[RLacey]

I was interested to see that publishers in the UK seem to be ditching the PEGI system already (european ratings system) in favour of legally-binding BBFC ratings. Thus Fahrenheit is rated 15, GTA 18 and Star Wars Battlefront 2 gets a PG. This doesn't *actually* make any real difference, as the 15 and 18 ratings were applied to games before PEGI even, but it does at least have the effect of putting a legal responsibility on the vendor.

[Jeysie]

Heh! I think Seth beat me to saying most of everything I was going to say.

A developer's responsibility is to make good games according to whatever their artistic vision is, period. It's the audience's job to decide whether they think those games are any good and share those artistic visions, just like with every other art form.

And, yes, I do think it's a parent's responsibility to pre-screen stuff before their kids play it. My parents both worked full-time jobs when I was growing up, and yet they still always had an idea of what kinds of shows I was watching, what kinds of games I was playing, and my other hobbies. They didn't babysit me 24/7, they just simply were observant about what I did in my free time, and they even watched the shows and played the games themselves sometimes. They also encouraged an atmosphere of honesty, where everyone in the family could share what was going on with them without the threat of knee-jerk reactions.

I should also note that this was before we had all this wealth of ratings, reviews, and other resources easily available at your fingertips nowadays. There's no excuse not to take an active interest in your child's hobbies.

As many people have said, games already have far more information available to the consumer than most other art forms. There's just really not a leg to stand on any more.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by RLacey

I was interested to see that publishers in the UK seem to be ditching the PEGI system already (european ratings system) in favour of legally-binding BBFC ratings. Thus Fahrenheit is rated 15, GTA 18 and Star Wars Battlefront 2 gets a PG. This doesn't *actually* make any real difference, as the 15 and 18 ratings were applied to games before PEGI even, but it does at least have the effect of putting a legal responsibility on the vendor.

I just don't like the idea of a government dictating what's appropriate for a 15 year old and what's appropriate for an 18 year old. I'm aware it's already done with pornography, but I still think it's giving the government too much power over what is essentially a matter of personal values, especially when the ratings are cobbled together from a variety of offensive material. Sex, drug use and violence might all result in the same rating, but they're very different acts that different families might have different viewpoints on. It's not something I'd want given legal recognition.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by sethsez

I just don't like the idea of a government dictating what's appropriate for a 15 year old and what's appropriate for an 18 year old. I'm aware it's already done with pornography, but I still think it's giving the government too much power over what is essentially a matter of personal values, especially when the ratings are cobbled together from a variety of offensive material. Sex, drug use and violence might all result in the same rating, but they're very different acts that different families might have different viewpoints on. It's not something I'd want given legal recognition.

The BBFC is an independent body. The government has no control over what rating is assigned to any product; this is determined by a set of criteria defined by the BBFC themselves. The only government involvement is in the fact that it's illegal to infringe the ratings.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by RLacey

The BBFC is an independent body. The government has no control over what rating is assigned to any product; this is determined by a set of criteria defined by the BBFC themselves. The only government involvement is in the fact that it's illegal to infringe the ratings.

But this is arguably worse. The government is enforcing rulings that they never made in the first place. A government should never say "whatever you rule, we'll back it up" to a third party they don't control.

IMO, obviously.

[RLacey]

Thompson has withdrawn from the case vs Sony/Rockstar/Walmart/Gamespot/some others...

http://www.gamepolitics.com/ (scroll down)

Of course, this has happened before the judge could rule on whether or not he was acting correctly.

[Jackal]

Hm, a lot of arguing considering I didn't even take a position on the matter. I simply said there should be proper, mature dialogue about serious issues. Anyone can take a polarized stance, put "periods" at the end of their clearly subjective claims, and act as if the matter is closed. That's why differing opinions never find any common ground for discussion.

[sethsez]

So there should be dialog, but no stating of opinions or attempts to back them up?

It does no good to say "you know, people really should talk about this." Much more effective to actually do it.

If you're implying that these kinds of discussions haven't been taking place both in the industry and in various parts of government, then you're mistaken. The reason this thread exists in the first place is because people are talking about it, and despite Thompson being the most vocal member of the discussion, there are still things being discussed intelligently. It's why the ratings system was created in the first place, why it's been revamped since then, why game stores changed their policies to fit the ratings, why some people have been on national TV complaining that not enough is being done, etc. Again, I must ask what exactly you think should be discussed that isn't already being discussed.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by sethsez

The reason this thread exists in the first place is because people are talking about it, and despite Thompson being the most vocal member of the discussion, there are still things being discussed intelligently.

Uh huh. We must have been reading different threads then. It may have become that, which is precisely why I raised the point I did. But let's not pretend it was there from the start, or that this is why the thread exists.

By all means, discuss and debate your opinions all you want. I simply pointed out that you're not actually arguing with ME, and you seem to think you are. Why, I don't know. I probably agree with you on many points. I'm not pro-censorship, pro-banning, pro-lawsuits, etc. I mentioned things like education. I've had discussions like these countless times, which is why I really don't care to do it again for no purpose. I'm afraid I'm not interested in what's "effective" in this context, as it's just people yakking on a forum.

My only point in this thread was that no one should dismiss everything Thompson stands for just because he's a nutjob. It really wasn't that complicated.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Uh huh. We must have been reading different threads then. It may have become that, which is precisely why I raised the point I did. But let's not pretend it was there from the start, or that this is why the thread exists.

I'm talking about the initial article, and the fact that the issue is a factor outside of websites and message boards. If Thompson wasn't stirring the pot (and causing discussion as a result), nobody here would care that he was in trouble in the first place. I'm aware that was the intent of posting the article, however.

By all means, discuss and debate your opinions all you want. I simply pointed out that you're not actually arguing with ME, and you seem to think you are. Why, I don't know. I probably agree with you on many points. I'm not pro-censorship, pro-banning, pro-lawsuits, etc. I mentioned things like education. I've had discussions like these countless times, which is why I really don't care to do it again for no purpose. I'm afraid I'm not interested in what's "effective" in this context, as it's just people yakking on a forum.

I wasn't debating with you, per se, as I could tell you were to an extent just bringing up possible points of discussion. I was stating my opinion on those points.

My only point in this thread was that no one should dismiss everything Thompson stands for just because he's a nutjob. It really wasn't that complicated.

I don't think anyone is. I don't take much of what he says seriously, but for reasons unrelated to him.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by sethsez

I'm of the opinion that the problem begins and ends with apathetic parents who don't pay attention to the ratings. If you can't be bothered to read seven words on the back of the box before buying your kid a game called "Grand Theft Auto" then in my opinion, you've given up your right to complain.

I agree with this 100%.

I think parents buy things like GTA without looking at the box at the request of their kid who is waving it in their face in the store or who has asked for it a hundred times for their birthday, then they watch their kid playing it, see what's going on, and get utterly offended, and demand to know "what's this filthy material doing in a children's product."

Even, I suspect, parents of this sort who will, when pressured, openly say "okay, not all games are for kids," most are still secretly tacking on a "[they're also for adults who haven't grown up]" to the end in their heads.

Some people just don't understand that "Game" != "Children's Toy" by default - many of them definitely fall under the classification of "parent" - and I think parents are the biggest thing that needs to get fixed.

The scary fire and brimstone people who yell about games being the downfall of society (and their bellowing brethren like Thompson) have been and always will be there to jump on the newest crazy thing that wasn't around when they were kids (or that they weren't allowed to have because they're their parents children), but parental stereotypes about the entire medium being only "for children" crashing up against the reality of T- to AO-rated games is something I think can actually be fixed through the power of very clever promotion and marketing.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Jake

parental stereotypes about the entire medium being only "for children" crashing up against the reality of T- to AO-rated games is something I think can actually be fixed through the power of very clever promotion and marketing.

Or the inevitable progress of time.

[Jake]

True, or that.

Time is the laziest cure.

[Tanukitsune]

Originally Posted by Jackal

My only point in this thread was that no one should dismiss everything Thompson stands for just because he's a nutjob. It really wasn't that complicated.

Hey I'm not against rating games and protecting kids from offensive stuff, but...

He's not only a nut job, he's doing a BAD job, a very very BAD job at protecting kids from violent and offensive stuff in games...

Why is going after adult games? He should be checking games like Pokémon, Spyro, Crash, Barbie, Hello Kitty and others to make sure THOSE games are safe for kids!

Did you know that in one of the Hamtaro games you can PEE on the other hamsters?

I found that hilarious, but that is the kind of stuff Jack should be looking out for, not saying: "OH NOES! Bloodbath 43 is violent! Pr0n Quest has naughty bits! GASP! I must not let little kids play these! What? They are already rated 18! That's not enough! Let's ban the games and sue the company that made them!"....

[Intrepid Homoludens]

By the way, this should add a bit more spice to the issue at hand...



The Claim: Violent Video Games Make Young People Aggressive | The New York Times, August 30, 2005

THE FACTS Republicans and Democrats alike screamed government waste last March when a group of senators suggested spending $90 million to study how video games "and other electronic media" influenced children's behavior. Surely an important question, critics of the plan said, but $90 million?

Some believe that, in any case, the verdict is already in. This month, the American Psychological Association called for a reduction of violence in all video games, saying the evidence from 20 years of research on the subject was clear. They based their conclusion largely on the work of Kevin M. Kieffer, a psychologist at St. Leo University near Tampa, Fla., who prepared an analysis of dozens of relevant studies.

He found that, in general, children exposed to virtual bloodshed showed greater "short-term" increases in hostility toward peers and authority figures than those exposed to more benign games. And many of the studies included in the analysis were randomized, rebutting the notion that aggressive people are simply drawn to violent games, Dr. Kieffer found.

But a separate study, also published this month, concluded that violent video games have no "long-term," or permanent, effects on aggressive behavior. The study, by a researcher at the University of Illinois, was among the first of its kind to follow two groups of people for a month, some randomly assigned to play violent video games and some not.

In the end, the study's findings may be more in line with public opinion. On the day its findings were announced, a jury in Alabama reached a guilty verdict in the case of Devin Moore, who killed three people when he was 18 and as his defense blamed the video game "Grand Theft Auto."

THE BOTTOM LINE Studies generally show that violent video games can have short-term, or momentary, effects on children, but there is little evidence of long-term changes.

[Jeysie]

This month, the American Psychological Association called for a reduction of violence in all video games, saying the evidence from 20 years of research on the subject was clear.

Now, see, this is the sort of thing that bugs me. As Jake said, there are a lot of people who don't understand that "Video/Computer Game" != "Children's Toy".

If studies do ever show that violent games are harmful to kids, then I agree with the thought of taking measures to suggest limitations on purchasing by kids. Of course, we already *have* plenty of such measures... ratings, the fact that you can't buy an M or AO rated game without showing ID, the fact that there's plenty of info for a parent to be able to choose whether their kid should play a game or not... etc, so no practical differences are necessary anyway.

IMHO *any* calls for censoring video game content are bad. One, because AFAIK no other media has to restrict content based on government laws. Two, because of the concept of "free speech". And three, it ruins things for those of us who are competent enough to tell whether a game is too violent for us or not. But, of course, the people in this media brouhaha seem to forget that *adults* play video games too...

Peace & Luv, Liz

[sethsez]

To quote Jon Stewart, every teenager reads Atlas Shrugged and then becomes an asshole for a month. Games are not the only things that influence people, and the effects haven't been shown to be any more long term than movies, TV or sports.

[Adventurous One]

Well, it's good to see Thompson getting what he deserves. I've always found it fun to watch him struggle against the world. And as to the rating system for games, we don't need more laws to limit violence, drugs, sex, etc. in video games, we need parents who'll actaully read the ratings on the game before buying it for their kids.

[Martin Gantefoehr]

we need parents who'll actaully read the ratings on the game before buying it for their kids.

I disagree. We need people, -and that's not only parents, but consumers, developers, press, teachers, players-, who don't just resort to a lame lawyer-like standpoint of what's legal, or protected as supposedly 'unpopular' freedom of speech. There should rather be an open, honest discussion about what's considered remotely civilised.

It isn't only time for Thompson to stop his ridiculous crusade. It's also time for gamers to understand that the mere discussion about violent games isn't an aggression (heh) or an attempt at censorship, but an entirely normal and neccessary cultural process. Of course we don't need a ban-everything nut job such as Thompson in this. But those who think that the discussion should or will go away, just because Thompson is gone, are wrong.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Hi Martin.

Yeah, we definitely need a culture of awareness and acceptance of games as being as complex and diverse as other kinds of media (books, films, art, theatre, etc.), to the point where we all understand that not every kind of game is for minors or particularly sensitive types, just as not every kind of game is for adults, either.

It needn't be much of a matter of proving that violent games equal violent kids if those kinds of games weren't solicited to and made accessible to kids in the first place.

But that culture, practically still in its infancy right now, won't grow and eventually mature for quite a number of years, I think. Though it's quite pervasive, influential, and ubiquitous as a phenomenon now, there are still a huge number of people from older generations (Thompson's age, give or take a decade or so) who are insanely opposed to it - much like rock n roll was opposed by the parents of teenagers during the 1950s - because they don't understand it and haven't explored it a bit with a sense of curiosity to see how complex it is.