Debate on Game Censorship Touches on Weighty Topics

Last night a debate hosted by the XFire gaming chat/social network service went into depth on the subject of game censorship. Participants included notables like Entertainment Consumers Association President Hal Halpin, Sacremento Assemblyman Leland Yee, Escapist Editor Russ Pitts, and GamePolitics blogger Dennis McCauley. Transcripts are available of the discussion both on and off the main floor, and both make for some very interesting reading. From the Escapist post on the event: "On the whole, it would seem that everyone, from the senator on down, is concerned about adult-themed content in games and how to preserve the gamemaker's rights to create such content while simultaneously keeping it out of the hands of minors. The devil, of course, is in the details. Exactly how to go about doing that - and defining the types of content to be restricted - is where we all seemed to disagree wildly."

Comments

Quote from the Senator

[masterzora]

What is different is the interactive nature as well as the difficulty parents have in reviewing a game. A book, a movie, a cd, can all be easily reviewed by a parent. Video games, with 800 hours of footage, cannot possibly be reviewed by all parents.

I have no idea what games he's getting, but, with over 6 weeks of game, I want them! Unless he's talking about MMOs, but that would be silly unless more kids than I know of have credit cards.

Note, however, that Senator Yee is one of the more sane people seeking legislation against games and definitely receives respect for his position.

Re:Quote from the Senator

[masterzora]

I should probably correct myself before 30 other people do, but my estimation of 6 weeks was a little high. Apparently it's a bit over 4 and a half weeks, but still....

Re:Quote from the Senator

[grumbel]

How many games are out there that actually change dramatically during play? I have a hard time to name even a single one. The weapons get bigger as get the bad guys, but you basically just move from killing people/monster to killing bigger monsters. The experince a game provides in the first hour, isn't really different from that ten hours down the road.

Re:Quote from the Senator

[LKM]

One of the problems may be that it's often a very specific element that makes a game inacceptable in a given culture. A Nazi sign for Germany, or a naked book for America... So you would have to see everything in order to evaluate whether that given thing occurs in the game.

Parents?

[m0rph3us0]

Perhaps parents could make these decisions for their children that could reflect the values and beliefs of the parents. Many parent's find the content rules by default too lax and still manage to keep their children from seeing it in any meaningful way. Some of my classmates had never seen "The Simpsons". If parents don't wish to take the time to raise their children according to their standards perhaps their standards and values are less valuable than they would initially think.

Think of the Children

[Puff of Logic]

"Think of the children" is often the cry here, on both extremes of the debate. The Jack Thompsons of the world utter the cry and then, in the same breath, demand that things start getting banned. Long-time and hardcore gamers, on the other hand, use the term with a lot of snark. In the gamer community, and indeed for many net denizens, "think of the children" is a harbinger for the loss of freedom caused by well-meaning but small-minded citizens who want to wrap the world in cotton wool for their children.

Personally, I'm at a loss as to why a rating system is considered inadequate here. Sure, it's not perfect, and both the content creators and content consumers both have valid arguments against rating systems. As a long-time gamer, I don't want to see any heavy-handed restrictions on gaming. However, I can also understand that parents are rightfully concerned about what their children are exposed to. In my mind, the crux of the problem is with those parents who want to control what their children are exposed to, but without any involvement on the part of the parent. Watchful parents can use a rating system to judge content for suitability. Again, some stuff may slip through the cracks ("Hot Coffee") but the danger of that is the price we pay for a free society. Parents, if little Johnny plays an unapproved game over at another kid's house, then your argument with the other kid's parents, not the game companies. If a retailer sells a rated-R game to your fourteen year old, again your argument is with the retailer and not the game company. And if your argument is that you cannot possibly monitor your child every moment and therefore game content should be restricted, then I must respectfully but vehemently disagree.

Now, I'm not a parent, and I note that some individuals assert that people without children should STFU, as if having a child grants the parent a special perception that is not available to others through logical reasoning. Please don't do that, as it's a flamebait tactic. Please understand that even those of us who consider ourselves "childfree" are not anti-child and even appreciate the difficulties of raising kids in an increasingly fast-paced and communicative world. Personally, I'm willing to accept a rating system on all the games that I buy because I understand that it helps parents to pick appropriate content for their kids. I also support the punishment of retailers who violate this system, because it undermines the whole point. In exchange, please don't advocate mass restrictions on the content that I want to consume because you're afraid your kid will get hold of it.

Re:Think of the Children

[RomanesEuntDomus]

If a retailer sells a rated-R game to your fourteen year old, again your argument is with the retailer and not the game company. Exactly.

Re:Think of the Children

[symbolic]

Part of the problem, at last least as I see it, is that parents think that trying to completely eliminate something from the sphere of perception is more noble than actually educating their kids on what's out there, and why they think it should be avoided. That's where *real* values come from- not the fake "let's all bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist" stuff that seems to be more common than not.

Re:Think of the Children

[Puff of Logic]

Part of the problem, at last least as I see it, is that parents think that trying to completely eliminate something from the sphere of perception is more noble than actually educating their kids on what's out there, and why they think it should be avoided. That's where *real* values come from- not the fake "let's all bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist" stuff that seems to be more common than not. I agree entirely. While I can certainly understand that parents may believe that their children are not ready to be exposed to some things yet, I think any rational parent has to come to the realisation that their child will be exposed to difficult (or indeed horrifying) ideas, speech, and actions at some point. It is far better, then, to inculcate kids with the mental tools and strength to deal with these things than to send them mentally ill-equipped into the world.

I'd much rather hear a father telling his son that something is "bad" for the moment but with the promise to discuss it at some point when the child is better able to understand, than to see a parent desperately trying to pretend that something doesn't exist at all. Children, contrary to popular belief, aren't stupid and they will know that there is both something out there they don't understand and that Mum/Dad is being evasive. Couple that with a child's innate curiosity and now the kid is going to find out about it anyway, but with either no guidance or the guidance of peers.

I wonder how many pregnancies or STD infections occur because teens "discovered" sex on their own because their parents steadfastly refused to believe that their little angel would have sex before marriage?

Re:Think of the Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Although without a child, you don't necessarily understand all that is involved with having to raise a child. Especially today, where you have a large number of single parent homes. The realities of the world today, even multi-parent homes often need to involve both parents working, and having less time to oversee their children. And the time that is spent with the children, the sheer volume of things the parents have to deal with this day and age are just mind boggling.

This is what most parents mean when they say "STFU" to childless individuals who are quick to say "raise your children better". It is easy to say when you don't have to deal with the enormous task of raising a child in a society where they are berated from all sides with things you as a parent need to help them understand, but don't have nearly the time. With the media today, you can't pick what battles you're going to take up when. You have to fight them all long before you ever thought you'd have to, and constantly.

It's not as easy as childless people often like to make it out to be. This is where "parents" most often get angry. Not because they think they have an extra-sensory ability now that they have children (which you have to admit, your comment was a little flaimbait of it's own), but because they are constantly being told to do things like it's easy and a no-brainer. But the reality is, most people who tell this to parents just don't understand what it's like to have a child in today's world.

Of course, the fact that the USA is now filled with law-suit crazy morons, and more far too many "I'm a victim" citizens, you're never going to see anyone blame the people really to blame. So it's no use arguing who is at fault with kids viewing things their parents would rather they don't. You know whose fault it is? Or at least, who society has taught us should take the blame? Whoever has the deepest pockets. Consider it a revised version of the american dream.

And I'm sure nobody asked...

[Man On Pink Corner]

... as usual for these little exercises in question-begging, exactly what pernicious effects are likely to arise from exposing little Johnny to all of this violent and sexy evilness. Right? The only question was how.

Look at the box.

[Toonol]

Is there any widely-published videogame in recent history that a parent couldn't make an informed decision about by simply checking the rating, and examining the pictures and text on the box? Nothing could be simpler than that.

On the other hand, if the goal is to keep the games from being passed from kid to kid while on the school bus, well... good luck, but you aren't going to put a dent in that. Nobody has ever stopped adult magazines from being passed around.

Re:Look at the box.

[amuro98]

There was the dimwitted grandma who tried to sue Rockstar Games after the Hot Coffee incident because she bought GTA for her 10 year old grandson.

Even before that, there were parents testifying before the congress after Columbine that even with the ESRB ratings, that violent games were being inappropriately targetted at children and that it was "too difficult" for parents to determine what was appropriate or not. As an example, she brought in one of the figurines from Duke Nukem - you know, the ones that say right on the package "NOT A TOY", and "Figure from a mature-rated game - may not be suitable for children".

In conclusion, the best rating system in the world isn't going to cure the real problem here - Stupidity.

Re:Look at the box.

[Puff of Logic]

There was the dimwitted grandma who tried to sue Rockstar Games after the Hot Coffee incident because she bought GTA for her 10 year old grandson.
In conclusion, the best rating system in the world isn't going to cure the real problem here - Stupidity. Stupidity cuts both ways in this instance. That grandma's lawsuit was indeed probably an emotional overreaction, although the level of demagoguery associated with the anti-gaming groups makes such emotional posturing unsurprising. Of rather more interest, however, is the stupidity on the behalf of Rockstar. As a gamer, I'd personally like to deliver a solid kick to the nads of the person or persons responsible for the "Hot Coffee" code. The gaming community already gets enough bad press without dipshits like Rockstar giving our detractors more ammunition.

A rating system (whether ESRB or even self-imposed) is probably the gaming industry's only hope of fending off anti-gaming groups and their pet politicians. So FFS, game developers and publishers, make sure that you appropriately rate your games and take the time to make sure no unrated crap is accidentally left in your code. If that happens, the next time JT or his ilk point the finger of blame, we can say that we're doing our part and the rest is up to parental responsibility.

Re:Look at the box.

[Jimmy King]

Of rather more interest, however, is the stupidity on the behalf of Rockstar. As a gamer, I'd personally like to deliver a solid kick to the nads of the person or persons responsible for the "Hot Coffee" code. The gaming community already gets enough bad press without dipshits like Rockstar giving our detractors more ammunition.

Perhaps I missed some part of the news revolving around this, but my understanding is that the mod that actually made the Hot Coffee stuff available was not produced or distributed by Rockstar. The code was on the disc but not accessible in any way without a 3rd party mod that to my knowledge was created and distributed by someone completely unaffiliated with Rockstar. It's only slightly different than drawing some tits on a picture in the newspaper and then claiming the newspaper is both at fault and pornographic because a 3rd party modification shows the tits that were under the shirt, but in no way accessible, in the picture in the newspaper.

Re:Look at the box.

[masterzora]

Your assessment of the Hot Coffee situation is correct. However, if you note, the GP is saying that the fact that the mod could even be made was stupidity on the part of Rockstar. After all, without that code, the "scandal" would never have occurred and with that code not much was gained.

Re:Look at the box.

[Talgrath]

Not quite true; given the fact that the code was found in the X-Box and PS2 versions of the game means that it isn't third party code; though Rockstar orginially claimed that it was, they later admitted the truth. All versions could only be accessed by using third-party software, but the software didn't create this stuff, Rockstar did. Though I don't believe Rockstar ever stated what had happened, most likely this code was created, the idea was denied approval; but for one reason or another the code was left in the game, but inaccessible. In any case, Rockstar wrote the code, but someone else wrote the code to access the game that was otherwise unaccessible; I hope this clears up your confusion.

Re:Look at the box.

[Jimmy King]

Granted, it's a bit late now, but that's exactly what I said. The code was on the disc, and so created by Rockstar, but the patch that made it accessible was not created or distributed by them.

Re:Look at the box.

[Jimmy King]

A bit late on the reply, but I still say Rockstar is in no way at fault, or at least not in any way that matters. At worst, they respectably decided the content wasn't appropriate, but went with the lazy way of removing it which made it easier/more likely for a 3rd party to put pornographic content in the playable game but probably not at all on purpose.

If not putting pornographic material on the disc, but inaccessible, prevented pornographic mods then the Sims skins that I created back in the day never would have been created, the Doom 2 mod that changed some or all of the sprites to naked women wouldn't have been created, etc.

Re:ESRB?

[amuro98]

Both the MPAA and ESRB are voluntary groups, and are not responsible for any sort of enforcement of their rating systems.

Like you, I've never seen a theater refuse a kid a ticket to an R movie, but others have.

Likewise, I've never seen a game store refuse to sell a kid a M game, but others have.

You could argue that it's not the store/theater's place to make these judgements.

Basically, this whole issue ignores the fact that ultimately, it has to be the PARENTS who make the decision.

The Senator was clearly exaggerating with his comment about an 800 hour game, but you have to admit that just about every modern game is going to last more than the few hours you'll need to watch a movie, or even read a book. The game companies really have nothing to gain by trying to disguise their latest military slaughter simulator as 'pink pretty prancing ponies V' but that doesn't mean that someone might find something offensive in hour 35 out of 40 in a RPG.

Re:ESRB?

[BKX]

Except that it is. Nobody seems to realize that the rating system that movies use works exactly the same as the rating system for games, but with slightly different symbols. NC-17/X=AO R=M PG-13=T PG=E10 G=E. The ratings are that simple. And the enforcement is the SAME. As with rated M video games, there are no laws preventing retailers from distributing rated R movies to minors, but there are laws preventing porn (and porno games) from being distributed to minors. Why isn't Jack Thompson bitching about movies?

Re:ESRB?

[masterzora]

The Senator was clearly exaggerating with his comment about an 800 hour game

Are you sure? It'd be a lot more clear to me if he didn't use this "800 hour" figure multiple times.

but you have to admit that just about every modern game is going to last more than the few hours you'll need to watch a movie, or even read a book.

I seriously find it hard to believe that most parents even go out of their way to watch a movie or read a book or listen to a CD before deciding if it's okay for their child. After all, those require purchasing or borrowing the item in question and the former costs (often nonrefundable) money and the latter is non-guaranteed. They use other metrics such as ratings (MPAA ratings and "this CD contains explicit lyrics") and a small amount of research into they are buying their child. Video games can very easily be judged in the same manner, and companies probably have more to lose than gain in misrepresenting their game.

Two Words

[axia777]

First Amendment

the struggle is boring

[yoprst]

I'm much more interested in this phenomenon: sex sells great in entertainment, except computer games. On the other hand, violence sells great in games and movies etc. The only way to make a popular sex game is to make a great game, and once you do you migth just get rid of sex content (great game will sell anyway) to avoid the hassle with ratings and such. It doesn't happen with violence - it still ends up on the shelves. What's the problem with sex in games? Why it doesn't sell? For some of the more humorous among you - yes, there are contraptions to solve the problem of busy hands (and yes, they don't sell well). Still, it doesn't help. Why?

Right, sex don't sell

[SmallFurryCreature]

WERE HAVE YOU BEEN?

Oh I get it, Lara Crofts bossom was there as a counter balance to enable her to do all those nifty headstands.

The same sex and trio romance options in Jade Empire are welcomed because gamers are passionate about equal right for all people, not because they want to see two girls snog.

Every MMORPG out there has a female avatar out there wearing armour that could not be called a thong because thongs cover more flesh.

But sex don't sell in games. Right. Sure, whatever.

That is why nude patches for games are rare.

Come on, sex sells EVERYTHING.

Ah, but maybe you are talking the sex act itself. Granted, that is an often unexplored area, in games at the old US of A, the puritan nation.

BUT sex is absent in lots of other US aimed entertainment as well. Their have been several childeren programs on the european continent with full frontal nudity, how many US programs?

Since the US is a very large market naturally most game publishers tend to cater to that market. This is not unusual at all, ever notice how every alien invasion, every disaster happens in the US?

European games on occasion are less restricted and the japanese have an entire industry of sex games.

The problem is indeed that if you got a great game, the sex just isn't that important, and if you don't, well then it just ain't a good game so why bother?

I remember a dutch movie that had full penetration shown plainly on camera (some movie about kidnappers in a military training ground, at one point a soldier driving by in a jeep is shot), even as a horny teen I could see the movie stank.

Because SEX also does NOT sell.

The promise of sex sells. In Jade Empire, and many games with romance options, the camera discreetly fades out to black when the characters hit the sheets. Would you like the game to continue? TO show the huffing and puffing? Movies don't.

So you got three things:

1. Sexiness, the promise of sex. Females with full figures and clothes one size to small. This sells, and is what you see all around you in the media. It ain't full on hardcore sex and I personally thing that it has the following deep and major effect on our society namely.... ooh boobies on tv!
2. Romance/the prelude to sex. This is indeed rare BUT does happen all the time in adventures and RPG style games. For that matter many a game with a strong story element. Yeah counterstrike and such do not have it. Then again you can go through the same level over and over but the same romance dialog? But what would Indiana Jones and the fate of Atlantis be without the banter the love interest?
3. Hardcore full on sex. Check out the european game "the singles" and the japanese games. The singles is a "The sims" with an added "need" and it is BORING. You think getting you cooking skill up is boring, try getting the love interest high enough by cuddling over and over again just so you can go to next level all the time taking care of all the other needs.
4. Japanese games have interactive books, some have good story, some do not, the good ones do not need the sex, and who is desperate enough to play through a bad story for some porn? THe sex simulators again are a case of what the fuck. It is roughly the same reason you do not have a huge success with a cooking simulator. Cooking is fun but so is eating it, so who would bother doing just the cooking and not the eating? Stupid people called cooks and women.

Sex sells, but only the promise of it.

I can play an MMO for hours on end but could I masturbate for that long? I am NOT 14 any more.

Re:Right, sex don't sell

[yoprst]

I'm sure I can add a few female chests to that lists. Still, I can't see how the sex is selling point in games. People buy games, among other things to kill monsters or people (and to feel good about it). I don't see people buying games for sexual content. Of course I should have mentioned Japan as an exception, but I'm mostly interested in tentacle-free world. Lara Croft was a breakthrough, and not in the tits department. Gigantic tits in so many games sell just as good as ugly monsters. Nekkid mods are minority thing.

Re:ESRB?

[deepk]

You are right, the developers are more interested in making quick bucks rather than providing wholesome entertainment to the kids. Some day, if the trend continues they may even put pronography in the hands of the childrens in the guise of games. It's us the parents who have to take up the matter in our own hands and simply bycott the games reportedly having sex as a selling gimmick.

I know, I'm old fashioned, but...

[Opportunist]

...in my books, the primary responsibility for kids lies on the parents. It's not on the state, the school, some church or any other outsider to dictate what I deem appropriate for my kids. Whether or not certain limits apply (i.e. whether a 12 year old should see hardcore porn... like he doesn't, but we're talking SHOULD here) is an issue you might want to debate, but what it boils down to is that the parents are to be the primary source of morals and standards for their kids, not state, school or church.

If parents are unwilling or unable to set those standards and actually bring up their kids, the question is not whether that "burden" should be transfered to some other decision maker, but rather whether they're fit to be parents.

It seems to me that more and more people want the government to make decisions for them, it's only natural that this moves on to the education of our children. Bringing up kids is hard work, that's a given. You have to show some interest in topics that don't really interest you, I mean how many 30+ people do you know that are interested in Pokemon, Super Mario or ... well, whatever games are currently in fashion.

I mean 30+ old non-geeks, ok? People who do actually have a chance to have kids. :)

Bringing up kids requires you to show interest in your kids. That's a hassle, granted. But I wonder why people actually want to have kids if they don't want to deal with them. Either abstain if you don't want (my decision) or deal with the "problem". It's not the state or anyone else's business to bring up your kids. It's yours.

Parents need to earn the name

[FrozenFOXX]

Last time I checked part of being a PARENT and not just a donor of genetic material was actually, you know, parenting. How come so many parents seem perfectly fine with letting a body of strangers with no affiliation to even their family and who are funded by lobby groups, bribes, and their own political interests parent THEIR kid? Hell, most parents would rip your head off if you told them to leave their kid with some stranger on the other side of town, why is this any different?

It's a parent's responsibility to parent their kid. You don't want them playing something in your house, then don't let them play it in your house. Learn the ratings, they aren't hard and are listed right on the box. Do a little research. You know, do your job as a responsible adult and if you have a major problem with that little bit of effort give your kid up for adoption so maybe they can get a family that WILL raise the kid instead of just send it off to school and smack it when it does something wrong.

Honestly, I want to hear just what in the hell the BIG issue is with a gargantuan sticker on the front of a game box and literally hundreds of free game review sites at your fingertips. What on EARTH could they possibly want? And if it's back to that, "I don't want to be a parent," then maybe you should have thought of that before keeping the kid.

True Tomb Raider was a breakthrough

[SmallFurryCreature]

It was the first "console" game I liked, and that says a lot (Look up PC snob and you will find my name) BUT lets not kid ourselves, Lara being Lara helped a LOT. Oh and it ain't just the tits, a nicely done A-cup model would have sold just as well if she had oozed sex like Lara did. Or maybe I am underestimating the claimed americans obsession with big tits.

But Singles is a pure sex game, as I said it is a "The Sims" light with extra bugs, less variety and sex. It is CLEARLY inferior to the The Sims in every respect (especially sing the sims has sex as well) and yet it sells well, enough for a sequel even.

As for mods being a minority. Well, perhaps I just visit the wrong forums. Granted the official game forums usually ban such talk BUT if you visit the secondary forums that exist around games you will find them mentioned often enough.

But people buy games to have fun, for me, looking at a sexy female is fun. So is doing a fun game but doing fun games with a sexy female is even more fun (no not those kinda games, this is slashdot afterall).

Re:ESRB?

[amuro98]

Such games already exist - Playboy Mansion? BMXXX? What about that game where you had to repeatedly "photograph" models to make them take their clothes off? (Seriously - that was the description on the box!) None of these games were trying to pretend to be something they weren't. Ok, I take that back. They were all pretending to be "good games", but they certainly don't pretend to be for all-ages.

Also, all of those games carried an "M" rating, so there should be no excuse for mistaking them for being for kids of all ages.

I really don't see a game publisher trying to mis-represent their game. What do they gain? Their true audience might fall for the "fake" advertising and not buy the game, and you can be sure that if a busy-body parent feels s/he's been lied to, there's going to be a lawsuit.

ESRB or no, it should always be the parent's responsibility to check out the games their kids want to buy. I furthermore encourage them to not even trust the ESRB's blanket rating on the front of the package. Read the game's description and the more detailed rating on the back of the box and make your own decision.

The ESRB is better than nothing, but it's far from perfect. If you want a quick example, check out what the ESRB (esrb.org) has to say about gambling in games. Now check out all the poker games for sale on EBGames.com and note what their ratings are. I find it odd that a multiplatform Poker game will have different ratings across the different platforms. This is, after all, POKER we're talking about here. Definitely not the most challenging thing to program.... Even my family's Apple ][ had a couple of Poker games available for it.