Defending Games For Adults on National Television

N'Gai Croal, at the Newsweek blog LevelUp, had the chance to talk about the Manhunt 2 ban/re-rating fiasco on the CNN program American Morning. It's an interesting discussion of the issue, and it sounds like for the most part he got a fair shake; this wasn't yet another 'ambush the games journalist'-style cable program. The one thing N'Gai tried to make clear - and may have gotten lost in the shuffle - was that this title categorically is not for kids. "We bring this up not because there's anything sinister at work, but rather because [co-anchor Kiran Chetry] isn't alone in her bedrock assumption that all videogames are primarily aimed at 'kids.' After all, had we gone on the show to discuss Ang Lee's NC-17-rated erotic thriller 'Lust, Caution,' or the upcoming horror movie '30 Days of Night,' we doubt that we'd have been asked 'Would you let your kids watch it?' It would have been assumed that those movies, like certain TV shows, books or plays, are not intended for children. Yet videogames often don't get the same recognition."

Comments

It's a generational thing.

[meringuoid]

The Nintendo generation is now in its late twenties or early thirties. We're a major demographic, but we're not the ones in power yet.

So there's still a general assumption in the establishment power centres that games are toys for children and therefore need to be regulated more closely than other media. This will change, but probably only when the Prime Minister is a man who grew up playing Super Mario Bros.

Mind you, there is a counterpoint that interactivity heightens the intensity of the experience considerably. I've watched endless horrific violence on film and it doesn't bother me. But in a game it's not some villain doing the dirty deed - it's you. And with modern control technology - say, The Godfather: Blackhand Edition - it feels like it, too. Watching a guy get pummelled on screen is less real than watching a guy get pummelled on screen, while pressing buttons to dictate the manner of the pummelling. Neither is anywhere near watching a guy get pummelled on screen while swinging your own fist repeatedly to dictate the manner of the pummelling. All are equally fictional, but that last one... it feels good, in a very bad way indeed.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Black Art]

I wonder how long it is going to take. I have been playing videogames since I was a teenager. I am over 40 years old. I still enjoy videogames even more now than I did then.

I have also seen the same argument used on Comic Books. The idea that comic books are "just for kids" has not been true since the late 60's.

The people who make the argument that "product X is always aimed towards kids" are the same people who are looking for an excuse to ban product X.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[meringuoid]

I have also seen the same argument used on Comic Books. The idea that comic books are "just for kids" has not been true since the late 60's.

The days of moral panic about the contents of comics seem to be long gone, though. 2000AD used to upset our moral guardians back in the eighties, when kids started coming home with Judge Dredd instead of Desperate Dan. But since then... Well, there's been Sandman, Preacher, Hellblazer, Lucifer, and God knows what else. These make the old 'Tales from the Crypt' comics that caused so much upset look feeble, but nobody minds because they're plainly intended for adults, and that idea's more or less got through now.

Well, that or the perception is now that comics are for geeks instead of for children.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[morari]

I've watched endless horrific violence on film and it doesn't bother me. But in a game it's not some villain doing the dirty deed - it's you. No, it's not. It's still a character that you are watching. Pushing the buttons on a gamepad to perform a kill isn't all that different from turning the page of a book to read about the grizzly murder, or pressing play on the DVD remote.

Maybe we should start regulating laser-tag and paintball? I hear it's pretty interactive...

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Eponymous Crowbar]

When you talk about the Nintendo generation, I guess you are referring to the release of the NES. I would say that the videogame generation is a good bit older than their 20s or 30s - maybe 40's or possibly early 50s now. I'm talking about arcades and the first home systems. Anyway, they are old enough to be taken seriously for the US presidency or Supreme Court. So, where are they? Fighting other battles?

Re:It's a generational thing.

[JoshJ]

Pac-Man and Pong weren't "violent". Neither was Super Mario Brothers, unless you're a turtle or walking triangle-shaped head. You'll have to wait for the Mortal Kombat generation to be old enough to run for office. Most of us are in our early twenties.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Telvin_3d]

I think part of that is the fact that kids really don't buy comics any more. Mom isn't worried about little Timmy coming home with a copy of Transmetropolitan because little Timmy would rather be hit with a baseball bat than blow his allowance on $4 comic books.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[EmperorKagato]

Pac-Man and Super Mario Brothers ARE violent.

In Pac-Man you consume ghosts and Super Mario Brothers you throw shells at enemies and stomp the heads of others.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Black Art]

I was thinking of underground comics. Titles like "Zap" or "Bizzare Sex" have been around for about 30 years now. Billy may not blow $4 on a copy of Transmopolitan, but he might blow it on "Cherry Poptart".

Re:It's a generational thing.

[ThirdPrize]

I think the distinction is which were the first games to involve killing people on screen. YOu can't count Space Invaders and Pac Man as the characters are too abstract to relate to. Games like Tekken and Commando are different as those sprites are recognisably people.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

If we had to wait for 'the Mortal Kombat' generation to run for office there wouldn't be a Mortal Kombat generation. Who in the world do you think made Mortal Kombat successful if not for the people old enough to understand the issues, buy the game for themselves, and have credibility when claiming gaming is not just for children? If you're in your twenties now, you're about twenty years younger than the folks who were first in line to play Mortal Kombat.

Regarding violence, I believe the word you are looking for is graphic. Mortal Kombat did not have a monopoly on violence and did not appear in a vacuum. It was simply a use of very graphic violence that appeals to many gamers and caught the attention of those who would ban it.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[westlake]

The Nintendo generation is now in its late twenties or early thirties.

The parents of a teenager does not think like a teenager.

The generation raised on Mario Brothers may be even less tolerant of games like Manhunt 2 - perhaps because some threshold has been crossed which the gamer-geek was too blind to see.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Kingrames]

The average age of video gamers is over thirty and has been that way for a while.

You ARE the major demographic, you just haven't had any reason to point it out to the people in charge yet, because you're having too much fun.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[hawk]

I'm a ghost! Pacman devoured my entire family, you insensitive clod! :)

hawk

Re:It's a generational thing.

[westlake]

No, it's not. It's still a character that you are watching. Pushing the buttons on a gamepad to perform a kill isn't all that different from turning the page of a book to read about the grizzly murder, or pressing play on the DVD remote.

I respectfully disagree.

You are not watching the action from some physical and psychological distance. You are role-playing the character.

You are being explicitly rewarded for the growing sadism of your kills.

You sre beinh drawn into this environment for hours, days or even weeks, at a stretch. Not the ninety minutes of a theatrical feature. This takes you into territory where even the clinical psychiatrist treads cautiously.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mortal Kombat was released sometime around the time I was in 10th grade (1992ish). That makes me 15 at the time and I remember plenty of teenagers and college kids playing it at the arcade, but very few 5 year olds. I don't think the console versions came out until another year or two after that if that's when all the 5 year olds were playing it at home. I'd say the most of the people who played MK on it's release are now 25-40 and all of those are eligible for office in the US (25 for the House, 30 for the Senate and 35 for President). Also, by the time you're 40, you generally have issues you care more about than video games so you elect someone who is going to try to fix those issues. If they just happen to be smart about video games, it's a bonus. Good luck running virtually anywhere on the sole campaign platform of video game reform.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[brkello]

Yeah, but acting out horrific acts in a video game doesn't bother me either. Obviously, I have a clear line between fantasy and reality. Some people don't and they are the ones you have to watch out for. But you can't really know what will set those people off. They could have seen a video on the mating of black widows. Should we ban nature?

Re:It's a generational thing.

[jmac1492]

Contra was violent. It came out (in the US at least) in 1988.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns are ok because we need them to grow up to be soldiers and to shoot who we tell them to shoot without thinking about it.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[7Prime]

Neither is anywhere near watching a guy get pummelled on screen while swinging your own fist repeatedly to dictate the manner of the pummelling. All are equally fictional, but that last one... it feels good, in a very bad way indeed.

Wasn't Manhunt going to come out for Wii? In which case, it likely WOULD be swinging your own fist repeatedly to dictate the manner of pummelling.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[UnlimitedAccess]

Your just assuming that interactivity heightens the intensity of the violent experience. The actual research on this doesn't actually point that way. The British classification scheme concluded that Violence in video games is less impacting then sequential mediums since your actually controlling an avatar which distances the player from the experience because you are always aware your controlling a character. Personally I believe future research will reveal video games heighten certain experiences and diminish others. Two very simple example's would be; the violence in God of War in a film would be horrific and terrifying where as its nigh comical in the game. Silent Hill in a film wouldn't be scary at all where as the game made me crap myself.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[David Gould]

Ahem:

Computer games don't affect kids. I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc. 1989

(I've seen the quote all over, but hadn't seen the attribution until I went searching for it just now.)

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pushing the buttons on a gamepad to perform a kill isn't all that different from turning the page of a book to read about the grizzly murder,

I was not aware there were books about killing bears.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[morari]

I personally do not think that I would call what most video games produce as "roleplaying". Many simply give you control over a character's basic actions, not their intentions or personalities. I would consider that as a mere character, not an extension, manifestation, or interpretation of one's own being.

Many films reward your dedication and patience, as a viewer, by showing and exposing you to increasingly brutal or "action filled" sequences. Sadism is sadism, even if only vicariously so. Furthermore, the average novel usually takes at least several days for a reader to complete. And I feel that one is typically drawn into the world of the written word even more so than they would be by mere visual stimuli. You may not have direct physical control over a digital avatar, but you are exposed to the very thought process of the characters. Video games require reflex and twitch actions to kill while reading does, in the very least, require an understanding of not just the words but also the concept described.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[p0ss]

I think that online comics have also contributed to the decline in comic sales.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Facegarden]

Some books are written in the second person... Those claim "YOU" do certain actions, yet no one complains about those... (not that there are many, but still). -Taylor

Re:It's a generational thing.

[hidannik]

Correction: Silent Hill in a film wasn't scary at all.

Hans

Re:It's a generational thing.

[BlueCollarCamel]

If you have to act it out... better a video game than reality, right?

Re:It's a generational thing.

[paedobear]

You should have looked a little more - it's a joke by British comedian Marcus Brigstocke - the kids that grew up on Pacman were still kids in 1989 (and there's no record of someome called Kristian Wilson working for Nintendo)

Re:It's a generational thing.

[CRiyl]

The actual source.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[fractoid]

I personally do not think that I would call what most video games produce as "roleplaying". Many simply give you control over a character's basic actions, not their intentions or personalities. I would consider that as a mere character, not an extension, manifestation, or interpretation of one's own being. I would argue that being given control over a character's actions, and then using that character to brutally kill another character, would qualify as playing the role of a killer. There's a fundamental difference between watching a third party kill a character, and using a puppet to kill that same character. You're pulling the strings, and the mental states that you use while killing someone in a game easily transfer into real life. Before anyone pipes up "but I'm just pressing back-back-forward-punch and making a hotspot collide with a hit rectangle" - what do you *think* when you do it? Do you think "back-back-forward-punch"? Or do you think "dragon punch! eat it bitch!"?

The only reason anyone (adult or otherwise) should be allowed to play violent video games is if they know the difference between games and real life, and that provides a barrier between the actions in game and the actions in the real world. Fortunately, that's most of us.

On a related note, third-person violence rapidly desensitizes you to itself. Think of the first time you saw someone get bashed in a movie, you were probably a little kid at the time - it most likely shocked you and made you feel sick. The same scene now wouldn't cause you to bat an eyelid. It would be interesting to see a study of whether first-person violence does likewise; let a test group play some game such as GTA or Manhunt, while a control group plays Tetris or whatever, then ask them all to play a game where you can progress equally easily by killing people and taking their stuff, or by solving logic puzzles. I'd put money on the Manhunt people going with the killing while the Tetris people go with the puzzles.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[fractoid]

Well, what with the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing the Right to Keep and Arm Bears, it was all but inevitable.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[fractoid]

If you're in your twenties now, you're about twenty years younger than the folks who were first in line to play Mortal Kombat. And they, in turn, are twenty years younger than the folks who are running the country. By and large, high-up successful politicians are OLD.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[fractoid]

Correction: Scary is like funny. It works differently for different people.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[XavidX]

Games are fun because they are a challenge. Sure the graphics and content are aimed towards different audiences but when I am playing a game like zelda and hitting buttons like crazy to swing my sword to kill bad guys it feels good when I succeed. This is a feeling of acomplishment and it is the same in all games. Just because I feel good at beating up a guy playing some adult game doesn't mean I would get the same effect if I were to go out in real life and do it.

It's the same thing with tv. Home alone is a kids show and the kid is running away from bad guys but other horror movies are the same thing (good guys is getting away from bad guys). Its just aimed at a different audience. And sometimes the bad guy even gets to win (or kill almost all the main characters anyway).

Ok to the point. Its entertainment. We to it to challenge ourselves or entertain ourselves by being scared or happy becaus the guy finally got the girl. There is different forms of media for different audiences.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[GearType2]

quite the opposite really. Ever since the crash in the nineties comics have slowly been rising. If anything I'd say online comics like penny-arcade and comic-based movies are the cause of this.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[snerdy]

You are being explicitly rewarded for the growing sadism of your kills.

Reports indicate that in Manhunt 2 players are not rewarded for the kind of thing you describe. As a matter of fact, players are penalized for engaging the most gruesome scenarios.*

"The version of Manhunt 2 that was supposed to hit shelves next week featured multiple endings depending on your actions throughout the game."

"Through the publication it has been confirmed that the version they played came complete with alternate endings and also completely different final levels depending on how the game was played."

"A game which punishes people for being violent and rewards them for not being violent has been deemed unsuitable and unacceptable?"

* These reports are based on what we will politely call "previews" of the version of Manhunt 2 that was originally submitted for ratings. There is telling whether this structure will remain in the game, should it eventually be released.

It's true, this level of control on the part of the audience makes playing this video game somewhat different from reading a book. On the other hand, this is exactly the kind of deeper introspection in which we might expect an adult audience to express an interest. A lot of people are clearly fixated on the horror in this game. They should be excited to learn that the game gives people who are so fascinated an opportunity to further explore that subject in the context of this work, either by engaging the macabre or attempting to find some other response to the situation.

Additionally, it's worth pointing out that if you find yourself drawn into video games for "days or even weeks, at a stretch," your behavior isn't normal and you would probably benefit from psychiatric assistance. I don't care if you're playing Manhunt 2, Mazes and Monsters or Barbie Horse Adventures -- please seek help!

Re:It's a generational thing.

[KDR_11k]

You are being explicitly rewarded for the growing sadism of your kills.

I think that's the reason Manhunt was banned in Germany, not the violence but rewarding the player for being brutal. Telling people that unnecessary brutality is a good thing is illegal since it's considered inciting violence.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Das Modell]

You sre beinh drawn into this environment for hours, days or even weeks, at a stretch. Not the ninety minutes of a theatrical feature. This takes you into territory where even the clinical psychiatrist treads cautiously.

Oh, the drama.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[AlphaVersion]

When I was a kid I used to play war with my friends. We'd run around pointing sticks or plastic toy guns at each other shouting "BANG BANG BANG! YOU'RE DEAD!!", sooner or later two kids would bicker and argue over who killed who, and the game would end. Obviously I'm an old man and this was in the pre-columbine world, because playing games like that now would get you sent to that clinical psychiatrist you mentioned. But were those massive battles we'd play out every day really all that different from videogames? After all, it's all pretend violence. If somebody's unable to tell the difference between pretend violence and reality, don't you think he'll snap sooner or later, with or without manhunt 2 or whatever game is politically correct to bash this week?

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Gulthek]

If you think that moral outrage over comics started in the eighties, research EC Comics.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[EtoilePB]

The days of moral panic about the contents of comics seem to be long gone, though. 2000AD used to upset our moral guardians back in the eighties, when kids started coming home with Judge Dredd instead of Desperate Dan. But since then... Well, there's been Sandman, Preacher, Hellblazer, Lucifer, and God knows what else. These make the old 'Tales from the Crypt' comics that caused so much upset look feeble, but nobody minds because they're plainly intended for adults, and that idea's more or less got through now.

I would agree with you, mostly, except that the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund still has plenty of work to do. I will agree, though, that there have been leaps and bounds there in the last twenty years. It's almost -- ALMOST -- a non-issue.

This may sound like a strange argument, but I think that what's going to bring society-at-large around on gaming is going to be getting the women more involved. And there's progress there, slowly. (Disclosure: speaking a an adult female gamer, myself.) But the "won't somebody think of the children" argument against media (or against anything), though hardly exclusively female (Jack Thompson, shut your trap) is historically either dominated by or geared towards mothers. Mamas, protect your babies from scum and filth!

Indeed, in the world as it stands now, its my female peers who think less of me for gaming. In men, the unspoken theory runs, it's acceptable because theirs is the domain of all things immature, juvenile, and boorish -- the category into which gaming inevitably falls. Why don't you know better?

But then, there was no pink DS Lite in the 1970s or 1980s. And there was no Nintendo console specifically generating widespread advertising featuring non-traditional (parents, the elderly) gamers. And there wasn't a computer in most homes, let alone more than one per person. The times, they are indeed a-changing and I am pretty confident that by the time I have grandkids, 30 or 40 years from now, the gaming world will have had the same transition that film, comics, and television have had, and the concept of "material in this medium for grown-ups only" will be well understood.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[blahplusplus]

I respectfully disagree. You are not watching the action from some physical and psychological distance. You are role-playing the character. You are being explicitly rewarded for the growing sadism of your kills.

Let me respectfully DISAGREE. Many horror movies are much worse then you will ever find in modern games, and to top it off most games havea cartoony bent and feel to them. Should we call the censorship police on bugs bunny and all the other violent cartoons for kids?

This reminds me of the "blood" in mortal combat and streetfighter controversy during the mid(?) 90's. The truth of the matter is "Physical and psychological distance", is you just BACKWARDS RATIONALIZING your position.

Go watch the saw 1, 2 or 3, it's people who watch and enjoy movies like that, that are sick motherfuckers. You will never find something on the level of SAW in a video game.

Saw 3

Re:It's a generational thing.

[RailRide]

Should we call the censorship police on bugs bunny and all the other violent cartoons for kids? We did.

---PCJ

Re:It's a generational thing.

[EmperorKagato]

...we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."

Rave party anyone?

Re:It's a generational thing.

[brkello]

I will do my best to respectfully disagree with you. Do you know the definition of physical? Heck yes you are playing the character from a physical distance. You don't get blood splattered on you if you kill someone. And as far as psychological distance...maybe you have problems with this, but normal people don't. I am not role-playing Kratos. I still strongly know the difference between myself and the character on the screen swinging around weapons. Kratos is explicitly rewarded for his kills. I personally do not benefit from this. When the game is over I do not try to kill people or am confused that I don't have giant muscles or I suddenly grew a bunch of hair.

It certainly is more interactive...but if you don't think there is a physical or psychological distance from yourself and the characters you play, you have serious problems and should avoid playing video games.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Creepy]

While I'm not as old as you, I've been playing videogames since I was 3 or 4 (on Magnavox Odyssey and Pong, later on a 2600). I don't play as many as I used to, but I still play them nonetheless.

Its not just comics (which to be quite honest, I've never seen as "just for kids" - I think that stigma was a generation before) - cartoons as well. Despite Anime and popular adult cartoons (mostly aired late at night), the genre is still seen as "for kids" by many parents in their mid-30s or later. Until Robotech in the early 80s (which I got to see thanks to mom's Betamax and being sick the week it aired at the non-schoolkid friendly time of 8:30AM Monday-Friday), most Anime that reached US shores was either kid stuff or cleaned extensively (like Gatchaman was to create "Battle of the Planets," though it was released later in a couple of other forms, e.g. G-Force). Kid friendly adult shows like the Simpsons re-emerged in the late 1980s (shows like the Flintstones pre-date it, but prime time animation mostly died in the 60s) which helped break the ice, but real adult cartoons didn't pop up until the 1990s (like Liquid Television on MTV and Phantom 2040 on network TV, followed by more prime-time adult TV that mostly died after a few episodes) and the only animation on network TV was Saturday morning cartoon fare.

Case in point - my wife (mid-30s) thinks Anime is silly and cartoons are for kids (she thought Akira was OK and didn't like Ghost in the Shell at all), but her best friend, who is still under 30, loves Anime and adult cartoons (stuff like Family Guy and Drawn Together are her favorites - I know because she has me record them for her). I grew up on the bubble between them and I think my generation is hit-or-miss. Same thing with computer games - I love them, but my wife hates them and thinks they're noisy and annoying. On the plus side, she needs 9-10 hours of sleep a night and I need 6-7, so I get a few hours to myself after she goes to sleep.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Hoi Polloi]

I have the opposite feeling. Seeing guys get pummelled with blood thirsty glee onscreen (Goodfellas) is more distressing than being some cartoonish character in a FPS where I'm shooting some guy who just repawns and says "crap!". On screen it looks real and happens to characters I recognize as people. I can't say the same about a video game.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Case in point - my wife (mid-30s) thinks Anime is silly and cartoons are for kids (she thought Akira was OK and didn't like Ghost in the Shell at all), but her best friend, who is still under 30, loves Anime and adult cartoons (stuff like Family Guy and Drawn Together are her favorites - I know because she has me record them for her). I grew up on the bubble between them and I think my generation is hit-or-miss. Same thing with computer games - I love them, but my wife hates them and thinks they're noisy and annoying. On the plus side, she needs 9-10 hours of sleep a night and I need 6-7, so I get a few hours to myself after she goes to sleep.

I think this is a gender difference more than an age difference. I find adult woman in general are far less interested in animation (especially raunchy slapstick like Family Guy and Drawn Together) and gaming than men. You're wife's best friend is certainly not representative of most her age.

The sleep difference sure applies to my wife. About the same hours difference for the two of us too. I think there needs to be a "F-d up sleep schedules support group" for couples.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Hoi Polloi]

...but he might blow it on "Cherry Poptart".

Eeeew, that explains why all the pages are stuck together.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Deagol]

I have to agree with you here, in some respects. While in college, I hung out in a frat house a lot for a few months. One of the more disturbing things I witnessed was the gleeful enjoyment many of the members got out of watching "Faces of Death" and the horribly drawn out, disturbing rape scene in "I Spit On Your Grave". The experience gave me a new low opinion of the human race.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[AgentPaper]

Interesting, because among my parents it's the exact opposite. Dad cannot stand ANYTHING animated - not comedy, not action, not drama, doesn't matter if it's hand-drawn, CGI, Claymation or whatever. He refuses to watch any of my anime collection, walked out of Finding Nemo, and hid in the basement the entire time his grandchildren came to visit because they insisted that he watch Thomas the Tank Engine with them. He absolutely adores counterterrorism shoot-em-up stuff like The Unit and 24, but when I tried to get him to watch Stand Alone Complex, he couldn't get away from the TV fast enough. Cowboy Bebop didn't even make it past the opening credits. Gaming doesn't make any sense to him, either. When we got a Wii this Christmas, he fooled with Wii Sports for about three minutes to be polite and then promptly ran downstairs. I went after him to see what the problem was, and found him watching some lame HBO romantic comedy (!). When I asked him what in the name of all that is good and holy he was watching, he replied, "It's better than that cartoon s***." I tried to get him to play Call Of Duty 3, thinking that maybe a WWII sim might be more his speed, but he only got thirty seconds, maybe a minute into the game before developing motion sickness. To this day, he believes that everyone who watches "cartoons" or plays games past the age of 5 or so must be smoking dope. This includes his own wife and children (see below). Meanwhile, Mom is a South Park and Family Guy devotee, thoroughly enjoyed Noir and Cowboy Bebop, and regularly kicks my butt in the vast majority of video games (about the only type of game I can beat her at is first-person shooters). Go figure.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[C0rinthian]

...we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."

Rave party anyone? Paging Captain Obvious...

Re:It's a generational thing.

[enderjsv]

Before anyone pipes up "but I'm just pressing back-back-forward-punch and making a hotspot collide with a hit rectangle" - what do you *think* when you do it? Do you think "back-back-forward-punch"? Or do you think "dragon punch! eat it bitch!"?

2-way street, though. When I "dragon" punch someone in real life, I think "back-back-forward-punch". I've fallen off bleachers that way.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[meringuoid]

If you think that moral outrage over comics started in the eighties, research EC Comics.

Actually, I meant that moral outrage over comics ended in the eighties - the bother over 2000AD was the most recent I could think of. Certainly there were earlier examples - I believe I did mention EC's Tales from the Crypt as well.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[enderjsv]

I strongly feel there is a big difference between the pre and post nintendo generations. The pre nintendo generations were into games purely for the reactionary elements of the game. It's not their fault, but games were designed to solicit quarters and hi-score was the ultimate achievement. I know very few people who spent their childhood playing games like pacman or space invaders and went on to play games as adult.

Sadly, these people still think of games like pacman or space invaders when someone mentions videogames today. They have a distinct misunderstanding of the gaming experience of today's titles. Games today are meant to be experienced on multiple levels, not just gameplay but story, atmosphere, and many more. With that said, while the gaming industry may technically be over forty years old, I'd have to say that I believe "modern" gaming started around the era of Nintendo and I truly believe it will be the Nintendo generation that will have to come to power before anything truly changes.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[ultranova]

You are not watching the action from some physical and psychological distance. You are role-playing the character.

No, role-playing killers is what happens when your concerned parents take away the console and send you to yard, where you and your friends will start playing "cops and robbers", "indians and cowboys", "ninja turtles" or some other wholesome game consisting of shooting imaginary bullets, arrows or throwing stars at each other in a real-life murder simulation.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[morari]

We pretended to be vampires and demons as kids, using sticks to sword fight with...

Try that clinical psychiatrist!

Re:It's a generational thing.

[David Gould]

Doh! Correction noted. Thanks, and sorry.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Psychochild]

I'm a game developer, so there are where my biases are.

There's a fundamental difference between watching a third party kill a character, and using a puppet to kill that same character.

There's also a fundamental difference between fiction that reads, "Then Frank took the knife and neatly cut the woman's thigh as she screamed in pain," compared to, "Then I took the knife and neatly cut the screaming woman's thigh as she screamed in pain." First-person perspective in writing is generally intended to allow the reader to identify more with the person performing the action. Do you think we should worry about the perspective from which a book is written and how it affects readers? Personally, I think the unstable person unable to differentiate between reality and fiction isn't going to only be affected because of the perspective or active/passive role in watching a scene. After all, people still do stupid things after watching them done on TV, no interactivity required.

Do you think "back-back-forward-punch"? Or do you think "dragon punch! eat it bitch!"?

I usually think forward-quarter circle down to forward-punch, but that's because I was a Street Fighter fan instead of Mortal Kombat. ;) But, game players rarely have conscious thought while playing a fighting game that relies on split-second timing. And, this is the same as watching a movie: you think, "those people are in love," rather than, "the director told the actor to hold the actress' hand and simulate looking longingly into her eyes and/or the camera." By the time you've rationalized that out, the movie has moved on. This behavior has nothing to do with you as a person, but how you enjoy the work of art. I think these are nearly identical situations.

My thoughts,

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Diehardchiefs]

http://www.3rdworldpets.com/

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Medrin]

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who'd qualify as an expection to the thought experiment you added. For example, I love games where you get to go around eviscirating your opponents in various ways. But, when I jump from chopping my enemies head of, picking it up and tossing it as someone else to lower their guard so I can impale them onto some spikes in Dark Messiah, to say, a heavly choiced based game like a Bioware game, I will almost always favor the non-fighting method over brawling my way through the game.

  It's because when you play a violent, combat oriented game, the combat is very well made, and FUN, usually requiring much foretought and planning as you slaughter the masses(because of all the killing you do in these games, it would quickly become boring if combat was quite mindless). When you play a game that offers non-violent solutions to most situations, the combat system of the game is generally less refined or more repetative. Most players know the risk factor for the logical solution is generally less then the risk associated with combat. The combat solution is generally just a faster, but more dangerous, way of solving those problems. I have no idea how rare of an exception I am, but I promise you that a fair portion of the pariticpants who played Manhunt would still go for the logical puzzles, and a fair portion of the group who played tetris would would go for the voilent solution.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[false1]

Since you're speaking of comic books, let's remember that the shift in perception about the "adultness" of comics was preceded by a shift by comic creators about what kind of stories would be told. Starting in the 60s when Marvel started giving their characters personality, ie Peter Parker questioning whether he wanted to save the world or simply make money off of his skills. Before that the heroes were totally one dimensional characters.

This was followed by the advent of independant comics with the creators keeping the rights to their creations. This allowed a lot more ideas to be introduced into comics than the corporate bean counters would have ever allowed. We started to get true adult comics like Maus, the Watchmen and V for Vendetta.

I don't believe that games like Manhunt are adult simply because they're bloody or profane. In fact it's just the opposite, they're adolescent. Jiggling breasts, splattering blood, and verbal obsceneties are the kind of thing that titillated me back in my teens and the depictions of female characters (skinny with enormous breast) are same kind of images that attracted me to buy certain comics as a teenager.

Hollywood produces blood splattered horror flicks and trashy B-movies, sure, but it's the films like the Godfather, Shindlers List, Ghandi, etc that earn them what little respect they have.

Until game developers start gaining control over their creations, create story lines that make people think, cater to a larger audience than post pubescent males gaming will never gain respect.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Creepy]

My wife loved South Park for about 2 years, then it got old, and used to like the Simpsons, too, so it's not entirely an aversion to animation - she just wouldn't pick it and doesn't get many of the in-jokes to other cartoons or just general Americana. I'm a sponge for Americana references and have found myself laughing at jokes when nobody else gets them. My wife would never find stuff in, say, the Fallout 2 game very funny, while I fell off my chair laughing multiple times (literally, at least once).

I can understand the motion sickness thing - I get it with some games, too, and it seems almost random amongst shooter type games. I used to think it was bob, but I now think it has something to do with the speed of movement more than anything (jerkiness). At one point I thought it was First Person, but I debunked that by getting violently ill within minutes of playing Darkened Skye (the Skittles game I got for $5...). I've never gotten ill playing UT02004, any Battlefield game, Morrowind, Oblivion, Descent (I-III + Freespace), Halo or the recent BioShock demo, but Doom, Quake, Half Life (I & II), Duke Nukem 3d, System Shock 2, and Deus Ex all made me sick within 10-15 minutes of play. I could play the Marathon series about 30-45 minutes.

I even know shooter fans that get sick playing Descent due to the disorienting environments (and nothing else), but that one never bothered me... it's very strange.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[EmperorKagato]

Dupes happen all the time, you must be new around here.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[C0rinthian]

Dupes happen all the time, you must be new around here. When did I say anything about a dup?

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tetris makes a man mean.

Re:It's a generational thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what killing sprees were caused by "Choose your own Adventure" books?

Going by the quote

[js92647]

I'm agreeing with you under the assumption that your last paragraph wasn't sarcastic. I don't see why Manhunt 2 is being brought up so much. It's just a game, nothing more. As someone who's been playing games throughout his life, all sorts of hideous monstrosities down to Nascar racing games (yes, even those are fun sometimes), I think it's fair to point out a major distinction between games and movies/books that has been discussed many times before: passivity. I suppose in a certain sense, it's a double edged sword. Yes, gamers claim that violent games do relax them, that's fine and I agree and see nothing wrong in it. However, on the other hand, that same lack of passivity can make for a very bad childhood, if you catch my drift. My question was serious though... why is Manhunt 2 still such a big deal? I mean, I'm sure that Rockstar loves the attention, however other games are banned too.

relax

[netsavior]

When the young are old and the old are dead, our battle will be won.

generational problems will always eventually see the young as the victor.

Re:relax

[meringuoid]

When the young are old and the old are dead, our battle will be won.

At which point we find out what appalling projects the even younger have in mind...

Re:relax

[netsavior]

At which point we find out what appalling projects the even younger have in mind...
Then we will die while still questioning why dudes are sagging their tight girl pants and listening to Emo while they wear their hat sideways in such a way that their entire face is covered by their awkwardly chopped hair.

Re:relax

[tyrantking31]

Not if the AARP has anything to say about it.

Re:relax

[Lord Kano]

I grew up listening to rap music. All the while the adults went on and on about how stupid rap music was. Now, I'm an adult and when I hear the music that kids are listening to now, I feel like my parents' generation. Have you ever heard some of this garbage?

Laffy Taffy? Panic at the Disco?

WTF?

LK

Re:relax

[fractoid]

Our grandchildren are going to be the first generation to grow up with their parents constantly telling them "you don't understand me!" and "you don't know what it's like!" :P

Re:relax

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm not looking forward to nursing homes full of guys playing artificially slowed down "Senior" versions of FPS games, old ladies with blotched "Juicy" tattoos above their ass cracks, and guys walking around with baggy pants with the tops of their diapers hanging out talking about how they hate the new wave of classical music kids listen too instead of gangsta rap.

Re:relax

[AgentPaper]

Two words: Hannah Montana.

The soulless marketing demon that came up with this dreck should be drawn, quartered and stabbed through the ears. Because that's about what listening to it feels like. Especially if you happen to be cooped up in a car full of children at the time.

Rating Systems

[KGIII]

A rating system is rendered null when there are zealots who can't comprehend that their views aren't the reality. It is sort of an, "I think it is so, so it must be so."

Re:Rating Systems

[aeschenkarnos]

Much as I would like to agree, "rendered null" isn't how it works. Try "enforced more vigorously and with more strident insistence".

Re:Rating Systems

[Opportunist]

But that's the problem with zealots. They cannot accept that their point of view is not the definite truth. For them, it is.

Their point of view is their truth, and for them, anyone who does not agree with them is simply and plainly wrong. And since they are wrong, they have to be stopped from doing what is wrong. It needn't even be religious zeal, I know a few people who are anything but religious but still consider their point of view the only permissible one.

And since they are intrinsically right, their point of view should be law. Because everyone has to share their point of view. Not sharing it is in their opinion wrong and thus not allowed.

You can neither reason nor argue mit people like that. Logic and reason simply bounce off them, no statistic, no argument can sway them. If anything, when their arguments are gone, they'll let you know that "it is impossible to argue with you", turn around and leave.

Re:Rating Systems

[KGIII]

It'd be awfully ironic if these were the same people who'd promoted the idea of the rating systems in the first place.

Re:Rating Systems

[KGIII]

I wonder if there's some sort of term for the Teflon® brains of zealots? I am, personally, zealous about not being a zealot. :D

Re:Rating Systems

[zippthorne]

You can neither reason nor argue mit people like that...they'll let you know that "it is impossible to argue with you"....

So..they're glue and you're rubber?

This is the problem with zealotry: we all think we're reasonable and open minded. And that the other person is too much of a zealot to realize their arguments are stupid and come around to our way of thinking.

Re:Rating Systems

[Opportunist]

I tend to pride myself with the ability to ponder every argument offered. But "because I say so" is none.

I try to find my point of view through discussion. Offering pros and cons, discussing the various points and finding the synthesis. Unfortunately, too many people are unable to produce any sensible arguments. They pick up an opinion from a newspaper (ok, tabloid), from some "independent" news network and rehash it. When you should dare to ask them to support that opinion with some reasons why I should adapt it as my own, you usually only get a weird look of disbelief and a "because that's how it IS".

How should you argue with someone like this? More so, how should you be able to take his opinion and point of view as the valid one? "Because" wasn't a sufficient reason whn my mom ran out of arguments, why should it be for someone else?

It's a culture thing.

[Kris_J]

Many western cultures, America particularly, have a popular belief that games, comics and animation are just for kids. As such, if you produce an adult game, adult comic or adult animation you're immediately considered to be corrupting children by the vast majority of ignorant adults.

Example: Here in Australia, Channel 7 bought Greg the Bunny. Because it had puppets in it, it had to be for kids, right? They showed it in the normal children's TV time slot. Once. I wonder how many executives at 7 learnt a valuable lesson that day.

Re:It's a culture thing.

[Skrapion]

You are of course talking about Australia, the country that literally bans any game which isn't suitable for 15 year olds.

Re:It's a culture thing.

[Starayo]

You sure you've got the right country? I see an abundance of violent games on the shelves that most 15-year-olds should most certainly not play.

Re:It's a culture thing.

[Kris_J]

I am, of course, talking about most of the western world. The example I gave was Australian, but the attitude can be found in Australia, the UK and America without looking too hard.

Re:It's a culture thing.

[Skrapion]

To be clear, games have to achieve an MA15+ rating in Australia, or else the Office of Film and Literature Classification will refuse to rate it, and it's illegal to sell any game which isn't rated. The R18+ rating is only used for films. Because of this, many games have been censored to meet the MA15+ rating, or have simple been banned.

Not Just Videogames

[GaryPatterson]

Here in Australia, South Park is around 8pm, and the channel hosting it also had a feedback show for a while. I remember a letter demanding to know why the channel made children stay up so late to watch cartoons. It's probably just as well they didn't still have the feedback show when they screened Drawn Together, not that the parent was watching the show anyway.

Some people have very fixed ideas about media. Cartoons are always for children. Video games are always for children. They don't listen to advice, don't see warnings because these things must be safe for children or they wouldn't be allowed to air, surely? These people can't seem to grasp that any media can be used to express concepts targeted at infants, children, teens or adults.

It's a game. Games are for kids.

[Opportunist]

Or so the generation 50+ thinks. And they are the ones who wield the power today.

They didn't play as adults. Well, ok, they played a game of cards, or bowling, but they would never think about sitting down with their friends (and without kids) to play a board game. Let's not even touch computer games, since computers weren't used for entertainment when they were kids or young adults.

So in their world, games are kids stuff. Period. Well, maybe there's the oddball adult who plays games, but the target audience has to be kids. The idea that there is a market for adult gaming is alien to them. That people who have (or could have) kids themselves would go and buy a game for themselves and not for their kids, actually keeping the game from their kids because they don't consider it suitable, simply does not fit into their world view.

If we want to crack this image before our generation turns 50 and we finally get to see some power (somewhere in 15-25 years, I'd say), we have to tell our politicians that yes, we're gamers, yes, we are adults, yes, we buy games for ourselves and not for our kids and, mostly, YES, WE VOTE.

Re:It's a game. Games are for kids.

[westlake]

Or so the generation 50+ thinks. And they are the ones who wield the power today.

They didn't play as adults. Well, ok, they played a game of cards, or bowling, but they would never think about sitting down with their friends (and without kids) to play a board game.

The Atari was in Sears "Big Book" Christmas Catalog in 1977. That $200 console wasn't left sitting idle after the kids went to bed. Monopoly carried your great grandparents through the Depression and was played by adults "for blood." from the beginning.

Re:It's a game. Games are for kids.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. I think that's part of the reason the whole "lower the drinking age back to 18" movement is starting up. The folks that got slammed when the drinking age went up to 21 back in the 1980's and know the change was stupid are finally in a position to do something about it. And we need to do something about the situation with games & comics as well.

For god's sake, somebody think of the teenagers and young adults! And the old farts too-- I doubt there is anything in Rockstar's game products that is likely to corrupt a 45-year-old married woman with two kids, and I enjoyed playing "Vice City" (when the kids were in bed). And when the kids are old enough, I'll let them play games like that. It's called "parenting" folks.

Re:It's a game. Games are for kids.

[chuckymonkey]

Will, just wanted to say that speech you gave at PAX was powerful and moving. I wish that you could give it to a group of Politicians.

Re:It's a game. Games are for kids.

[Gorlash]

If we want to crack this image before our generation turns 50 and we finally get to see some power (somewhere in 15-25 years, I'd say), we have to tell our politicians that yes, we're gamers, yes, we are adults, yes, we buy games for ourselves and not for our kids and, mostly, YES, WE VOTE.

Unless you can convince a large number of voters that games are an issue worthy of being a "single-issue voter", you're wasting your time. And if you can convince a large number of people that getting some legal respect for games is one of the most important issues we face today, then god help us all...because we certainly can't depend on the voters to do so with any intelligence.

I mean, I work for an online gaming company, but even I have to say that there's simply no way that games are in any way deserving of even 20 minutes worth of legislative time. There are literally hundreds (or thousands) of more important issues to deal with first. While I understand the irritation it causes to get lumped in with the kids (I'm in my late 40s myself), let's not get carried away.

Re:It's a game. Games are for kids.

[Opportunist]

True, but show me a single person aged 50+ that they bought that Atari for themselves more than their kids. It's a bit like model trains. I remember getting a rather elaborate model train setup at christmas from my dad when I was 3 and barely able to understand the concept. Looking back, I hardly spent any time with it. Or rather, I was hardly allowed to touch it, I could've ruined something.

For many of our parents and grandparents, games (if not played for money or making it otherwise some kind of "serious" business) were only permitted if there were kids involved, making them a welcome excuse that they "may" do something as silly and time wasting as playing.

Re:It's a game. Games are for kids.

[Opportunist]

Given a few other tidbits that became single-issues today, games almost sound like an important concept...

But it's more than just games. The question is whether the state has the right to dictate to an adult what he may or may not see, do and experience. Games are merely the frontend of this core problem.

And, personally, I do see that as an important issue. Maybe even one of the key questions I'll ask a politician when pondering which crook to pick.

Re:It's a game. Games are for kids.

[ShadowsHawk]

That's an excellent point. Perhaps it's not that we're playing games, but that we are seen as wasting our time.

Re:It's a game. Games are for kids.

[Opportunist]

Well, what else should we do? Hang out at the mall? Vegg away in front of the TV? Drown in booze?

Personally, I think playing games is a relatively harmless pastime compared to those. For your health, your sanity and mostly for your brain.

"Adult" and "Mature" labeling

[White Flame]

You can't get more adolescent than just a bunch of swearing, nudity, and gore. There's nothing mature or adult about it. While things deemed culturally vulgar can add more bite and reality to good entertainment, they do not make it any more mature or adult-oriented, and the overemphasis of such qualities is solely targeted at adolescence. Dealing with the implications of such things and other complex decisions, catch-22 moral conflicts, clashes of norms, power struggles, destruction that comes with change, and other such things are far more in the realm of those things that would pique the interest and imagination of mature-minded adults in all forms of entertainment.

This is a multifaceted issue. What you do not want to expose to pre-adolescent children, and those things that adult-minded people will understand and enrich their experience, are independent factors. Labeling both as "adult" or "mature" is an oversimplification that really hinders the acceptance of mature-minded games, lumping them in with the well-known tide of those that solely ride on adolescent shock value.

Re:"Adult" and "Mature" labeling

[ajegwu]

You're overthinking it. Its FOR adults or FOR mature people. As in mature people can handle this. I thought it was obvious that Grand Theft Auto 3 isn't considered mature content, but it is reserved for a mature audience.

Re:"Adult" and "Mature" labeling

[White Flame]

The point I'm making, which your association to GTA3 might reinforce, is that the "Mature" label is a de facto indicator of "This game is mindless, degenerate offensiveness. So no kids allowed." While this is attractive to many game buyers, it does not fit the direction that gamers nor game industry say (or at least give lip service to) they want to go with artistic expression in gaming taken seriously. When games tackle serious well-made content and get the "M" branding, they're automatically associated with being degenerate and virtueless to parents and decisionmakers.

Re:"Adult" and "Mature" labeling

[perlchild]

I always thought the labels meant "only adults can approve this material" not "only adults can enjoy" this material.

That means that adults MUST review the material before exposing younger minds to it. Not that it means it can be interesting to you by itself.

Re:"Adult" and "Mature" labeling

[lucyfersam]

Honestly I find this idea that these things you lable as adolescent are not adult more troubling than the idea that all games are for kids. In part because it feeds the idea that these are really aimed at kids, but more because it effectively makes the claim that these things are never acceptable entertainment. We aren't supposed to enjoy them when we're kids becuase we're not old enough, and we shouldn't enjoy them now that we're adults because we're too mature for that. It's absurd, puritanical, and judgemental. It helps the cause of restricting games on multiple levels, and is probably the most damning opinion of entertainment I can think of.

Re:"Adult" and "Mature" labeling

[Targon]

Strange that you say this about swearing, nudity and gore when most movies have these elements to a certain degree. The difference between most(not all) movies and computer games is that there are very few games that include nudity, swearing and violence from an artistic point of view.

Take a show like The Sopranos for some great examples of what works and what doesn't. In some cases, you have nudity, not as the focus of a scene, but in the background(in a strip club for example). Sure, you have nudity in the scene, but the focus is on the dialog between characters. The nudity is there due to the environment, and in and of itself is NOT the reason people watch. You have other scenes where there is violence, but a big part of much of the violence in the show was more about the character reactions to each other. Violence is a part of the show, but really isn't a focus in much the same way nudity and adult situations are not the focus. The focus is really on the characters.

Computer games on the whole tend to make the violence the focus of the entire game, rather than making it a side-effect of the story.

Now, an example of a game that did a somewhat better job of putting these elements in was Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. That particular game had swearing and adult situations(no real nudity though), plus a good amount of violence and gore. A real difference between Bloodlines and most other games is that in many many situations, violence could be avoided. The player can choose to use dialog options to avoid fights and situations. In many areas, the quest given is very specific about not killing anyone as well. This leads to a game that may have player controlled violence, but does not require it for every moment of the real gameplay. The dialog is also clearly aimed at a more mature audience, and isn't toned down. The "F" word is used as appropriate in NPC dialog, and dialog isn't toned down just to hold to a certain rating. That is the real key, nothing about the game feels like it was toned down just to get the M rating the game ended up with(and deserves).

This concept that violence can be avoided and avoiding violence may be even more rewarding than jumping into every fight possible is the one thing that I(and hopefully others) wish was the norm and not the exception in games. Most games out there have a focus on violence, but have no rewards for those who look for non-violent ways to get past a situation. This is a big part of the perception problem that games have today. In the real world, if you act like an ass, there is a good chance that you will get your ass kicked. In games, the general concept is that the character you play doesn't run this risk, or that the character will survive the fight and that there will be NO downside to acting like a criminal.

Even in movies, there is always the idea that criminals need to avoid doing certain things or they will attract too much attention from the different organizations in the area(police, other gangs, etc...). The Grand Theft Auto games for example really need to have the main character become the target of MANY attacks on a regular basis if the player does certain things. That is the thing missing, the punishment for unacceptable behavior. If someone beats up a whore, a pimp would become involved in a very short period of time, and not someone who can easily be handled or avoided either. Even in organized crime, that sort of thing is looked down on, and might provoke some people to provide some justice that tends to be a bit more severe than anything the police might do. The balance in games just tends to be....off. When the police get involved, they don't just send one or two cars for a major incident, they send dozens. The roads get blocked, and so on. Games NEED this if they want to lose the current negative view they have with certain groups.

Re:"Adult" and "Mature" labeling

[Targon]

Ok, no edit feature...after re-reading the parent, I realize that he/she was talking about how these elements being the primary focus is the problem, not just having them in games in particular.

For moderators, yes, the preview button is there, but that doesn't stop people from mis-reading a post, responding to it, and then realizing it after the fact and wanting to go back to edit their post.

But is it any good?

[ThirdPrize]

If we are talking film analogies then I suspect Manhunt 2 is more Saw or Hostel than Godfather or Scarface. In which case I suspect the answer to my question is no.

Alpha Mom '07

[Associate]

Someone should create a game where you get to be a self centered, busy bodied cunt, where you ruin the lives of your children by smothering them with attention and activities until they can't think on their own. You could rate their alpha skill level at how long it takes the grown children to move out of the basement.

Re:Alpha Mom '07

[westlake]

You could rate their alpha skill level at how long it takes the grown children to move out of the basement.

It is difficult to suppress the thought here that the sterotypical Slashdot poster hasn't poked his head of Ma's basement since the summer of '89.

Re:Alpha Mom '07

[Associate]

If they want to be alphas and play with wii's they can be alpha cocksuckers for me.

Re:Alpha Mom '07

[fractoid]

...where you ruin the lives of your children by smothering them with attention and activities until they can't think on their own. I don't think it's possible to ruin your childrens' lives by giving them too much attention. Spoiling them and letting them get away with behaving like brats, yes. Attention, no. The problem with today's kids (fetch me my walking stick, young'un) is that parents opt out of actual parenting, deferring that onerous task to electronic babysitters like TV and computers. The answer is more active parenting, not less of it.

Re:Alpha Mom '07

[Anonymous Coward]

There are parents who hold their kid's hand too much. "Mom, help me with my science project. Can you fill this form out for me?...." They grow up to become quick to throw up their hands and not try to do something hard themselves. Probably they are the people who sue over every slight also.

I know a mom who has been extremely attentive but she has sheltered her boy too. Now that he has to deal with other kids more he is having trouble dealing with them. He isn't used to solving things on his own or obnoxious kids.

Re:Alpha Mom '07

[R2.0]

"I don't think it's possible to ruin your childrens' lives by giving them too much attention"

The problem with that approach is that it creates people who are accustomed to being the center of attention. And when they get older, and are in situations where they are NOT the center of attention, they get uncomfortable and start demanding attention. This is NOT good preparation for real life (Althogh it is good prep for "Real Life" - is that show still on?)

We just moved, and our neighbor has a 5 year old boy who comes over to play with my 7 yo. He asked if my son could go over to his house. I said it was OK if his Mom said it was ok. He replied "She always says it's OK. Whatever Mom is doing, like if she's working, we just go up to her and ask and she stops what she's doing and gets what we want". Aside from the obvious spoiling, there is the fact that the kid has no compunction about interrupting his mother , whatever she is doing.

My theory is that the explosion of body art and body mods is linked to this. After having been the center of their parents world in elementary school, kids move up to high school and find out that not only aren't they the center of attention anymore, they get ignored! So they do things to their bodies which are the equivalent of a 3 year old jumping up and down shouting "Lookatme!lookatme!lookatme!" to his parents. And it works - they get a lot of attention. For a while. Then they get older and a lot of their peers have the same markings as well.

I try to give my kids attention when they need it, but also instill in them that they are not the center of the universe, and that the best way to get positive attention is to go positive things.

Spock said it best

[Bullfish]

"The more sophisticated the mind, the greater the need for play" From the episode "Shore Leave"

Re:Spock said it best

[tgd]

Spock isn't real.

I hope you don't have the same confusion while playing Manhunt 2.

Re:Not Just Videogames - Anime!

[hanako]

Anime also. I see a lot of stories from people who work at video stores and desperately try to explain to the parents renting films that no, Ninja Scroll and Urotsukidoji may NOT be what they want to get their 8 year old... "But it's a CARTOON!"

Rename Video Games - Interactive Entertainment

[RobK]

Is it time to give up the old name that reminds everyone of "Wonder Years" and the old "Atari" and move on to an adult name for an adult product?
It's time to take the respect that $300,000,000 in one week sales demands.
It's time to face the fact that it has changed and the name should change to convince the "old people" that it's not just for seven year olds no matter how much they try to force it to fit using their 80's mentality.

Re:Rename Video Games - Interactive Entertainment

[Vokkyt]

Won't matter. Cute idea, won't matter. Whether it's the unholy successors of people like Mr. Thompson who are on a personal crusade to ruin something for their own gain, or just people who don't get the concept of there being more to games than just games, whichever term you slap on video games is going to be considered a child's title, though in some cases it may take awhile.

Also, Interactive Entertainment sounds like something which self-lubricates and vibrates a lot. Not necessarily the best name, though certainly fun.

That comparison is the point.

[Fross]

Why are films like Saw or Hostel allowed to air (with massive publicity and positive media coverage, no less) when a computer game with the same style of content is deemed unfit for consumption? Both are forms of entertainment.

Re:That comparison is the point.

[ThirdPrize]

Why are films like Saw or Hostel allowed to air FULL STOP.

Re:That comparison is the point.

[Fross]

Because some people like to see them.

You may not like them. I certainly don't like them. I can choose to not watch them, as can you, but who are you to determine what other people can or can't watch?

Censorship is moral policing - nobody has the right to tell another adult that they are not allowed to watch a particular movie. Or for that matter, play a particular game.

No it's not generational

[Prototerm]

I'm on your side (I'm in my 50's), but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a sea-change if I were you.

I started playing video games when the original Atari 2600 was first released (Pong, anyone? How about Space Invaders?), and still play video games today (favorites now are Unreal Tournament and Postal 2). so I dispute the idea that there's some sort of generational thing going on. What's happening is that a large segment of the population is clueless when it comes to video games. This group prefers to lie back on the sofa and passively watch television. Why in heaven's name would anyone want to *participate* in the entertainment? Actually pay attention and *do* something? Hell, if they wanted to work *that* hard, they'd read a book (albeit a novelization of a movie or television show). They should read "The Marching Morons" sometime and see themselves in *that* mirror!

On the other hand, when gamers want to relax and vegetate, they don't turn on the TV, they turn on cheat codes (hey, we all have guilty pleasures). As for the games themselves, we should start calling them "Interactive videos", which is a much more accurate description of what they're all about (particularly games like the original Deus Ex or System Shock 2). But then, I guess we'd chase away even *more* of the Mainstream world.

Re:No it's not generational

[mr_mischief]

Heh. My sister sold enough subscriptions to Grit to get the Coleco? Pong one-trick console. Two paddles, two nine-volt batteries, a select button, and a start button were about all it had. No cartridge slot at all, just Pong. The 2600 was a leap forward from hooking different boxes up to the RCA jack on our slide-switching adapter box attached to the antenna screw posts for different games.

Then, impressed with what we'd gotten out of the 2600 (actually, a Sears VCS) we bought a 600 XL as the family's first non-console computer. Too bad we never had any drives for it. Typing in the whole text of a program into the ROM Basic got a little old. Imagine thinking of DOS 5 on a 286 with 1 meg of RAM, 40 megs of hard drive, and an EGA video system being another huge leap. And yet obviously it was over the things that came before.

The thing is, games are doing the same thing computers in general have done. They're coming to the masses instead fo drawing the masses to themselves. Tetris, Bejeweled, little Flash games on websites, and that style of simple to pick up game driven by a fun mechanic and upbeat music rather than a story and realistic graphics are what non-gamers play when they do play games. More computers are being put into homes all the time, and the old ones get pitched or come to collectors of old and interesting computer hardware like me. That doesn't mean more people are savvy enough to do things in DOS, CP/M, a Unix command line, or any of the other more involved systems. It just means that GUIs and programs for them have become simplified enough that people can pick them up with less effort It's the same thing, really.

It's interesting ..

[Brigade]

It seems that the only two major nations that have EVER had an issue with violence/sex/etc. are the US and the UK. (Ironically enough, both English as national language)

I may very well be wrong, and I am rather young (almost 30) .. but hasn't Japanese Anime (and Hentai) been around for quite some time? They don't seem to have the "Games and Cartoons are for Kids" mental deficiency that the Western cultures have falsely assumed. Isn't public nudity commonly acceptable in other countries such as France? Don't other countries allow public broadcast of material that any US broadcaster shivers to even think about airing before "bedtime?"

When is the truth going to come to frution .. that the problem isn't the content (mature or not) but the viewpoint? It's funny how we pride ourselves on our 1st Amendment rights, and all the "freedoms" that we have (at least in the US), yet there are so many damn people and watchdogs that want to make our decisions for us? Doesn't seem like any other countries are falling apart due to the heathen devil morality prevalent in their societies (or lack thereof).

Re:It's interesting ..

[moderatorrater]

It seems that the only two major nations that have EVER had an issue with violence/sex/etc. Germany's currently going ape-shit against violent games. France has nude beaches, but walking nude down the street is still going to cause a commotion. There are a lot of nations that are more religious than the US is. Japan is reserved enough that public nudity's going to cause an outrage and their porn movies are all blurred in the good parts.

So no, the US and UK aren't the only countries that have issues with violence and sex.

Silly Rabbit

[ratboy666]

Games are for kids.

Why do we play games? Kids do it to simulate world experience in a safe environment. It's part of learning.

As we get older, our concept of gaming changes. Generally, people still use gaming to learn; but the games become... different. We take up bridge, chess, and physical leisure (skiing, etc.).

Playing a twitch video game -- may sharpen your vision system, given sufficient play, but really doesn't teach anything.

Re:Silly Rabbit

[Opportunist]

So twitch games are only for kids, because adults only play games that teach them something? Or games that require complex thinking patterns like chess?

Re:Silly Rabbit

[Zelos]

Games are entertainment, just like films or books. Not every film you watch has to be a deep meaningful exploration of the human psyche, not every game has to be a 'learning' experience.

Re:Silly Rabbit

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm a fan of BF1942 (yah, old game) and I'm technically an adult. It is mostly a twitch game but there is a lot of psychology involved. I've watched players learn the same patterns as others, others learn those patterns and counter them, the first group has to adjust, etc. It is really interesting to watch. It has also taught me the power of teamwork which, sadly, rarely occurs in the game.

Re:Silly Rabbit

[Opportunist]

BF2142 here, else the same.

In 2142 it's even worse, since teamwork would actually be a killer on most (public) servers. The game is built for teamwork and cooperation, you can augment the firepower of your team by magnitudes when you work together properly, not to mention the commander's powers, firesupport calls and so on. There's no way to overcome a well placed and well cooperating team. Mostly because there's just as much teamplay on the other side as there is on yours.

Re:It's a generational thing. Durrrrrrrrr

[Viewsonic]

You are most certainly not using the "same mental states" killing someone in a game and in real life. I'd really like to know how you came up with this idea. When you're playing the game, you're thinking about getting to the end of the level and seeing what happens with the story next. You're not sitting over every corpse getting whatever thrill it is murderers get in real life.

Games and real life are distinctly different, and I would honestly like to know how you could even rationalize that the "mental states" are even close to each other. "dragon punch! eat it bitch!" was a horrible example simply because the reasoning for saying that is because you probably just won the round and will make it to the next level. In real life, I hardly doubt killers are all excited to get an extra life and get to level two.

Black & White

[tepples]

Someone should create a game where you get to be a self centered, busy bodied cunt, where you ruin the lives of your children by smothering them with attention and activities until they can't think on their own. Peter Molyneux's Black & White.