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?"

21 of 435 comments (clear)

  1. 42 by davevt5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Saying Packman is "64% violet" is like saying the meaning of life is "42".

  2. This Just In... by nsmike · · Score: 5, Funny

    "...US Government declares eating violent."

  3. Re:I see you by rjhubs · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pac-Man is not violent. If anything, the game promotes drug usage. Popping pills in dark rooms with techno music? Come on now.

  4. Anyone have more information? by Jerf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Anyone have more information? by Guuge · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I managed to dig up a little from a site by the creators of the study. Here's the juicy bit:

      One author (Kevin Haninger) reviewed and coded all of the recorded game play, noting the starting and ending times of each incident of violence toward other characters, the type of weapons used for violence, whether the violent incident resulted in injury or death, and the number of character deaths attributable to the violent incident. The JAMA article contains a table that lists each video game we played, as well as the genre, console, release year, ESRB-assigned content descriptors, and our measures of violence.

      So it seems that the number refers to the percentage of time that the game is violent. Now, how is violence defined such that Pacman gets such a brutal rating?

      We defined violence as acts in which the aggressor causes or attempts to cause physical injury or death to another character. We did not include damage to objects, accidental actions that unintentionally harmed another character, the effects of natural disasters, or the presence of dangerous obstacles that could not be attributed to the actions of a particular character. We also did not count as violence any intentional acts of physical force that represented normal play in a sports game (e.g., tacking in football or checking in hockey), because the intention of the player is technically to stop the other player without causing injury. 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).

      If Pacman's ghosts were replaced by rolling boulders, it would have nearly no violence. Discuss.

    2. Re:Anyone have more information? by Xibby · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe Pac-Man isn't really harming the ghosts. He's not eating the Ghosts, they live on. He's eating their clothing. The so called ghosts simply return home and don another sheet when Pac-Man catches them.

      Maybe Pac-Man is really just a creature that enjoys the taste of clothing worn by a dark skinned creature. Eating the clothing seems to be enjoyable to Pac-Man, but receiving a whip crack to the ass from the mystical material transports Pac-Man back to his starting position.

      How do we know the Ghosts don't enjoy chasing Pac-Man! They get to smack him on the rear if they catch him, but if he catches them they have to go home naked. It could all be in fun and jest, and us dolts of the human race have misinterpreted the entire ritual!

      --
      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.
  5. Let's rank sports, too... by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  6. Re:So what happened...? by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Funny

    34%... That tens column is frustrating though, I'll give you that much

  7. Ahh, nostalgia.... by sesshomaru · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  8. 64% violet? by sharkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, I thought he was 100% yellow.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  9. Re:I see you by creepynut · · Score: 5, Funny

    If Pac Man "music" sounds like techno, you're either not playing the original arcade version, or you've already popped too many pills :)

  10. Remaing 36% percent... by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Funny

    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").
  11. Re:So what happened...? by creepynut · · Score: 5, Funny

    And apparently you only learned 98% Math in school :)

    (34% + 64%)

  12. Re:64%? by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    It comes from in a bad edcation, particularly one lacking in how to handle data.

    You can't take a (admittedly fuzzy) interval measurement, convert it into and ordinal measurement, and tally them up over a data set to create a rational measurement.

    By that method, you'd decide that a three stooges is far worse than a snuff film.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  13. Re:Waka by kalirion · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those aren't power pellets, they're frozen embryos!

  14. Re:64%? by Tsiangkun · · Score: 5, Funny

    basically the game consists of pac
    slaughtering ghosts, dots, and bigger dots.
    Ghosts are also hunting pac when he isn't
    hunting them.

    30% of the screen isn't available to the characters
    because of the way the maze is designed. This leaves 70%
    as the max violence percentage.

    However, in the post 9-11 world, pac killing ghosts has been
    reclassified as doing Gods work, and is seen as promoting
    freedom and democracy while killing evildoers.

    Integrating over time, we can see that only 64% of the game is
    actually violent, and 6% of the time pac is doing gods work.

  15. Re:So what happened...? by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Funny

    35.99999468.

    I really must upgrade my old Pentium 60.

  16. Re:Nice attempt at not connecting the dots. by Atzanteol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  17. Re:So what happened...? by silvaran · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey if you, me and the grandparent poster get together, maybe the four of us can get a discount on math lessons.

  18. Re:This is why I don't play Pacman by MadJo · · Score: 5, Funny

    you mean, parents have responsibilities? Surely not!
    It's up to the congress to legislate our childs upbringing.
    It's only through laws that we can teach our children what they need to learn.

  19. Re:64%? by istartedi · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the square of ate.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?