mathematical properties, like Pac-Man is exactly twice as violent as a 32% violent game, or that each individual thing that contributes a given number of percentage points is equally violent, and perhaps most entertainingly, that it is impossible for a game to be more than slightly over 50% more violent than Pac-Man. (Bet you didn't know that Grand Theft Auto is only ~50% more violent than Pac-Man!)
Numbers should not be assigned to fundamentally non-numeric entities, that way lies a number of cognitive and rhetorical traps.
But I am curious, does anyone have more information on where that number may have come from precisely, however flawed it may be? Ideally, some form of "violence checklist", where you check off various attributes of the game and add up the "score".
I'm sure it will allow us to all-the-more effectively collectively mock the number, but hey, who knows, maybe the list will have some redeeming value.
Rating systems are completely unecessary attempts to circumvent the 1st amendment. The idea that the government (or even industry) is responsible for keeping kids away from "adult" material is laughable. Only one group of people is responsible for that: the children's caretakers, be that parents at home, teacher's at school, whoever is watching over the children at any given time. The legal guardians are responsible for gradually teaching the kids what's what.
When they are old enough not to be cared for they are old enough (and should have been taught enough) to decide what to watch and play for themselves. Movies theatres and retail stores are not needed in the process.
Haiku for you!
Baseball -- People whack the heck out of an innocent little ball with a large wooden club.
Football -- People kick the heck out of an innocent ball.
American Football -- Two teams blitz, bomb, and violently tackle each other.
Hockey -- Nuff said.
Basketball -- People bounce an innocent ball repeatedly against a hard floor.
Pong Pong -- People whack a very small ball back and forth.
Golf -- People whack a very small ball, often wounding it and/or sending it into water/sand.
They all sound unacceptable violent to me...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
You know hot coffee wasn't really so bad. Granted, it shouldn't have been in the game, but it was a pretty convoluted hack to get to it, and it wasn't really as big a step to take from a game about murdering hookers after you slept with them.
But back to topic. The ESRB rates games erratically, its hard to quantify dynamic content simply based on what behaviors and actions you perform in a game. Some game companies will submit many 'versions' to the ESRB just to get one thats rated at what they want it to be. The system is screwed up, but somehow manages to self regulate well 99% of the time.
The main reason for this is because game companies realize that certain markets want violent games, and certain ones don't. You could try to get GTA3 rated as 'early adolecent', and heck, it might work, but why would you? Theres no profit in it, theres no motivation, there is no bucket of cold hard cash at the end of that tunnel.
I really want to know the procedure used to put a number to Pacman's "violence." Mario is probably up in the 80% region.
He jumps on creatures to kill them.
Kicks most likely endangered turtles
Throws fire at living creatures
In Mario 64, he punches and kicks poor, innocent animals and bombs
- Incites random attacks on royalty.
- Kill moles and attempts to block their homes.
- Chases and attacks monkies.
Your ad here.
I'm not kidding around here, I believe I was in 6th grade. Another thing I remember about 6th grade was live white mice being fed to the class snake for the edification of our young minds.
So, Pac-Man eating Ghosts==Evil and Wrong
Real Snake eating Real Mice==Edumacational.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Actually, I thought he was 100% yellow.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Only one group of people is responsible for that: the children's caretakers...
Nice. Well, as the "caretaker" of two children I find rating systems like the ESRB essential. Exactly how do you expect me to keep adult material from children if I can't determine which material is "adult"?
Do you expect me to purchase a game and play it through before I give it to my children?
Clear, Dark Skies
The remaining 36% percent has been determined to consist of:
15.08% squeely beeps
18.00% necrophagy
27.71% drugs
24.02% gender ambiguity
10.62% spin-offs
4.08% blue period
0.57% unknown... scratch that... tar
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Actually, the term Senate appears exactly once in this article. It doesn't seem to highlight anything about Senate hearings, but about what the ESRB actually does. Which is to say not much. Which is exactly what I "trust" them to do.
But I'm 90% sure that 75% of statistics are made up on the spot...mostly...
Yeah. That will work. Because Gamespot always quantifies games by whether or not they contain foul language, or nudity, or way to much blood for a 7 year old, or anything else.
Or you could read all the reviews and note that the ESRB rated the game "T" for language.
Clear, Dark Skies
I only play games with a violence rating of 65% or higher.
Anyway, congress should really just let video games be, and let the ESRB and parents do their jobs.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
This is the exact same thing as the MPAA. I prefer industry ratings to government ratings, but the secrecy and lack of accountability of some of these organizations makes me nervous. Go watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"
they don't play every game they rate? !??
My understanding is that they don't play any game they rate.
Have things changed? Their description seems a little off. I'll highlight what they seem to get wrong in the quote from the article below.
Instead of having members of the ESRB sit down and play the games in order to decide a rating, developers must submit a written report of everything the game includes. They must also compile a video that is representative of the content a gamer will find in the game when they purchase it at the store. Additionally, the game is played by a number of people who are unaffiliated to the game industry, and who then recommend the game's rating. All three elements, as well as others, are taken into consideration when the rating is assigned.
For the first highlight, it's a little misleading, "representative of the content a gamer will find" makes it sound like a representitive cross-section of the content. So, for a game like Animal Crossing you would expect hours of gathering fruit and catching fish. But actually the footage is of selected acts and elements (there is a list) and of those acts or elements carried out the the greatest degree present anywhere in the game. So, for Animal Crossing you would have footage of the character getting bitten by Tarantulas and Scorpions, showing the greatest degree of violence in the game.
They make a point of saying that they don't care about the context of the event, because a parent glancing over at the screen won't care either.
This system is why Rockstar is liable in the eyes of the ESRB for not disclosing the content on the disc - they shipped those animation paths, models,et al. They provided footage that was supposed to show the greatest degree of sexuality on the disc and it was probably just kissing and a bouncing car. It doesn't matter that it required a hack to access because the ESRB doesn't care how the shipped content is played, they just care about the content.
For the second point, "the game is played by a number of people who are unaffiliated to the game industry" -- maybe I just don't remember the process correctly and maybe it's changed, but I don't think that you ever send the ESRB actual code. After all, a lot of games recieve their ratings before they're complete.
It should be pointed out that whether or not the ESRB can be trusted (which should be up to each of us to decide, and there's nothing wrong with providing facts which could help individuals decide precisely this) is unrelated to what we should do about it. In particular, showing that the ESRB is not trustworthy in the eyes of some should not lead anyone to declare that the only solution is government regulation. If you don't trust their opinion of games, find someone you do trust. If you can't find someone, be that someone and find a way to make money at it (or do it out of charity, if that's your thing.) ESRB is effectively a rating/review organization, a lot like game-review magazines. They get their logo, and their opinion, printed on most games ... but other similar organizations could do the same if they tried. If ESRB falls out of favor, game companies will no longer seek their opinion, and will no longer print it on their boxes. ESRB will no longer have funding, will go out of business, and will get replaced with someone people trust and whose logo and rating game companies will seek out -- just as with any other marketplace service provider. This all makes sense, it's all fine. If we want regulation, fine, but it should be a decision unrelated to the trust we, on average, place in the current most-obvious service provider.
It's a sad day that the King of American Macho Violence, Duke Nukem, is cast from this throne to be replaced by a pill-popping, ghost-seeing Japanese pizza missing a quarter-slice. Only if Duke Nukem Forever was released would things turn around for our beloved hero.
...Then Pacman is a particuarly horrbile game and I'm quite conent with it being targeted like this. Pacman encourages lots of destructive behavior, such as:
Running around in a dark room with a blacklight taking pills and mumbling "waka waka"
Taking a couple of larger, different pills, so powerful that you begin to eat people alive, yet inexplicably spit the eyes back out
Celebrating the deaths of those around you by listening to electronic music, presumably still under the effects of the pills.
It's pretty clear that Pacman could lead this entire country, nay the entire world, to extensive drug use, poor taste in music, and cannibalism unless we legislate against it.
Hell, The Guy Game should be rated E, since there's no violence in that!
It is impossible to create a mathematical model to quantify any creative work. What may work for one movie won't work for another. What will work for a coffee blend won't work for a painting. What will work for an abstract painting won't work for a impressionist painting.
A rating isn't anything based in fact or science. Any rating, including those for movies, games, 4 starts, 5 stars, etc. isn't based in math and science, they are based on opinion and criteria deemed important for the medium.
The MPAA and ESRB are just a bunch of critics who happen to use an established set of criteria to establish a somewhat consistent system of judging the content.
As with any critic, you have to be in an educated consumer. Not everyone agrees with Ebert and Roper, but Ebert and Roper have a track record that you can depend on which allows you to make decisions based on their opinions. The same can be said for the MPAA and ESRB. Content is reviewed and critiqued based on the board's criteria for material appropriate to age group X, Y, and Z.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Violence is not something that can be quantified.
At least thats how most game stores see it when they make a sale, especially when a 9 year old boy comes up with three twenty dollar bills.
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
Math is much more than 64% violent. The victims are everywhere.
I can't tell you how much more. The ends don't justify the means and it would be unconscionable.
Bah, if Pacman really effected us, by now we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, eating pills, & listening to repetitive electronic music.
They _would_ say that it is 100% violent but they won't come out of hiding until the caffeinated kid with the huge arms leaves the cabinet.
It's okay. I was looking for the "Sad" modifier, but I couldn't find it.
int violenceRating = Math.random()*51+50; No modern game is below 50%
"65% of the population will believe any quote as long as the name that accompanies it is held in high regard." -Albert Einstein
It has to be said:
"Video games don't affect kids. I mean if Pac-man affected us as kids,
we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching magic pills and
listenining to repetitive electronic music."
I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego
you're opposed to the movie rating system, as well? Kids should be allowed to wander into porn theaters because it's their parents' fault for letting them?
Clear, Dark Skies
I like that. Retro-active parenting.
You don't know much about developmental psychology, do you?
Here's a hint: "explaining" to a 7 year old that the graphic violence they just saw is inappropriate for them isn't going to keep them from having nightmares about it.
Clear, Dark Skies
This kind of reminds me the hearings about comics in the 50s.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
64% jerks.
(Just my 64% of 0.03125 cents)
Read my Sig to find out all the answers to your questions on this topic.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Don't mod this funny, just RTFA.
I was reading Gameinformer magazine and they talked about how video games introduced into prisons has actually helped decrease "unruly incidents" in Oregon's penal system.
Can I bum a sig?
So... same last name, apparently same completely retarded view of video game violence. Is this a a family member or is there just something inherently wrong with people who have the last name Thompson?
Additionally, when will the media stop referenceing hot coffee? While rockstar took a retarded route in defending themselves initially, the fact is, while the code to show it existed in the game it took a 3rd party modification to make it actually accessible. Why is that so goddamned hard to understand?
Your basic Arachnid warrior isn't too smart, but you can blow off a limb, and it's still 86 percent combat effective.
[url=http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/viewtopic. php?p=23797469#23797469Check it out.[/url]
Pac-Man is a little extreme - or at least steeped in the drug culture:
% 20man
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0x1M0lJgbC0&search=pac
It appears they are talking pac-man world according to the pdf here http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/images/e-gamelista lpha.pdf
Maybe he can throw stuff or jump on the ghosts or something in this version? Has anyone played it to see if maybe we're missing something? I hope... maybe...
Googling define:catharsis gives "The release of tension and anxiety by recounting and/or acting out past experience," from www.dphilpotlaw.com and "The emotional reenactment in thought or symbolic form of a painful experience that brings relief of the distress caused by the original experience," from www.hec.ohio-state.edu.
I find that playing violent games does not, and has not, lead to me being a more violent person. I also find that playing games like Gauntlet, Lego Star Wars, Full Throttle, and others with my six year old daughter does not lead her to conclude that violence is the answer to her problems. In fact, the net result of playing these violent games is that we have fun and entertain ourselves.
Looking at the #1 "Most Violent Game" per this cited study, I was wondering what would compel a person to play something like "Nuclear Strike 64". I came up with two reasons (there are probably more). 1) someone wanted to enjoy breaking things down a little via harmless video images, or 2) someone wanted to practice making nuclear strikes on someone and this was the best simulation they could come up with.
Yes, those are facetious, but none of the games listed propose to be acts of realism and that's very obvious in the same way that Bugs Bunny was simply funny because it was a cartoon. That is in contrast to prime time television that is reality-based drama or documentary where violence is acted out and manipulated as a form of entertainment. Not only is violence displayed outright but television also provokes an emotional longing for it by leaving shows with cliff-hangers and tension.
As an adult, I can view television with context and objectivity. Children who are still developing emotionally can be dramatically affected from viewing those sorts of images much more so than by interacting with a game or cartoon. I am much more concerned with exposing my daughter to prime time drama television than I am to cartoons and/or video games like the ones cited in the research.
p.s. Bear in mind that I would NOT arbitrarily expose her to GTA or realistic military games either.
That pixel is actually a poorly rendered human head.
Let's for^h^h^hallow the children to play the Ungame non-stop, where there is no killing and no greed from competition and no one loses. They may never learn any skills, but they at least will never kill anyone as a result.
Pacman is 64% violent. Just like Donkey Kong is 73% voilent, and Mario is only 26% violent. It amazing watching how little the government, and these so-called experts know. Pacman for the win.
RNC headquarters - "our war in iraq is collapsing, we didnt find wmds, half our party is under suspicion of felony criminal acts, domestic policy is falling apart, and jobs are being shipped overseas at record rates!, what do we do".. *5 minutes later* "LOOK PUBLIC! OVER THERE! VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES!"
DNC headquaters - "our opposition is in real political trouble but we still cant get votes because we refuse to take a firm position and are weak like wet noodles!" *5 minutes later* "LOOK PUBLIC! OVER THERE! VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES!"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Don't you see? We have finally developed a precise, specific way of rating games! No more of those 'fuzzy' ratings. Now you can know at a glance exactly how violent a game is- ANY game! If the same process was used for other factors, it would only be better. Here's an example to use as a guide: Resident Evil 4 -- 71% Violent 16% Interaction With Shady Unexplained Weapons Dealer 8% Drug Use 5% Typewriter Use -- Half-Life Episode One -- 68% Violent 24.5% Dark 6% Crawling in Air Ducts 1.5% Sexually Suggestive -- Pac-Man (revised) -- 50% Violent 25% Overeating 15% Scary Ghosts 10% Floating Fruit --
You live and learn. At least, you live.
Tastes like stale marshmallows!
Thank you, I'm here all week.
For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
"We noted significant differences in the amount of violence among video game genres. All of the video games played in the action (n=22), adventure (n=3), fighting (n=2), shooting (n=1), strategy (n=1), and simulation (n=1) genres contained violence, while only 2 of 12 sports games (17%) included violence not associated with normal play in a sports game."
As we all know, violence and sports go hand in hand. And yet these researchers are saying that playing virtual hockey is less violent than virtual pac-man? It always bugged me that people are worried that video games might make their child violent, but don't worry about football making their children violent. How many convicted felons have played for the NFL? How often is some current NFL player being charged with assault or rape? Seems to happen every week. And, somehow, these guys are seen as heroes by most of America, while 'gamers' are seen as unstable and violent.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
We, the People for the Protection of Pellets have struck the first blow. Now our oppressor, who calls himself Pacman will feel the wraith of the government. No longer will our pellets be required to get help from ghosts to stop the evil yellow menace from attacking them. No longer will we have to worry about the "Power Pellet" who have betrayed us. All we ask is freedom for our white brethren!
DEATH TO THE HUNGRY ONE!
Maybe they should file Ms Pacman under Porn because she likes to swallow ...
I happen to know a lot about Senate hearings. They are a series of connected tubes, and when you get 3 or 4 violent video games moving through these tubes, they get clogged up. Just last week, my staff sent me a Senate Hearing, and it took a whole day to get there.
From this movie trailer:
e d&search=pac%20man
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZxOaOyXkrkg&mode=relat
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
"...that E-rated video games contain material that may be disturbing to young viewers or could be dangerous if imitated."
I will be sure to sit down with my children and inform them to NEVER imitate a garden gnome with a projectile-shooting device attacking gigantic centipedes. I will tell them that being an Italian plumber with the capacity to shoot fire is unacceptable. Oh yes, and never, EVER, will I expect to see them trying something so vile as eating pills that they find laying out on the floor.
Actually, that last one might be a good thing to talk to them about...
Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.
Pac-Man's mouth is his only weapon, and it alternates between 25% open and 0% open, for an average of 12.5% open-mouthed violence.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
Does it mean anything at all? To me it just sounds as if they are saying: hey, violence is not THAT bad. Even Pacman rates 64%. Police brutality is at 57% so it should be OK.
Or is this just another 'watch out for the children'-syndrome?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
In Australia no game can be sold, previewed or displayed for public viewing without first being rated by the Office of Film and Literature. It's interesting because from the article "The Rating Board is a non-profit organization and has no legal authority to force game developers to submit their games for rating.".
The OFLC on the otherhand does have the legal authority to prevent games and movies being shown, indeed they prevented Kent Park from being shown in public theatres. I'm not sure if this makes the ratings more or less important though.
I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
Hmmmmm, by their definition Wack-A-Mole is 100% violent. That's pretty screwed up.
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
If Pacman is violent then Tidly-Winks is downright evil. You can use Tidly-Winks as ballistic missiles or mortars to destory the enemy. I can see it now:
Player one: I'm getting into 10.
Player two: I'll knock you off 10 with my disk.
Player one: Oh yea, I'll use two disk knock you out.
Player two: &#&%&, I'll use all of my disk to blow off the board.
Pacman is one of most benign video games I ever seen except for Pong.
Here's a little PDF about obscenity and the 1st amendment.
Since it would be insane to punish you for crimes against virtual characters (or give you a medal for saving the universe), I'm guessing that they want to (based on flimsy morals) mark areas in the multidimensional space that is sex, violence, age (and maybe other dimensions asewll) as being unethical and likely to cause people to become corruped and comitt real-world crimes. Playing Carmageddon? You'll end up running people over with your car. Reading Pokémon shota? You'll end up molesting young boys. Playing Pacman? You'll end up eating pills and attacking your neighbour's sheets that were hung out to dry. Of course, sex is getting a special treatment here as being more likely to instigate real-world crimes. For some people sex means shoes though, yeah... little tight leather shoes that you just want to polish and polish and polish until they're all hot and shiny... then you might want to read some shoe fanfics to prepare for some serious shoe obducting. Gotta catch ém all!
The Chair Corp. comic(*00-12)
From the study:
"The medical and public health communities should play an active role in informing parents about the content of video games."
uh, no, they shouldn't. They should inform parents about the proven effects of violent video games on their children, that is to say, none...
Well, if pacman is 64% violent, then I guess supaplex must get at least 85% with the advanced graphics
Just under age breasts...
...that the US government 150% violant.
Not to mention the army made a game more violant then BF2.
Great Intellect...
DO-di-do-do! http://orangetide.com/temp/pacman/intro.mp33 3 .mp3
do-do-do-do do-do-da.. http://orangetide.com/temp/pacman/intermission.mp
Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo... http://orangetide.com/temp/pacman/siren%20slow%20
okay. maybe the last one isn't music.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I'm not sure what it was called, but it made a lot more sense to me - what the heck is "Mature" supposed to mean? - but seemed to get killed off really quickly.
Elect Ned lamont so we dont have to hear this Liberman crap anymore.
Good one.
Pac-Man is a metaphor. The Pac-Man, see, he's a thief. He's going around a warehouse stealing things. Things worth ten points each. The ghosts, see, they're the cops. They're trying to catch Pac-Man, and if they catch him three times, he goes to the joint for life, game over, man. So what does Pac-Man do? He kills the cops. The game REWARDS you for killing cops. That's just sick, man. 64% is way off the mark.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
Where did all the murders, serial killers, and other violent criminals come from before video games and movies?
First, thanks for all the parenting advice. From the tone of it, I'm certain you don't have any.
Second, the next time I'm playing Car Wars, Munchkin or Ghost Recon with my son, or Crash, Jak, Ratchet or Sly with my daughter, I'll be sure to reflect on how you think parents have no idea what role playing, or video games are actually about - and that it's people like you who think that putting a sticker on a box that says "Teen" is censorship, while a sticker on a box of legos that says "not for 3 and under" is merely a safety warning.
By the way - I began playing D&D with the first edition.
Clear, Dark Skies
Found that "study" to be 99% ludicrous and 100% waste of my time.
Thats some extreme cannibalism.
The biggest problem I have with the ESRB is that the ratings can be incredibly vague. Seeing how "T" technically covers everyone from 9 to 17, "T" doesn't tell me much except to check the game out before letting my son play it. Even some "M" games are relatively tame, while giving a game like "Darkwatch" a "T" is really pushing the line.
Clear, Dark Skies
You're absolutely right.
Real death is very different from glamorized game/tv/movie death.
Which is exactly the reason I let my daughter get a hamster.
And, yeah, I'm serious.
Clear, Dark Skies
I actually prefer the system they use with toys "3 and under", "8 to 14" and so on.
My littlest badly wanted a copy of Brain Age because she heard so much about it, and she assumed she could play it because it was rated "E" - but there aren't many 3rd graders who can do sudoku puzzles, and I know she's not one of them...
Clear, Dark Skies
Except for the part about what little susie has heard - she ain't heard it in our house.
The reasons for the rataings (that they put under the big letter) are more useful to me than the letter itself. The "T" rating is almost useless, because it goes from "saturday morning cartoon violence" to "the video game equivalent of an R rated movie".
Clear, Dark Skies
my other reply.
Please give special attention to the subject line.
Clear, Dark Skies
I'm still gaping over the use of "caretaker" to describe a parent or guardian. I have this image of children neatly planted in little rows, while Charlie the Caretaker comes by and waters them once a day.
Clear, Dark Skies
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
See, I don't just have to worry about games I give my kids (rarely) or that they buy with their allowances (frequently) - I also have to worry about games that gramma buys them, and uncle joe who heard that gta was cool, and so on.
The ratings at least provide computer illiterate gramma with clue that maybe Resident Evil isn't an appropriate choice for a 7 year old.
Clear, Dark Skies
I pulled a 24 hour stint playing Final Fantasy X-2 before I was sure my son really didn't want to play a game where you had to dress girls up in just the right outfit for the big boss fight...
Clear, Dark Skies
I'm happy with the current ESRB system - unlike the guy I was responding to, who stated that putting a rating on a game box is censorship.
Clear, Dark Skies
In public schools 64% is barely an F. Obviously pacman fails at being violent. Case closed, go home.
I guess it's back to playing "Math and grammar with Ted Bundy", none of that horrid pixel-massacre for me, no sir!
I'm just waiting for the day "Beep!" becomes an official curseword, what will poor America do to safeguard the innocent ears of it's youth then?
It'll probably end up replacing several curse-words, making America one big orgy of people saying "beep!" and teabagging each other since everybody keeps misunderstanding the different dialects of "Beep!".
And the start of this apocalyptic event will be the day when Americans wake up to hear their phones basically telling them to "go fuck yourself" and their doorbells yelling "SHIIIIIT!" everytime somebody rings the door.
This is a prime example of how politics works when it comes to "studies" and "statistical data". If you held 100 studies and 99 of them said Pacman was a harmless game, and one kook with a phd said it was violent, which study do you think a government organization is going to pick?
Answer: whichever one supports there agenda. There is an active political group, which includes Hillary Clinton, whose goal is to legislate video games to heck and back again. Like in all political moves, they are only going to pick out studies that back up their arguements whether they are legitimate or not. And why do these studies make news when the other ones do not? Simple, the other studies are, what we call in the non-political world, "logical" and "common sense". So why report on news that everyone knows to be true? It's like fielding a news story saying "sugar is sweet".
So, when a political group latches on to a crazy study, it makes news because it's so outlandish. That's what politicians are hoping for because they are hoping it makes enough news that people start accepting it to be true because "everyone else is reporting this so it must be true!". This is not to say all studies held up and waved by members of the government are crazy. A lot of them are factual and make sense. But, again, this just goes to show take what you hear with a grain of salt, use a little common sense, and make your own judgements based on actual experiences.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
With mouth closed, violence is near 100%.
very violent if you ask me. and when combined with caged or roaming spirits, very scary as well.
Not to mention that, many, many kids are actually seriously injured / killed playing football and other contact sports. I've seen a fair share of blood, (relatively mild) permanent injury, and even near deaths playing hockey myself. I've even got myself into a number of brawls. It's ridiculous to pretend that sports aren't violent. Indeed, the violence is part of the fun.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Thank you for that link! Installed beautifully as a ringtone on my phone.
Who do you trust more?
A. ESRB
B. Congress
C. Cowboyneal
Personally I think A ranks much higher than B.
with this attitude, the censors will laugh last. Beware.
... this one was squid percent lumpy pudding.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
64% move on to more violent games like centipede.
Parent was adding to 100% (100% of the remaining 36%), which makes parent only off by
In media reports people constantly say that ESRB ratings aren't given by the government. Well, in the USA, neither are film ratings or television ratings. ALL ratings on entertainment are voluntary. The MPAA is not a government agency any more than the RIAA is.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't you EVER call pacman VIOLENT OR I'LL DEVOUR YOU IN ONE BITE!!! Except the eyes. Those are for later.
how is pacman violent, its not like hes a gluttonous cannibal or anything...
what food group is a pac pellet anyways? or for that matter ghosts?
george bush and war are violent and should be only available at the age of 60 and above...
removing violence (blood splatter) e.g. from wargames or shooters gives the kids a totally wrong picture of war. in my eyes its alot more dangerous to not show them what the result of an action really is.
unless of course you government wants to have more cannon food for future undertakings. war and weapons are bad, violent and unhealthy. personally i dont see why this shouldnt be shown in a realistic way. i played lots of violent games when i was a child but still today i am pacifist and would never use a weapon against another human. not even for lots of cheap oil or making my lobby sponsors happy.
These two things have done far more to corrupt todays young generation than some video game.
So savagely eating those defenseless dots...
and those octopi creatures. Who in their right minds eat octopus? No decent human being, that's for sure.
Of the 65 games studied, Super Mario Brothers ranked #5 in the death rate. It earned a whopping 4.8 deaths per minute!
There is nothing in Super Mario Brothers that forces the player to kill 4.8 characters per minute. You can choose to play it aggressively, or you can play it as a pacifist, by trying to avoid killing things. I think this survey shows a lot more about the violent nature of the reviewers than it does about the games themselves.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
From the act of birth, the sports of youth, the food you eat, the predator, the prey, the bacteria that attacks the body.
The lion that eats the zebra, the man that eats the sheep, the eating of plants causes their death.
Unless you want to lie around and photosynthesise then get over it (and even then trees will try to outgrow each over, smoothering each other in a struggle for sunlight).
PLUS... this isn't even _REAL_ violence! It's make believe. Real violence (war, murder, rape) is a far bigger problem. Does one cause the other? Not really. "Violence" is so much a part of life that they are innextricably bound.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
This topic leads the reader to conclude that there are only a narrow set of options. Readers should consider this from a broader perspective, and recognize the principles of a free market and a free society.
The ESRB is not perfect. No organization consisting of human beings can possibly be perfect. But the ESRB does do its job pretty well, when you consider its track record. Its mistakes have been minor, and it has more than bent over backward to try to correct them (the Hot Coffee fiasco, for example). The ESRB cannot be expected to end the exposure of violence, sexual activity, profanity, or drug abuse to impressionable young viewers. That's not its job. Its job is to assess the content of games and rate them. It is the job of a child's parents or guardians to enforce those ratings, should they choose to do so.
Nor is it the government's job to regulate the ESRB in some ill-fated attempt to "protect our children." Children are exposed to violence because their parents let them buy (or buy for them) games that have been clearly labelled as containing violent content. It is not the responsibility of the government to perform parents' jobs for them. The ratings are there, they're more than adequate, and the rest is up to the consumers. The idiots in congress want people to believe that the ESRB isn't up to the task. Not only is it up to the task, but has met it more than adequately. It cannot be held responsible if people do not heed its notices.
Should you trust the ESRB? Not blindly, but they have earned a large degree of trust.
Should you trust the government? That's the question you should be asking. The ESRB is liable to the market and the direct feedback of consumers. Your representatives, on the other hand, have a very high incumbency rate and serve two or six year terms.
2pac was a gangsta rapper...so when they were confronted with pac-man, maybe the ESRB throught it was a new style of GTA game with someone playing the role of 'pac', i.e. someone like 2pac. So since 2pac was 100 violent, pacman is 50% violent, at least. And it gets an additional 14% for eating power pills.
I was in elementary school when I first saw the Ms. Pacman arcade game. I didn't comprehend the Act 2. intermission, "The chase". An older guy told me what was really happening, that's why there's a slight delay when they are off-screen. "That's why in Act 3. they had a baby..".
I was shocked... Probably as shocked as kids today with GTA's "Coffee" scene.
I don't know whether to agree with you or not on the watching TV makes them more violent. Yes, watching violence (real life, TV, movies, comic book, whatever) makes you slightly more violent. Psychologists have proven that with dozens of studies and experiments. But psychologists have also proven that the effect of that stimulus doesn't stay/last over long periods of time. So it's not like watching a violent show or playing a violent game is the direct cause of your kid being beaten up in school. Even if a kid played a violent videogame before going to school it wouldn't correlate. Recently experiments have been done on the differences in violence tendencies in playing different violent videogames. I haven't checked up on thos results yet because I don't have access to the journals off campus.
The fact remains however, it is up to the parent to teach their kids that violence is wrong. Not the government. Frankly I don't care if the government takes over rating of games. I don't think it'll help but it doesn't effect me. If they ban games then I might have a problem though.
But uh..parenting is required when you are a parent. Psychologists and probably now Sociologists have been saying that for a while now.. Otherwise you just concieved another human being and are just feeding it till you can kick it out of your house. Which is remarkably similar to what some species do on Earth.
"I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes" ~ Laughing Man - GITS:SAC
man, that was funny. Now I wish I hadn't spent all my mod points on down-modding republicans with something to say.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
So that I can tell you if they're violent or not.
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
kinda like, hitman + max payne + resident evil
"Dr. Kimberly Thompson of Harvard University"... There's your problem.
Did some looking up on Dr. Thompson (site). I especially found this press release amusing. Apparently NHL '99 is only 1.5% violent, so hockey is about 43x less violent than a game with dots and classic sheet-over-the-head ghosts. Amazing.
I am so, so sick of the money being pumped into these frivolous shitty studies at ivy league colleges. These best of the best "social researchers" are so out of touch it's just sad. Jesus Christ, put some money into public schools or feeding the homeless or something that might be of some use to society.
"The study was funded by a private gift from Mitchell Dong and Robin LaFoley Dong to the Harvard School of Public Health." Sucker born every minute.
~end rant~- For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
That's an interesting point, and one I haven't heard. And it's an example of why these issues are never as simple or easy to solve as they seem. The problem is, we can't have parental responsibility if the government takes the role of parent, yet if we give power to the parents, many will choose to use it improperly or neglect it.
The halfway point, giving the government control over what kids can't do (as opposed to teaching them what they should do) doesn't really help. Removing a "violent" influence from a child's life doesn't create a positive role model for them. It doesn't teach them how to be good people or how to recognize destructive influences in their lives. All it does is piss them off, which--if they're bullies--means you're making the problem worse for all the other kids.
Personally, I plan to teach my kids how to judge things carefully, how to be open minded and make sure they get their facts straight, how to see through illusions and deception and so forth--and I also plan to teach them how to fight. I plan to teach them when they need to throw the first punch and how to make that punch count. Because I'm not going to be there when my kid needs help, and neither will any other teachers or protectors. (Bullies pick the times when the cat's not around.) So all I can do to protect my kids is make sure they can protect themselves. All I can do to protect other kids is to teach mine not to attack without just cause.
A lot of kids are savages, and I don't think changing violent media is going to change that, so I am burdened with teaching my child that if someone knocks your books onto the floor from behind you twice or tries to grab you once, you need to turn around and punch him in the face as hard as you can--not just for yourself, but for everyone else in that school. (And if he's a lot bigger than you, you punch him in the throat instead.)
Because nothing will teach a kid the difference between real violence and fake violence faster than that.
A lot of bullies don't even realize they're hurting people--or, perhaps it would be better to say they don't understand the hurt they've inflicted, because they've never been in that victimized position. And if they have, it will help them just as much, because they will learn that, as a victim, you can stand up and fight. I've seen bullies who were abused children inspired to change by something as simple as a victim who proudly went down fighting. (It was often their victim.)
Taking away video games won't teach them this. Taking away violent movies won't teach them this. A lack of violence doesn't teach anything, and real life violence has a way of cropping up on it's own. To reduce real violence you need to build up things that work against it--things like respect, compassion and--hard as it can be to accept to us idealists--the ability and willingness to ruthlessly defend onesself and one's peers if it comes down to that.
And we can't really expect the government to do that for us. Hell, it's hard for us to do ourselves, even when it means something personal to us--can we really expect someone who's punching the clock to take the reflective time necessary to properly impart the delicate balance of wisdom, respect, diplomacy, and punching someone out when they're being a dick? Can just anyone with tenure as an elementary school teacher understand the complex and difficult task of teaching an otherwise timid child not only how to prevail in a real-world fight against one of their own, but how to have the courage to start it? Or how to teach an otherwise aggressive child the critical importance of respect and compassion? Just saying "You need to respect other people more!" is just about the worst way possible, yet it's the first thing most people do.
We can hope that someday we'll be wise enough that we can teach these things as a culture, through teachers or whatnot, but for right now, the best we can do is teach our own kids and our immediate peers as best we can, and hope that it rubs off enough on others that we make it through the next century or two without killing each other.
All Hail the Maggott Show
People need to remember that the ESRB opinions are not a substitution for actual thought. I'll make up my own damn mind about whether a game or movie is violent or not. I might use the ESRB rating to guide that decision (assuming I believe their methods yield rational results) and I might not. But I don't need the government to tell me that since they have zero expertise in that area.
As I posted elsewhere, you can't tell your kid they aren't allowed to have nightmares because the horror game wasn't appropriate for their age.
Clear, Dark Skies
Frankly, we're having enough zoological issues around the house without adding reptiles, thanks very much.
Although, a good garden snake might keep the spider population down....
Hmmm...
Clear, Dark Skies
Yeah - I'd tell you the story of what happened when I saw the original Jaws the week it opened in the movie theaters, but I don't want to embarass myself. :-P
There was actually an old adventure game for the Amiga called "The Uninvited" that managed to completely creep me out - as a 22 year old adult - until I realized that they really were using subliminal images to try to scare the crap out of the player.
Clear, Dark Skies
Pacman being rated as 64% violent is ridiculous. Pacman and his female counterpart do nothing violent. They eat dots and fruit. If anything, it should spur more children into eating fruits. Okay, occassionally he eats the ghosts, but only when they're blinking. If Pacman is considered violent, so should Super Mario. He jumps around bouncing on Goombas and hitting enemies in the air with shells, making them fall to their demise. Ridiculous.
The simple categories don't work, you're right. With movies, the MPAA's ratings are sometimes nuts. "Whale Rider" got a PG-13 despite being a fantastic family movie because of some sort of bong in the background in one scene. A few F-enheimers earn an R rating, still, bizarrely. (The MPAA is seemingly forever going to be living out the legacy of the old Hays/Breen code. The tinge of Catholic influence is a curious thing, and one we have to think around every time.)
But a "scorecard" with too much detail loses me just as much. For movies http://www.screenit.com/ is pretty much what you describe -- it gives you access to a highly detailed "scorecard" for each movie. As a parent, I love the idea but think the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. There's just too much information, the detailed descriptions get sort of silly with repetition, and in the effort to categorize elements of a movie things get pretty hazy pretty fast. "Imitative behavior" is a category, for example, into which almost anything might fit.
I would generally prefer a personalized reaction from someone I'm familiar with. For video games, that's what I use. The kids had decided "Gun" was off-limits based on its M rating, but I was curious and went to read reviews on Gamespot. (Yep, too violent -- by a lot.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
>Ghosts are, by definition, already dead. ;-)
It never hurts to be nice to the dead
One could also argue that Pacman encourages drugs, what with all that pill-popping
... As much as the MPAA is trusted. It's a unaccountable entity that sets the morality of film in America.
So who's going to tell these jokers that the "most violent" game on their list is a T rated game?
Kinda makes their study of "Most Violent E Rated Games" a little invalid, don't you think?
Gramma buys my kid a game, she doesn't know it's not suitable for a kid because people like you are opposed to put ratings on boxes.
Exactly how do you expect me to know the game isn't suitable, before my kid has a chance to play it? For example, at gramma's house?
I like people who are willing to invoke parental super powers and other ridiculous logical contortions because they dislike who simply putting a piece of information on a box.
Clear, Dark Skies
But the kids of these bad parents do not turn into bad kids because of what they watch on TV and what video games they play.
The Gob'ment could outlaw all TV and Games entirely, but with neglectful parents the kids would still have many of the same problems.
Sorry, you can't legislate good parenting.
I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.