Ugh. It's really sad that in a world full of war, genocide, starvation, disease, natural disasters, and resource shortages, the only thing our legislators can all agree on is that video games are BAD.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. But video game makers SHOULD be held responsible for not disclosing inappropriate in-game material in order to gain the 'T' rating.
Yes, they should. But why the over-the-top rhetoric about it? Why did they invite Jack Thompson, if they were interested in anything besides a big negative farce and a lot of bad press for the industry?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thompson highlighted alleged cases of soft ratings by the ESRB, claiming that 60% of games rated "E for Everyone" reward violent actions.
I would love to see where he got this statistic.
Like the article says- I find the ESRB ratings to be the best system out there. I'm not even conscious most of the time about the Music industry having ratings, and the the Film Industry's ratings is useful- but the difference between PG-13 and R are becoming increasingly blurred.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Defining this industry based on its most controversial titles would be like defining the film industry based on Kill Bill, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Natural Born Killers," he said, "or the music industry based on Eminem, 50 Cent, and The Dixie Chicks.
Did the 'dixie chicks' part make anyone else literally LOL?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "Rewarding acts of violence" if we used this man's definition, would be as basic as when you jump on evil brown mushrooms in Mario Bros.
I know Hillary Clinton is a big supported of stricter ratings on Video Games.
It seems to me that rating systems could use some work, and perhaps the negativity being directed at video games is a bit exhagerated. But I see no reason to fine the ESRB for doing what movie companies get from the MPAA all the time, lower ratings by making slight adjustments.
I really do not think the ESRB is neglecting their duty, they might disagree with certain senators as to what constitutes a E rating a T rating and a M rating.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
it may not be strictly legally binding, but I've had to give my DOB to buy Diablo and other games rated M
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In places like Hong Kong ratings seriously mean nothing. You can buy any game you want and no questions are asked.
Heck you can go down the street where they are selling porn on VCD and DVD and the guys there will turn the other way and sell it to you regardless of your age.
Sometimes I think Americans dont realize how much censors really do try to do their job.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Thompson in question isn't Jack Thompson, according to the article you linked.
quote:Also in attendance were Harvard associate professor Kimberly Thompson, Childrens Technology Review editor Warren Buckleitner, and National Institute on Media and the Family president David Walsh, both critics of the ESRB.
posted
Hahahahaha! Whoops. Look what happens when you assume
I'm impressed, though, that they found another Thompson whose rhetoric I couldn't distinguish from Jack's Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Sure. But video game makers SHOULD be held responsible for not disclosing inappropriate in-game material in order to gain the 'T' rating.
That's rather the key, isn't it? For example, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was just re-rated to M from T because a third-party mod made female NPCs topless. If games are rated by what mods can do, then Neverwinter Nights, with its incredibly powerful modding and scripting tools, should clearly be rated Adults Only.
There is a sane solutoin to this problem. Much like the ESRB puts a "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" notice at the start of internet-enabled games, there should also be a "Game Experience May Change With Third-Party Modifications" notice. The developer and publisher can't be held responsible for what other people do with the modding tools they provide.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
ESRB: T for Teen.This post may not be suitable for young children. Reading experience may change in On-line perusing.
"Faceless surgeons armed with razors cut out our imagination" -- Controller, Oingo Boingo
Why don't we just give up and live in their sterile, tasteless world. We can all be perfect little heterosexual cogs in the government's grand machine with nothing better than lukewarm entertainment from the Hallmark channel to placate our minds.
Who needs free speech when it might harm children? Who needs adult entertainment if it might fall into the hands of kids? Heck, we should give a blank sheet of paper an "M" rating. Ya know, a third party mod might draw a nekkid woman on it.
Remember people, every time you think about giving the government more power, it's these ********** that you're giving the power to. They don't know a damn thing about anything but they have the power to affect every little aspect of your life. And YOU are giving it to them. You think they know about the environment? Look at what they know about something as simple as video games! You think they know about business? middle class life? The poor? Kids? Gays? God? ANYTHING? They're as dumb as dog dirt, the lot of them.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: That's rather the key, isn't it? For example, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was just re-rated to M from T because a third-party mod made female NPCs topless. If games are rated by what mods can do, then Neverwinter Nights, with its incredibly powerful modding and scripting tools, should clearly be rated Adults Only.
I have to chime in: My understanding is that the "topless skin" was, in fact, present on the Oblivion disc, though not used by the game in its standard form. The "patch" makes it available; it doesn't create it.
Still, as with GTA's "Hot Coffee" mod, one has to wonder if they're skirting a fine line. When significant steps have to be undertaken in order to view content more graphic than what is listed on the rating, how different is that from downloading content that uses the game's engine but graphics or sounds that weren't included with the game?
Could you reach a point where every C++ compiler comes with a warning label for what it *could* create?
That elected representatives continue to define video and computer games as a "kid's medium" shows just how far removed they are from their constituencies, and I suspect how far they often are from being actual representatives of those consituencies. It'll be interesting to see what Congress looks like in 20 years, when perhaps some of its members will actually be people who play games.
Right now, I suspect video games are merely the kind of issue they think they can flog with minimal negative impact while making them look proactive to their target block.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Elder Scrolls issue is a weird one. The texture with nipples was on the disc, but the only way to get to it was to hack in and alter the source code. It really could not be accessed without writing a third-party program to do it. It's not like there was an image file sitting in a directory somewhere.
How about this ... what if there were a game that did not have a nude female upper torso, but did have a nude male torso with nipples ... and then what if someone modded the game by applying the male texture to the female model? It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a close enough approximation to female anatomy to be considered nudity. Would that be considered the developer's fault, since all the art came on the disc?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just say a discussion that mirrored this on the Colbert Report the other night. There was a guy on who wrote a book about how video games and the like aren't as bad as everyone says. I think the book was called something like "Everything that's bad for you is actually good" or something like that.
His argument for video games was something along the lines of "Do you know what kids are playing these days? Sid Meier's Civilization Four, where kids spend all their free time managing, and building a civilization from the ground up." He went on from there, basically talking about how seemingly boring subject matter was the basis for the second most popular game in the country. Stephen was a little flummoxed by that, but he didn't miss much of a beat. I think the point was well earned though, other than the proven positive effect of increased hand eye coordination from games (perhaps offset by the increase in arthritis), the fact is that kids are playing amazingly mentally challenging games these days. Like the new game coming out, "Spore" I think it's called, where you have to take a microbe and turn it into an empire, or some such.
Kids are being increasingly mentally challenged at younger and younger ages. And they are demanding to be able to do so, demanding that they be able to play these games that in fact, I honestly thing, are making them more capable and smarter, if not directly, then are at least increasing their ability to use critical thinking and acquire new knowledge.
To paint the entire video game industry based on its most violent offenders is ridiculous, and I think only serves to illustrate how incredibly far removed the people attacking it are from the actual subject matter.
Congress should spend a couple days with their children playing some games. They might learn something.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: ANYTHING? They're as dumb as dog dirt, the lot of them.
Gah! I'm all worked up now...
Pix
Well obviously pix, we Americans depend on the government and society to raise our kids FOR us. Why should we take the time out to raise them with the right knowledge? Society should be safeguarded against scariness, sharpness, sourness, sweetness, violence, sexuality, homosexuality, controversy, and the bitter cold hard facts of life! After, we're so much smarter than them... we can handle these issues, and obviously they can't.
I DJed by second dance at my new teen center job a few nights ago, and the way we do parental pick-ups is to have all the kids meet at one of two exits so that we can make sure every kid (all of them in 7th grade), is picked up by an adult (either a friend's parent or a sibling or a parent). When it came time for pickups, a number of kids said their parents had told them to come out to the cars in the parking lot (even though we'd expressely said this was not going to be allowed!). Those weren't the most annoying however.
Early on in the parent pick-up process, a girl ran past my "post" at the exit toward a an adult about 10 yards away. I was about to say something to her, but saw that she was clearly headed for a family member (and stopping her would have annoyed her and the parent). I saw her reach her mom, and turned back to the rest of the kids. About a minute later, the mom came up and tapped ME on the shoulder, and asked (in an accusing voice) "Excuse me, why did you let my daughter run past you?"
Lets forget that I didn't "let" her do anything, that I couldn't have stopped her, and she didn't ask my permission to do it. Then let's also forget that I carefully watched her and made sure she was with a mom, so I DID MY JOB. Then lets also forget that even though I was doing my job correctly, it was the girl who had broken the rules and ran through the checkpoint. The mother was holding me responsible for her daughter having made my work more difficult, accusing me by connotation, of being careless. The mom asks me why I LET HER DAUGHTER do that. Gee wiz... everything your kid does has got to be my responsibility? Even when your there and I'm there, and presumably your kid has a brain in her head and is making at least some of her own decisions?
I told the mom with a pleasant smile (for I suffer fools gladly, they remind me that I am not stupid), "I watched where she was going even though she ran off without asking. :::wan smile:::"
Hi parents. Your job is this: Be a ******* parent, and please stop expecting the world to nurture and protect your kids from their (and your) stupid decisions.
That being said, I don't expect most parents are like that, but the town I live in has an overabundance of wealthy people without enough to do but harass city workers who are at the end of 10 hour shifts.... Rant finished.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that case I don't think it was, Dag. Perhaps in some cases, but not in a lot.
If you need to modify the game to show the disagreeable content, then the game isn't being played as advertised, is it?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was referring merely to the statement Tom quoted in general. If the material wasn't "in-game" then my comment doesn't apply to that situation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: That's rather the key, isn't it? For example, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was just re-rated to M from T because a third-party mod made female NPCs topless. If games are rated by what mods can do, then Neverwinter Nights, with its incredibly powerful modding and scripting tools, should clearly be rated Adults Only.
I have to chime in: My understanding is that the "topless skin" was, in fact, present on the Oblivion disc, though not used by the game in its standard form. The "patch" makes it available; it doesn't create it.
That's certainly true. When I loot the corpses of human enemies in Oblivion they are typically stripped to their underwear when I'm finished taking their gear, and it doesn't look as though the underwear is part of the character skin. I don't really see why it should be part of the character skin, though. The only reason to do that is to make it harder for a modder to make the characters nude, but if it requires mods anyway, I'm not sure I see the problem. There'd be a line to draw, of course -- a developer could hypothetically include content with the intent that modders would use it.
Still, a "Game Experience May Change During Online Play Or With Third-Party Modifications" disclaimer at the front would make it clearer that the developer and publisher aren't responsible for what other people do with the modding tools they provide.
[Added: I'm playing the Xbox 360 version of Oblivion, which wasn't re-rated because there is no way to access the underlying skins. The skins are obviously still on the disc, so apparently the issue only arises when the skins are accessible, not when they're there but inaccessible. On the other hand, the console versions of GTA:SA were also re-rated because some people with modded consoles could access the Hot Coffee content.
Certainly Rockstar should have known better than to leave Hot Coffee on the disc, but I don't think Bethseda did anything wrong in making the underlying body textures nude. Heck, where I live, it's legal for a woman to go topless outside; it's not like they have to cover up if they happen to pass someone under 17 on the street. ]
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Still, as with GTA's "Hot Coffee" mod, one has to wonder if they're skirting a fine line. When significant steps have to be undertaken in order to view content more graphic than what is listed on the rating, how different is that from downloading content that uses the game's engine but graphics or sounds that weren't included with the game?
The example of Giants: Citizen Kabuto is also interesting. Originally one of the game's charcters, the female Sea Reaper Delphi, was topless (this was for the games European release). Before the game was released in North America, though, the developer added a bikini-type top to the character in order to keep the game at a Mature rating (for animated blood and animated violence). The underlying nude skin was still easily accessible (you just had to delete the "fix" file), no third-party mods required, and yet the game wasn't re-rated.
Aside: Giants is a good game, too. I didn't make Delphi topless when I played through it, but I could have.
It's also interesting that something like Giants, with its cartoony characters and zany presentation, is rated M for violence, right alongside a game like Condemned: Criminal Origins, which features remarkably realistic (and very disturbing) investigations of murder scenes, not to mention beating people to death with a length of steel pipe. It seems very strange to me that a game could be re-rated from T to M or M to AO because of the possibility that someone might use the game engine to look at pixellated breasts, but violence as graphic as games like Manhunt and Condemned only earns an M. It gets even stranger when you consider that M is 17+ and AO is 18+. It seems to me that the only reason for M to exist is to allow retailers to sell ultra-violent games to minors.
quote:That elected representatives continue to define video and computer games as a "kid's medium" shows just how far removed they are from their constituencies, and I suspect how far they often are from being actual representatives of those consituencies. It'll be interesting to see what Congress looks like in 20 years, when perhaps some of its members will actually be people who play games.
posted
Twinky- Its legal for people to go topless where you live? Do you live in Europe or the US or somewhere else? The only place I have ever seen people (both sexes) go topless was in Cadaques, Catalonia, which is a small port in north-west Spain. It was a beautiful day... Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ontario, Canada. You don't see it much, but it's allowed. The practical upshot, as far as I can tell, seems to be that mothers can nurse their infants more or less anywhere. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people don't even know that Windsor has a topless beach-no one goes topless. I guess us Canadians are just too shy (or too cold). Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Windsor has a topless beach? Where? I'm there fairly often.
Aren't women in Canada literally around to walk around topless whenever they want on streets? I thought I remember a controversy about that law awhile back. Or was it just in some major city like Montreal or Toronto?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, if it gets my friends away from the bars, clubs, and Windsor Casino, it'll kill two birds with one stone.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Defining this industry based on its most controversial titles would be like defining the film industry based on Kill Bill, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Natural Born Killers," he said, "or the music industry based on Eminem, 50 Cent, and The Dixie Chicks.
Did the 'dixie chicks' part make anyone else literally LOL?
Yeah...
quote: Thompson's claim that Pac-Man is indeed a violent game
What? If Pac Man is a violent game, then what's stopping them from giving games like Sonic and Mario Bros. an M rating? Why can't they focuse on something that needs to be changed? The game ratings have been fine this long, why not longer?
Like you guys said before, if you change the art to make a character or NCP go nude or topless, that's because of you. They shouldn't be able to give a higher rating for that. Not everyone mods the games. Why should a game be 'M' because someone changes it, but I don't? Not everyone will change it. The rating shouldn't go higher because of what they do.
Jeez, Why do I get involved with these? First it was age, then it was movie ratings...
Posts: 1164 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Hey, if it gets my friends away from the bars, clubs, and Windsor Casino, it'll kill two birds with one stone.
There are two casinos up here in Sarnia (~1-1.5 hours north of Windsor). I assume people came across the border to go to them a lot when the Canadian dollar was down in the US$0.60 range, but it's US$0.90 now. Is there less crossborder casino traffic because of that?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: There are two casinos up here in Sarnia (~1-1.5 hours north of Windsor). I assume people came across the border to go to them a lot when the Canadian dollar was down in the US$0.60 range, but it's US$0.90 now. Is there less crossborder casino traffic because of that?
I don't know about that, but the last time my wife and I were in Victoria, the change in rates was a rude awakening.
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: Jeez, Why do I get involved with these? First it was age, then it was movie ratings...
Sympathies, Jeesh. It's the sort of thing where for all the claims that they're doing things for kids, they wouldn't dream of actually looking to kids for input. And it stinks to high heaven.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Hey, if it gets my friends away from the bars, clubs, and Windsor Casino, it'll kill two birds with one stone.
There are two casinos up here in Sarnia (~1-1.5 hours north of Windsor). I assume people came across the border to go to them a lot when the Canadian dollar was down in the US$0.60 range, but it's US$0.90 now. Is there less crossborder casino traffic because of that?
Not that I've seen. It's a little bit more expensive to buy a drink or what not there now, and in general the shopping scene isn't as big as it was. But the bar crawl and the casino is still buzzing all the time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sure. But video game makers SHOULD be held responsible for not disclosing inappropriate in-game material in order to gain the 'T' rating.
*****
Why? I mean, why particularly? It's a voluntary ratings system, and not legally binding in any way.
Weren't you just commenting on how legal doesn't necessarily mean right, Tom?
What Dag said, more or less. The public has come to rely on the ratings system in order to filter out certain things. Sneaking in work arounds so that you can publish a T-rated video game, with an M- rated cheats is dishonest.
A big part of keeping video games safe is keeping parents involved. For example: for father's day, my kids purchased Harry Potter 4. For me, ostensibly. It's ESRB rated E-10, meaning it's suitable for everyone above age ten. My oldest is almost eight-- and we screened HP4 the movie, and wouldn't let any of the kids watch the end. So, my wife and I decided to play through the game and make sure that everything was kosher for what we're comfortable letting them see/hear.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sneaking in work arounds so that you can publish a T-rated video game, with an M- rated cheats is dishonest.
That's only if the ratings system isn't already a complete joke. And of course it is.
Have you seen the amount of violence it takes to get a "M" rating?
quote:A big part of keeping video games safe is keeping parents involved.
While this is a great goal, it's worth noting that moddable games guarantee that this is impossible.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sneaking in work arounds so that you can publish a T-rated video game, with an M- rated cheats is dishonest.
********
That's only if the ratings system isn't already a complete joke. And of course it is.
Have you seen the amount of violence it takes to get a "M" rating?
We've only got two M-rated games at our home-- Fable and Prince of Persia 2. Both are rated fairly, I think.
I don't see how the rating system affects developer honesty at all, Tom. Additionally, I don't see how the ratings system is a complete joke. I've heard other folks say so, but I've never heard a rational explanation as to why they think it sux0rz.
quote:it's worth noting that moddable games guarantee that this is impossible.
I don't know about impossible. I see your point though.
Anyway, my point didn't have anything to do with what the ESRB or the industry did, but what parents do. We have Neverwinter Nights at our home; if my kids play it, I'd be pretty snoopy about what mods they download and use.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This modding issue brings to the fore the fact that the government and parents are fighting an inevitably losing battle to keep control of what children are exposed to.
Think about this: someday, maybe twenty years down the line, computers will be smart enough that anyone will be able to modify the programs they own with very simple commands. Any game could be turned into the equivalent of a Grand Theft Auto, if the user desires. Computers this smart might be programmable with ethical guidelines of some sort, but given the fact that kids are typically better with computers than their parents, I'm skeptical whether this could be effective.
Bottom line, I think there will come a time when no one will be able to control what media other people are exposed to. In some ways this will be good, and it some ways it could be very bad. Very unlike the past, anyway.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting observation, Scott. Because neither "Fable" nor "Prince of Persia 2" are rated "M" for violence. They're rated "M" because both games contain smidgens of sexual content.
A flash of nipple will get most games rated "M" immediately, and perhaps even "AO." If you have no nipples and no moaning sounds, you have to decapitate someone and play the xylophone on their spine to get an "M."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are a few separate problems here:
(1) The ESRB ratings system is flawed.
Here is the system itself, straight from the ESRB:
quote:EARLY CHILDHOOD -- Titles rated EC (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.
EVERYONE -- Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
EVERYONE 10+ -- Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
TEEN --- Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
MATURE -- Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
ADULTS ONLY -- Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
According to the ratings system, the distinguishing features between M and AO are "prolonged" intense violence and/or "graphic" sexual content "and nudity." M games can contain intense violence (but not prolonged intense violence), as well as sexual content (but not graphic sexual content, and certainly not nudity). At retail, the major difference between M games and AO games is that Wal-Mart (among other retailers) does not stock AO games. The potential market of an AO game is dramatically diminished, since to get your hands on one you have to go looking. AO games, then, are not casual buys.
Consider Resident Evil 4, which topped many reviewers' Game Of The Year lists. I own RE4 and thought it was an excellent game, one of the best I've played in terms of immersion and atmosphere. The action sequences were frequent and pulse-pounding, but I'll focus on the first major in-game example, the village of "Ganados" that the player encounters early on. (SPOILER: Ganados are not zombies, unlike the previous Resident Evil titles. Rather, they are humans possessed by a biological agent referred to as "las plagas" -- an agent for which there is a cure. Over the course of RE4, I killed more than 500 Ganados.)
Up to the village, the player only encounters Ganados in groups of 1-3, but the village is home to a couple of dozen. As the player approaches the village, the impaled corpse of a police officer comes into view, roasting over a large pyre in the middle of the village. The player can attempt to sneak through the village, but is invariably noticed by the Ganados, who attack with pitchforks, axes, their bare hands, and eventually a chainsaw. The sequence is essentially a wholesale slaughter, and lasts (depending on the player's actions) five to ten minutes, during which a shotgun becomes available to the player. Shooting Ganados in the head with the shotgun causes their heads to explode in a shower of blood and brain matter.
How Capcom or the ESRB could describe this as anything other than "prolonged intense violence" is utterly beyond my understanding, but RE4 received an M rating.
The real intent of the M rating seems to be to keep 17-year-olds from seeing in-game breasts for one more year. Until the GTA:SA "Hot Coffee" fiasco, the AO rating was essentially reserved for pornographic games. In other words, there is no video game equivalent of the movies' R rating.
(2) The ESRB ratings system is applied inconsistently.
A few years ago, Giants: Citizen Kabuto was rated M for violence, not because of how easy it was to remove Delphi's top. In contrast, recently Oblivion was rated T for much more violence (and much more intense violence), but when it was discovered that third-party mods could expose character models' underlying "nude" textures, the PC version was immediately re-rated M.
That's only one example, of course, but just perusing my own game collection (which includes RE4, Killer7, Giants, and the T-rated Xbox 360 version of Oblivion) is enough to tell me that the T/M distinction is not at all clear with respect to how much violence can be tolerated.
(3) The ESRB ratings system is often not enforced.
This is the fault of both retailers and parents. Not all parents are as diligent as Scott R and his wife -- indeed, most probably aren't. I know that I was playing games like Syndicate, Doom, and Marathon at a younger age than I should have been, but my parents weren't terribly aware of it. Heck, I remember seeing the strippers in Duke Nukem 3D at a friend's house when I was still in junior high, but that sort of thing was beyond my parents' control.
In most jurisdictions, the ESRB ratings don't carry legal weight, and until recently, there was no consistent philosophy of enforcement. With the current political climate the ESRB seems to be expressing more interest in self-policing so as to avoid government regulation in the U.S., but of course, even if they were enforced, the ratings would still be flawed and inconsistently applied. Here in Canada, a few provinces put legal weight behind the ESRB ratings, which to my mind is only a partial solution to the problem. The ratings system needs to be fixed, clarified, and applied consistently across the board (with no sex/violence double standard, please) before enforcement can proceed properly.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They considered Pac-Man to be a violent game. Sounds more like a witch hunt to me, its something that most congressmen don't understand, so they would like to control it.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This modding issue brings to the fore the fact that the government and parents are fighting an inevitably losing battle to keep control of what children are exposed to.
I've got a great deal of control over what my children are exposed to. At my LEAST powerful, I'm a huge, freaking, impenetrable wall of safety. At my most powerful, I am an engine of instruction and moral and behavioral guidance.
quote:given the fact that kids are typically better with computers than their parents, I'm skeptical whether this could be effective.
Nonsense. This is true of Generation X kids and their parents, but no longer. The generation gap no longer applies to technology. Gen-X and post-gen-x kids grew up with rapid technology changes. Technological changed practically defined us, and it became part of the overarching... us-ness to adapt to it, get the best, newest, etc. I don't see that changing.
quote:Interesting observation, Scott. Because neither "Fable" nor "Prince of Persia 2" are rated "M" for violence. They're rated "M" because both games contain smidgens of sexual content.
:blush:
I actually noted that to show that we don't have a lot of M-rated games; so I really WOULDN'T know how much violence it takes to get a game an M rating. (Some of the scenes in Fable, especially the Balverine scenes and when Theresa loses her eyes would merit an M rating in my book...)
I should have made that more clear.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the violence/sexuality "double standard" seems to exist in the movie ratings too. A fairly intense action movie can be rated PG-13 as long as there's infrequent cursing (and of a lesser degree than what could be said) and little to no sexuality.
However- a movie that focuses more on the sexuality in the movie (and no- I'm not talking Romantic Comedies, at least not most) then it will much more easily get an R rating.
I think our culture tells us that blowing up people is good, sex is bad.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nonsense. This is true of Generation X kids and their parents, but no longer. The generation gap no longer applies to technology. Gen-X and post-gen-x kids grew up with rapid technology changes. Technological changed practically defined us, and it became part of the overarching... us-ness to adapt to it, get the best, newest, etc. I don't see that changing.
Not a bad point, though I suspect it holds true only of middle and upper class gen-Xers (now that I think about it, that's a label I've never heard applied to anyone who's not reasonably well off).
But still, there may come a point when everyone carries his computer around with him. Hell, there may come a point when we build computers into our bodies. At what point does your computer use become indistinguishable from your private mental life?
We will probably reach that point eventually, and then all efforts of this sort will fail.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:We will probably reach that point eventually, and then all efforts of this sort will fail.
Not really. This presumes the desire to view or use the material.
Which is where my 'engine of instruction and moral and behavioral guidance' comes into play.
I know that I won't be able to (or will always want to) dictate to my children what to do, watch, eat, wear. That's why I TEACH them now why we do what we do. For example, we've taught the kids about dressing modestly-- Super-K (5 years old) now will not play any of the snowboarders in the Amped 2 demo we own who show their belly buttons. This was his choice, by the way; we haven't said anything except, "Oh, hey, you're right, she's not dressed modestly. She's also probably cold."
LiteBrite regularly schools me on my language (the words 'stupid' and 'dumb' are not allowed in our house).
Junebug interrupts us when M and I are having arguments to tell us to simmer down.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
