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?"

Comments

I've seen...

[MorderVonAllem]

...G rated movies that are more violent than pacman...what was this guy smoking? This definetly highlights what's wrong with the Senate.

Re:42

[crystalattice]

I'm curious how they came to such an accurate "violence rating" of 64%? Do they have a list that they check off as they play? If it was a TV show, how would they classify it? TV13, TV7, TV7-FV(Fantasy Violence)?

I think the whole ratings system needs an overhaul, and it needs to stay out of Congress. They can't even describe the Internet correctly or decide on a definition of "pornography"; how can they decide how violent something is?

Anyone have more information?

[Jerf]

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.

Re:Anyone have more information?

[Jherico]

We did count excessive physical contact in sports games, such as punching or otherwise attacking another player (e.g., after the football play was over).

This is a compelling statement. It implicitly states that violent sports aren't violence, in the eyes of the study. Tackling a football player inside a computer game isn't violent as long as its in the context of the game. Why is this? What are football, soccer, and rugby if not mock combat? Where do they get their free pass from being considered violent? If you look at the spectrum of mock combat activities, ranging from Chess to Football to PVP in World Of Warcraft, you have to admit that Football is the ONLY activity where someone is actually liable to be hurt in the normal course of the game. And yet computer games seem to be the target of all the ire.

Next time a politician starts taking pot shots at violence in 'games', join his campaign and try to expand it to include Chess and Football. See how it goes.

Uncessary

[spykemail]

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.

ESRB = Good? Sometimes.

[CogDissident]

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.

Ahh, nostalgia....

[sesshomaru]

When I was in grammar school, I can remember the teachers complaining about violent videogames. "Space Invaders is just about killing things," they'd say, "And in Pac-Man you are eating them up."

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.

This is why I don't play Pacman

[mrxak]

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.

Re:This is why I don't play Pacman

[rainman_bc]

you mean, parents have responsibilities? Surely not!
It's up to the congress to legislate our childs upbringing.

So I am a good parent. I watch what my kid does on the internet and what my kid sees on TV. I try to teach my kid about looking at things critically and how to see through marketing BS. I teach my kids violence isn't right and they should treat people with respect and carry themselves with dignity.

Some other parents though might negelect their children. They are too self absorbed to be watching what their kids see on TV or what video games these kids play. These kids may watch violence all the time. They feel toughness is empowering. These are the kids that go to school and bully other kids around. They steal and fight and act with impunity. I think I'd like my government to protect me and my kids from kids like that. It's not the fault of those children but the fault of their parents, but my children might pay the price of those parent's incompetance.

I'm generallizing. I realize there are exceptions to the rules, but children who watch violence on TV tend to be more violent than those who do not.

The problem is this. Parents have a god-given right to not teach their children a damned thing. Do we have a right to be subjected to those children who cannot tell right from wrong because the TV raised them, or can we do something about it.

I don't agree with their rules for myself, but I think these rules can help protect me from bad parents.

Re:This is why I don't play Pacman

[Damvan]

Save the Children!

You know, some parents raise their kids in a religion that I don't agree with. They let them read books I don't agree with. Or even discuss political topics I don't agree with. Do we have a right to be subjected to those children who are not raised the way I think they should be raised, or can we do something about it!

There is really no difference between what I wrote above and what you wrote. You are essentially saying that you want the government to protect you and your family from children raised a way you don't agree with. Sorry bud, but some parents have been raising screwed up kids since day one. It is part of living in a world full of people. I am sure you can find a parent who thinks you are screwing up your kids in one way or another because of the way you are raising them. Are you more right than they are? For your kids, yes, you are right. For their kids, no, they are. Just like you don't want people telling you how to raise your kids, do you think they want people telling them how to raise theirs?

So, you don't let your kids play Pac-man?

Re:This is why I don't play Pacman

[blincoln]

I don't agree with their rules for myself, but I think these rules can help protect me from bad parents.

Part of being an adult is having the ability to live in a world where people aren't all exactly like how you want them to be.

Part of being a good parent is teaching your children how to deal with living in that same world.

Ratings are a Guide

[Xibby]

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.

Re:Nice attempt at not connecting the dots.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

No we don't expect you to play through a game, but being remotely informed on the topic is a good idea. Is it really so difficult to slap the games name in Google and look at the reviews, trailers and screenshots? We live in an era with free research in effect, make use of it and spend five minutes checking the game out.

While it may not cover every little cut scene and detail it will cover 90% of the content or at least give you a good idea of the context. Plus some times something which challenges YOUR view is good for your kids, it lets them see that mummy and daddy arn't always right and to think for themselvs a bit.

While it may not be popular with the Slashdot crowd who seem to want 100% freedom for everyone but kids who need to be handcuffed to the parents constantly, you have to remember to challenge your kids and their ideas/opinions/ideals at times. It lets them develope ways to deal with it and become a real person rather than a mini version of you built to follow instead of lead.

Re:Nice attempt at not connecting the dots.

[Atzanteol]

Do you expect me to purchase a game and play it through before I give it to my children?

Good lord no! I fully expect you to do as little as possible and yet maintain your expectation that your children will not be exposed to things you don't care for.

this just in

[Some_Llama]

"65% of the population will believe any quote as long as the name that accompanies it is held in high regard." -Albert Einstein

Re:Nice attempt at not connecting the dots.

[vertinox]

Do you expect me to purchase a game and play it through before I give it to my children?

No.

Because if your children become mass murderers, drug addicts, or sex offenders when they grow up... Then chances are it wasn't because they played Doom or looked at a Playboy magazine.

I'd say it will have to do something to the fact you did not take interest in their lives or didn't love them unconditionally. That and teach them a good moral framework and the ability to discern fantasy from reality (and the importance of higher education and getting a job)

Many of us 20-30 somethings today as kids played D&D, listened to "satanic" heavy metal, looked at playboys, played violent video games (Wolf3d and Doom), read really violent comics, and even tried to smoke a cigarrette before we were 13 back in the late 80's and early 90s... Yet today 99.99% of us slashdotters are well adjusted people who are very successful in what we do who are starting to have families on their own.

You could let your kids play GTA all they want (as long as it doesn't interfere with sleep, school, and social activities) and they won't turn into criminal or evil person.

The reason kids do turn out bad is because video games are often used in lieu of a parent. It doesn't matter if it Pac Man, Doom3, Mortal Kombat, My Little Pony, EQ, Barney Loves Kids, or Mario Brothers.

If you think raising kids means simply means putting your kid in front of a TV or computer and letting them sit there forever without ever being involved in their life... Then well... You are going to be suprised when they don't come home after 3 in the morning and are failing every class they have in school.

At the same time... A kid who plays Doom and GTA can still have good grades and social skills if you moderate his playing time and have him do other activities like chores, reading books, and schoolwork.

Even then you still can make those things fun... Give your 12 year old the Lord of the Rings trilogy book and after he reads them let him watch the movie. Your 8 year old passes his grade with flying colors... Go buy him a video game... Don't be as much concerned about the content of the game as how he reacts to it. As in... Just because he sees people behave in a certain way or say certain words that it isn't ok for them to say it or do those things.

Re:64% violet?

[MyDixieWrecked]

actually, it's 100% Red and 100% Green (which makes yellow). He's output to an RGB device, generally.

now, pacman printed on paper... that's 100% yellow. but who plays pacman on paper?

wasn't there some crazy bastard who wrote a pacman implementation in postscript once, though? or was that tetris?

A Lesson in How Politics Work

[Solr_Flare]

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.