Tuesday, Jun 19, 2007
Recently, the ESRB has assigned Manhunt 2 for the Wii an AO Rating. This effectively reduces sales by reducing the number of retailers that will carry the product. This made me think about how unfair the system in place really is. Video games keep being hammered by people who appear to be "caring" and lack rational thinking skills.
All of this starts by saying violent video games affects young children. I will grow tired of saying this but it's quite easily the most truthful statement you can make about this situation, it's the parents fault. Quite frankly, parents are supposed to lead a child in the right path. They should guide him or her and shape their child into what is to become responsible, rational thinking adults who will contribute something to society. Parents are not doing their jobs, however. Most parents have no idea what their kid is doing, and that applies to video games. Most parents let their children play violent video games and then blame it on the interactive entertainment industry. They criticise the sale of violent games like Grand Theft Auto and many Take-Two releases because they say it is too violent or inappropriate for children. What they have failed to see is that those games are not meant to be played by children. They are too busy complaining about video games that they fail to supervise their child when they play games and end up allowing their child to be raised by violent video games. Young children are said to be bad at distinguishing reality from fantasy and end up violent because of bad parenting, not because of video games.
Parents are not being smart, with the overwhelming amount of information that is displayed on "The Internet", you would think they'd have enough time to check up on parent resources and do their homework when it comes to raising their child. But they do not, they keep on letting their children buy violent video games and blame it on the stores not enforcing the policy, when they are the ones that have to enforce it, not some random guy who nailed a job at GameStop or Circuit City. Even though such companies do try to enforce it, by trying to educate parents, who refuse to be educated. Parents need to pay attention to their child, and to understand them and learn what they are like. If they know their child is easily influenced they might want to steer clear of inappropriate content the child might try to emulate. If they know however, that their child is intelligent, can differentiate right from wrong, and has a very logical and rational thought process then they should allow that child more freedom. Parents want to just open their mouths to tell government how to raise their children and then have government put laws that will effectively limit that kid's ability to play those violent video games, rather than the parent him self going up to the kid and being like "Get the hell off" That is not to say that parents are the only problems video games have.
The interactive entertainment industry, also called the video game industry is a very misunderstood business. People in general think of video games as "just games" for "kids". However, that is like saying all movies are for kids. Does that mean I should take my five-year old to go watch Hostel 2? Probably not. Video games have gone way past the "just for kids" target audience and now appeal to people of all ages. They're not "for the geeks" anymore.
The appeal this industry has is tremendous and our success is to be opposed by closed minded individuals. A fine example could be Jack Thompson, a Florida attorney who has fought a valiant and relentless battle against the sale and distribution of violent video games, this was after he gave up his war on rap. Of course I used Jack Thompson as an example because his stories are quite humorous and has been a complete failure as a lawyer, as the guys at Penny Arcade will tell you. Needless to say, I'll probably be sued by Thompson a couple of days from now just for this blog; he'll probably sue me for "harassment of character" or something similar. He is not the only one on that mission though, he's just the most popular example.
The fact is however, that a lot of people discriminate against the video game industry. They treat it unfairly and are holding it on a much more strict stick of judgement than other media such as movies or music.
It is just as easy for a ten year old kid to get into a rated R movie than it is for that same kid to buy a rated M game. Yet people don't see it that way. They see movies as a simple mean of entertainment and video games as a murder simulator. They are trying to make the levels of gore and violence in a game like Grand Theft Auto equal Saw III and I have to say, it is not.
You can't measure everyone by the same ruler you measure your self by. That means that not everyone thinks like me, and I accept that. Nobody has to be like anybody else. I personally am 15 years old. I've been playing Grand Theft Auto III since it came out. I can think logically. I realize not everyone is like me, some kids take it harder and can't differentiate what is right from what is wrong. Yet I still don't see why the industry I love should be bombarded with limitations that makes it hard for developers to make the violent video games I want to play. I don't believe in the old principle that if I let one person do it I have to let everyone do it. I think people are individuals and should be treated as such and not just grouped together in a huge stereotypical pool of thoughts that make all teenagers have problems with differentiating reality from fantasy.
To conclude I think video games are really getting a very unfair treatment and I am frustrated that parents blame their poor parenting skills on video games. Parenting is getting harder, but that's not an excuse to be a bad parent. If your not up to the challenge that parenting now represents with so much information flowing everywhere then do not become one.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this, also I am very much interested on comments or constructive criticism on the blog it self, and on my writing skills. I hope that through this blog I can increase my skills and experience and produce quality blogs.
Comments
Posted Jun 19, 2007 6:42 pm PT
First of all, well-written. Although, I will be the first to say that Manhunt 2 deserves the AO rating. Because the rating of a game still doesn't change your argument on poor parenting. (Which is well-written and contains good points.)
From what I've seen Manhunt 2 is on another level. Sure, normal retailers won't be able to sell it, but that's the whole point of the AO rating. ESRB is only doing their job. It's not like the actual adults won't be able to purchase the game, and that's who should ONLY be buying the game anyway. There have to be boundaries and rules.
Yes, the violent games get the terrible stereotype, but ESRB's rating is pretty much unrelated to that issue. If they saw the game as AO, then you better beleive it deserved it. The fact that parents today are stupid and ignorant, giving their kids anything they want isn't ample reason to change the rating of a game.
From what I've seen Manhunt 2 is on another level. Sure, normal retailers won't be able to sell it, but that's the whole point of the AO rating. ESRB is only doing their job. It's not like the actual adults won't be able to purchase the game, and that's who should ONLY be buying the game anyway. There have to be boundaries and rules.
Yes, the violent games get the terrible stereotype, but ESRB's rating is pretty much unrelated to that issue. If they saw the game as AO, then you better beleive it deserved it. The fact that parents today are stupid and ignorant, giving their kids anything they want isn't ample reason to change the rating of a game.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 6:42 pm PT
i agree with all, especially altergenesis's response. The post was nearly what i would say. the ESRB is only doing their job and was created because parents weren't doing their jobs in the first place and as you can see, they still aren't. It's like a movie rating. Mostly pretty accurate (though they do go overboard from time to time) and the same here. Well written yariang, but i wouldn't worry about whether or not people give you "points" or whatever it is. Just do the right thing, speak out, do a good review, whatever and the rest will take care of itself
Posted Jun 19, 2007 6:55 pm PT
(ugh, can't seem to paragraph it correctly)
First, your article is well written and makes interesting points about the way society views video games. True, there are many parents out there who really do not care and this makes other people afraid of that because it only takes one to pull a gun, but you’re right most of it’s unfounded. People are just lazy and feel the need to place the blame on something.
However, I’ll just sum up my entire rant with two words: Fear Sells. The news media is a perfect example of this. Currently in America, or so I would assume, that more people are afraid of being killing by a terrorist then being hit by a deer in a car accident, despite the fact that the chance of you getting killed by deer is greater. Jack Thompson knows this and uses it. (paragraph break) Jack Thompson blames video games for the reason why a violent crime happened with his “evidence” and people who do not understand video games very well buy into this, because people are lazy and do not want to form their own opinions. (paragraph break) Why is this? Well, people feel safe with the familiar and are afraid on what they do not understand. Since most adults have little experience with video games they can easily become afraid them. This is how a stereotype forms and it has been with us since the beginning of time. Cavemen learned from one another that tigers will attack them if they do not attack or runaway, and the ones that didn’t became the tiger’s diner---although most today do not have to worry about becoming a tiger’s dinner, the same human mindset continues. (paragraph Break) Currently, the average age of a video game player is about thirty. Eventually, video games will be accepted by society for what they are, but do not see this issue to go away anytime soon.
First, your article is well written and makes interesting points about the way society views video games. True, there are many parents out there who really do not care and this makes other people afraid of that because it only takes one to pull a gun, but you’re right most of it’s unfounded. People are just lazy and feel the need to place the blame on something.
However, I’ll just sum up my entire rant with two words: Fear Sells. The news media is a perfect example of this. Currently in America, or so I would assume, that more people are afraid of being killing by a terrorist then being hit by a deer in a car accident, despite the fact that the chance of you getting killed by deer is greater. Jack Thompson knows this and uses it. (paragraph break) Jack Thompson blames video games for the reason why a violent crime happened with his “evidence” and people who do not understand video games very well buy into this, because people are lazy and do not want to form their own opinions. (paragraph break) Why is this? Well, people feel safe with the familiar and are afraid on what they do not understand. Since most adults have little experience with video games they can easily become afraid them. This is how a stereotype forms and it has been with us since the beginning of time. Cavemen learned from one another that tigers will attack them if they do not attack or runaway, and the ones that didn’t became the tiger’s diner---although most today do not have to worry about becoming a tiger’s dinner, the same human mindset continues. (paragraph Break) Currently, the average age of a video game player is about thirty. Eventually, video games will be accepted by society for what they are, but do not see this issue to go away anytime soon.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 7:20 pm PT
have you heard about the bill they're trying to pass in new york state about making it a felony to sell a game to minors? It is a bit harsh, but people are trying hard to eliminate the sales of mature video games to children. Your arguement of it being just as easy to get into R rated movies as a kid than to buy a M rated game. What are you trying to say, two wrongs will make a right? We should let the M rated games be sold to minors because the movie industry failed at their job? No, if the restriction in place doesn't reduce the sales of violent video games to minors, then improvement must be made, how hard is it to just check the stupid ID before selling a game, you do it for alcohol, you do it for cigerrettes, you should do it for movies, just do it for games. I have to disagree with you on games being treated unfairly. I grew up in a good family, with caring parents, but the real problems is not that parents don't care enough, it is that most parents don't have the time to care. This is my second point. A lot of parents believe in their methods of raising their child. They blieve that they have taught them right, compounded with a busy schedule, this will leave kids many openings to do whatever they want. This is precisely how kids start smoking before 18, drink before 21, go to R rated movies or buy M rated games. The legislation and ESRB are simply trying to give parents a hand, because they can't be there 24/7 to watch their kids. They only know what they're doing most of the time, not all the time.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 7:23 pm PT
The rating needed to be issued. Games like God of War, Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto and Perfect Dark Zero aren't about killing for killing's sake. A game like Manhunt 2, which is supposed to be even more violent than Manhunt 1, should not be given the same rating as the above mentioned games. It's torture porn, basically. The AO rating has only been applied 23 other times, mostly to pornography. The message had to have been sent that there's a certain level of violence that simply will not be tolerated at the M level, lest the AO become a sort of X rating that denotes porn exclusively.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 7:32 pm PT
I agree whole heatedly with you, that parents are blaming to much on the industry and not on their own bad parenting skills. I also find it frustrating how people finger point at video games on being violent when movies are becoming increasingly violent as well. I am also disappointed in how video games are treated as things only portraying violence and gore, I find that video games are sometimes great pieces of art that portray massive stories and great amounts of philosophy and science and they are not getting the credit that they deserve.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 7:32 pm PT
Very nice job with your analysis! Someone has finally found a reasonable conclusion with real facts. Parents really should open their eyes to see what their children are doing. If young video gamers learn and know the moral difference between wrong and right, then they do earn a little freedom. I am for your information 14 years old, and I play games like Gears of War and Resident Evil. However, that doesn't turn me into a reckless human being. Heck, I was nominated #1 Freshmen at my high school this year with my hard-earned straight A's and 4.5 GPA. As a matter of fact, video games are one of the many motivations why I work hard at school to maintain my top grades. My goal is to attend a University to fulfill my parent's dreams for their support in caring for me and also to repay them for buying my video games. Overall, we indeed need to be treated as individuals, not as a group of kids assumed to be insolence. Thank you for clearing this up Yariang! 
Posted Jun 19, 2007 7:41 pm PT
agree with every single word you said nice work this is what politicitons parents and people like fu))en jack thomson should see games for mature and 18 + arent meant to be played by chids leave us adults alone enjoying the good work of art that these delevlopers develop
Posted Jun 19, 2007 7:46 pm PT
Zarzha- I'm not saying they shouldn't enforce it in the video game industry but they should stop bashing it all the time, you never see anyone complain that the movie industry is not doing their job so why should they complain so much about the video game industry? And if you don't have time to raise a child, then don't have one. If you have a child you better "have time to care".
Posted Jun 19, 2007 8:00 pm PT
Yes parents need to take a hard look at what games, movies, web sites etc. that their kids are viewing. I agree with you that parents are neglectful of their kids many times especially when it comes to the purchase of video games. I do agree with you that the video game is looked over more then other industries. But that has a lot to do with how new the video game industry is. Its the new form of entertainment on the block. You have to remember that when movies first started going mainstream there was A LOT of criticism about that. They wanted to place restriction on what could be seen and what not. Well video games are going mainstream, and with mainstream appeal comes mainstream criticism. Also video games are different then other forms of attention. They are unlike other forms of entertainment, interactive. You are the person saving that prince, pulling that trigger, solving that puzzle, and in the case of Manhunt 2 killing for the sake of killing. Also on top of this interactivity is the immersion factor. A movie can only be so immersive while you sit there eating your bag of popcorn or whatever, but video games take that immersion to whole new level. This is especially coming true at video games become more and more realistic. As video games getting realer, the violence that is often in them become more realistic, and this violence is something that you've committed. Your the person that choose to bash in that face so what happens if some day that face on your screen looks no different then a face in real life? Its been shown through research that the more and more violence that individual see the less shocked they are going to be. Seeing a real person murdered in front of your eyes shouldn't cause apathy. But as video games become more realistic, and more immersive couldn't this become a reality? This coupled with how lazy parents are about raising children could be dangerous to everyone. Okay the last line was pure speculation. However, that isn't going to change the rating that the game received.
The ESRB did its job, which is to give a rating based on the content of the video game. Unless there is actual proof that the game was given an AO rating because of parents putting lawsuits on video game companies, or that ESRB is actively trying to censor the video game industry those points have nothing to do with the actual rating of the game. For all we know the game did deserve its AO rating. Has anyone actual thought hey maybe this game really is that bad. Maybe Rockstar went too far when it made this game. Maybe it is interactive murder. None of us have actually played the game, and its unfair to immediately start pointing fingers at everybody, and not at least ask maybe it deserved its rating.
The ESRB did its job, which is to give a rating based on the content of the video game. Unless there is actual proof that the game was given an AO rating because of parents putting lawsuits on video game companies, or that ESRB is actively trying to censor the video game industry those points have nothing to do with the actual rating of the game. For all we know the game did deserve its AO rating. Has anyone actual thought hey maybe this game really is that bad. Maybe Rockstar went too far when it made this game. Maybe it is interactive murder. None of us have actually played the game, and its unfair to immediately start pointing fingers at everybody, and not at least ask maybe it deserved its rating.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 8:22 pm PT
Y'know what's funny? If Manhunt were a movie, it's theater showings would be edited for the really nasty parts, and then they'd release an unedited version on DVD, and the ads for said DVD would call attention to the movie's gore, and try to use it as a selling point.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 8:49 pm PT
Nice job buddy.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 9:10 pm PT
Wanna know how stupid American parents are? Some woman wouldn't let her kid buy the Pimp My Ride game because she didn't want him to be exposed to rap lyrics and drugs (that's what she said). Instead, she let him get Gears of War because she thought it was just "a sci-fi game with lasers."
Good for the kid, though. Pimp My Ride sucks, both the show and the game.
Good for the kid, though. Pimp My Ride sucks, both the show and the game.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 9:13 pm PT
Hmm I just reread the first paragraph and it sounds like I'm bashing the ESRB. I don't have a problem with Manhunt 2 receiving that rating. For all I know maybe it deserved it. The reason why I put Manhunt in there was to show the thought of this originiated.
The ESRB tries do a great job educating parents. There's only so much they can do though; they can't go into every house and try to educated parents when they refuse to accept the information given to them.
The ESRB tries do a great job educating parents. There's only so much they can do though; they can't go into every house and try to educated parents when they refuse to accept the information given to them.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 9:20 pm PT
I agree 100% I'm so sick of politicians and religious fanatics. Oh what a great age it will be when our technology driven generation will be running the country. I know for one thing we'll have a better economy. Best article i've read on the topic yet. Keep up the good work.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 9:40 pm PT
I'll read the rest of the comments after I post mine (so I keep my ideas in my head). Everyone has valid points here.
Manhunt 2 is getting the perfect treatment. This is how games of this nature should be treated, it made my stomach turn reading the previews. However it's not impossible to find and Rockstar knows its got a game that will sell on its hands so the supply will be there.
Parenting though is a rough issue. I mean I think a lot of this has to do with people say 30 and under growing up in a completely different generation than our parents.
We all know how many people have an unwillingness to change, they call it their character or it makes them unique, laziness... whatever it does for them it prevents change. They won't accept video games, they are our generations form of entertainment. (not that people over 30 haven't caught on cause some definitely have.)
We all know Hillary Clinton hasn't sat down with a game and took the time to evaluate truly how she felt it affected her.
One last example, my dad. Now it might be just me but I feel if you're a Forza or GT kinda guy/girl (can't be sexist now that the industry is expanding into so many new demographics) you're likely going to have an interest for Halo or Socom or at very least GTA. Now my dad accepts Forza and says this game seems kinda cool but then sees Halo and gets disturbed when I play it for hours. Claiming I'm just killing and being violent.
Personally I see Halo as a sport, not one of violence but one of strategy and team play. I tried explaining to him these types of games go together if you're a gamer. He didn't get it at all.
I's just a huge generational gap that we can't expect parents to understand so while all this content has become viewable to us parents are left with very little options other than giving up what little time they have to make sure their kids are doing the right thing.... 30 years ago they'd just say go out and play and since you had nothing better to do inside you went out and played and that was safe and worked for everyone...things are changing though.
Manhunt 2 is getting the perfect treatment. This is how games of this nature should be treated, it made my stomach turn reading the previews. However it's not impossible to find and Rockstar knows its got a game that will sell on its hands so the supply will be there.
Parenting though is a rough issue. I mean I think a lot of this has to do with people say 30 and under growing up in a completely different generation than our parents.
We all know how many people have an unwillingness to change, they call it their character or it makes them unique, laziness... whatever it does for them it prevents change. They won't accept video games, they are our generations form of entertainment. (not that people over 30 haven't caught on cause some definitely have.)
We all know Hillary Clinton hasn't sat down with a game and took the time to evaluate truly how she felt it affected her.
One last example, my dad. Now it might be just me but I feel if you're a Forza or GT kinda guy/girl (can't be sexist now that the industry is expanding into so many new demographics) you're likely going to have an interest for Halo or Socom or at very least GTA. Now my dad accepts Forza and says this game seems kinda cool but then sees Halo and gets disturbed when I play it for hours. Claiming I'm just killing and being violent.
Personally I see Halo as a sport, not one of violence but one of strategy and team play. I tried explaining to him these types of games go together if you're a gamer. He didn't get it at all.
I's just a huge generational gap that we can't expect parents to understand so while all this content has become viewable to us parents are left with very little options other than giving up what little time they have to make sure their kids are doing the right thing.... 30 years ago they'd just say go out and play and since you had nothing better to do inside you went out and played and that was safe and worked for everyone...things are changing though.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 9:45 pm PT
Excellent and well written article, particularly for someone your age. (No offense intended.) I think a large part of the problem is the stereotype that still exists that gaming is an anti-social activity that is only prevalent in a particular niche demographic. Put simply, only nerds play video games. You alluded to this in your article but I'd like to expand on the concept.
When the first generation of kids started playing video games (my generation) this was largely the case. It remained the case for years. The video game industry has exploded growth wise in the last decade to the point where it is a normal mainstream activity. However, because it was something else for a lot of years, it still hasn't reached the point of being treated like a mainstream form of entertainment. (Like movies you mentioned.)
Once the stereotypes fade, I think it will start getting the same level of scrutiny, no more and no less, than the movie industry.
When the first generation of kids started playing video games (my generation) this was largely the case. It remained the case for years. The video game industry has exploded growth wise in the last decade to the point where it is a normal mainstream activity. However, because it was something else for a lot of years, it still hasn't reached the point of being treated like a mainstream form of entertainment. (Like movies you mentioned.)
Once the stereotypes fade, I think it will start getting the same level of scrutiny, no more and no less, than the movie industry.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 9:55 pm PT
Sorry, this will be a wall of text. Gamespot doesn't believe in paragraphs. This is EXACTLY what I have been saying for years now. The game industry is still a new form of media, sure, but people treat it unfairly. All these parent groups and anti game activists fail to see one very, very important thing: M rated games are just that, for mature gamers. They all attack M games because "they teach innocent children to kill people." Well, again, the game is rated M, it isn't designed for children. Personally, I don't really care about Manhunt 2, but I have to defend the game because I feel it is being treated unfairly. From the videos I have seen it is nothing worse than what you see in many R rated movies now. I don't see why it should get the AO rating. AO is mainly if the game has full frontal nudity and/or graphic sexual acts, not violence. Sure, it says intense violence is one of the things that can be seen in an AO game, but it is usually nothing worse than the average bloody M game. Another thing with these parent groups. They are trying to be good parents, but trying to get certain games AO ratings or a ban is not the answer. That is like saying the path to victory in Iraq is to negotiate peace treaties with the moon. The answer is far more simple: get parents to listen and do their job. It baffles me just how many parents have the biased view that games are only for kids. Back around God of War's release I saw a woman with her child at Gamestop. The boy was probably only about 7 and wanted God of War because he liked the cover. The woman didn't even glance at the game and tried to buy him it. The guy working said "Sorry, I can't sell this to you if it is for him, the game is rated M." and she said "But it is a video game, it can't be that bad." These are the people who end up being the game bashers. They are the parents who didn't pay attention to what they bought their kids and then are outraged when they walk in on little Timmy screwing hookers and beating them up for money in GTA. Then, they try to look for something else to blame so they can justify their neglect. And don't even get me started with Jack Thompson. He claims that playing shooters like Counterstrike make you a more accurate shot with a real gun, despite the fact that in real life you have factors like recoil, wind, the actual abilities of the gun itself, more complex reloading, and you don't have a huge targeting reticle floating in the air to help you aim. Anyone who has fired a real gun can tell you that playing a video game WILL NOT make you better at shooting the real deal. If anything, shooting a real gun will make shooting one in a game a breeze.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 10:41 pm PT
I have issues with the ratings system put out by the MPAA and ESRB: they sometimes don't go far enough. As a parent (you know, one of the ones that needs "educating"), I find myself EXTREMELY frustrated by the ratings slapped on the box or the movie poster.
As an avid gamer, I understand the need for them: there's no WAY I'd play Company of Heroes or Doom3 in front of my kids. I understand the content is WAY too disturbing for my 2 little ones, and I won't let my teenage son play them due to the fright factor of D3 and the language in CoH. The problem is, the boxes really don't tell you much beyond M or T (Adult Language is WAY too vague).
I've watched my son play games that I wouldn't have bought him if someone had said, "It contains language you wouldn't use around you parents." But Destroy All Humans doesn't REALLY warn you about it's content.
In short: if I'm supposed to understand that my children aren't supposed to play it by the sticker on the box, at the very least the sticker needs to tell the truth.
As an avid gamer, I understand the need for them: there's no WAY I'd play Company of Heroes or Doom3 in front of my kids. I understand the content is WAY too disturbing for my 2 little ones, and I won't let my teenage son play them due to the fright factor of D3 and the language in CoH. The problem is, the boxes really don't tell you much beyond M or T (Adult Language is WAY too vague).
I've watched my son play games that I wouldn't have bought him if someone had said, "It contains language you wouldn't use around you parents." But Destroy All Humans doesn't REALLY warn you about it's content.
In short: if I'm supposed to understand that my children aren't supposed to play it by the sticker on the box, at the very least the sticker needs to tell the truth.
Posted Jun 19, 2007 11:51 pm PT
Here here!
Posted Jun 20, 2007 12:11 am PT
Yeah, all parents suck! Woohoo, let's rise up and teach them a thing or two....wait, maybe going a little overboard 
Ok, seriously. The problem with parents and entertainment for their children is they treat it as a "babysitter". The TV or video games do the parenting work for them, and they're sure that the kid won't move or cause fuss. That's why they don't pay that much attention to what the kid is actually watching/playing because the parents are busy upstairs doing the dirty business...or maybe I've got that all wrong too Videogames are obviously the scapegoat these days. If it isn't terrorism, then it's videogames. It's just a phase, a fad. It happened to rap, rock n' roll, movies, books, comic books, everything. When in a few years people realise the harmlessness and wake up to the truth, they might stop having such stereotypical opinions about this area of entertainment. Frankly, ESRB is doing a brilliant job. We don''t need another system like they're introducing in NYC. First, it'll complicate parents like hella lots, and also it can't cover all the games already out there. Great article and the links you provided were nice to look at, that Search Institute paper was most interesting. Most parents suck at their job (that is parenting) unlike mine. My dad's a few generations ago, but even he knows what kind of game I'm playing and that in Ninja Gaiden I'm not actually slicing heads off people, because it feels so cartoonish.
Ok, seriously. The problem with parents and entertainment for their children is they treat it as a "babysitter". The TV or video games do the parenting work for them, and they're sure that the kid won't move or cause fuss. That's why they don't pay that much attention to what the kid is actually watching/playing because the parents are busy upstairs doing the dirty business...or maybe I've got that all wrong too Videogames are obviously the scapegoat these days. If it isn't terrorism, then it's videogames. It's just a phase, a fad. It happened to rap, rock n' roll, movies, books, comic books, everything. When in a few years people realise the harmlessness and wake up to the truth, they might stop having such stereotypical opinions about this area of entertainment. Frankly, ESRB is doing a brilliant job. We don''t need another system like they're introducing in NYC. First, it'll complicate parents like hella lots, and also it can't cover all the games already out there. Great article and the links you provided were nice to look at, that Search Institute paper was most interesting. Most parents suck at their job (that is parenting) unlike mine. My dad's a few generations ago, but even he knows what kind of game I'm playing and that in Ninja Gaiden I'm not actually slicing heads off people, because it feels so cartoonish.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 1:04 am PT
Luckily, my parents are smart and know their 16 year old son [Nice to see not all other teenagers on this site are rambling OMGYOUSUXORZ! kinda people, thats pretty rad] can differentiate how bullets magically dont hurt you after a while in Rainbow, and how I would probably die if shot in the stomach. Also, great writing skills.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 1:45 am PT
Rating systems are not a bad thing, they are there to help parents make good decisions. Without a rating system, how do you expect parents to be the good parents you say they should be? Do you really expect them to take the time to play, start to finish, every game their kids want before they let their kids play. Without a good rating system, administered by conscientious people, parents wouldn't have the tools to make good decisions.
Other than that, I totally agree with most everything you say. In summary: Rating systems = Good, Censorship (as in banning games entirely) = Bad
Other than that, I totally agree with most everything you say. In summary: Rating systems = Good, Censorship (as in banning games entirely) = Bad
Posted Jun 20, 2007 1:54 am PT
i think that this was extremely thought out. he put everything on the table and explained his point of view very thouroughly. i would have written it exactly the same. i have been saying the same thing for years. one huge thing i have noticed is that some parents just don't care what they buy or let their children play. they let them become corrupted. the same people that take the 6 and 9 year old children to the movie theater to see an R rated movie. when you ask the parents what they were thinking they reply "oh they are too young to realize what is going on, and won't remember the movie anyway." i mean come on what a load. these are the parents that should not have been let to breed. most of their problems is that they are just too damn lazy to do what is right, and they are doing what is easy and convienient for them. they dont want to take the extra time for a baby sitter or look at the game rating that is right on the front of the game. same reason all kids act out and get bad grades in school either the parents don't care or are not willing to help. at least we are not germany and M games are banned.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 2:31 am PT
I agree with age restrictions on games as they serve as an indicator to parents whether the game is suitable for their child or not, but the problem is, some parents completely ignore this and buy the game regardless of the rating. Parents have to try and be more strict with their children rather than giving in to them every time they want something (in this case, a game which is meant for adults). Completely banning a game is not necessary IF parents do their jobs, but the sad reality is, a lot of them do not.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 2:42 am PT
i have to agree with absolutely everything you wrote, i would like to raise one issue though. the people are discriminating against the industry are of a certain characteristic, they are protective and as you said uneducated. these are the people who were brought up on pong. all i feel the industry needs to do is wait, thats right, just wait for the people who grew up on manhunt 2 to become the people who are making decisions in this world and the situation will get a new outlook. its a factor of the generation gap(of which no1 can do anything about) and cant be avoided, just sat out. btw you are an excellent writer and when i learned u were 15(like me) i was prettty dishearntened to lkearn this is how i should be writing, you should be proud of this. its good stuff.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 2:51 am PT
nice you r so rite parents + politicians have no rite to blame games for the ill's of society. That's crap if parents really cared they would super vise their children. Well good work c ya
Posted Jun 20, 2007 5:03 am PT
A good amount of that could be the percentage of children that own the Wii in comparison to the other systems. Not that I don't completely agree with your statement however, I was playing Wolfensteing 3-D when I was 6 years old on my 486.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 5:09 am PT
Ive watched trailers of Manhunt 2 and to me it looks pretty much to be the same kind of gore that there was in the first one. But i have also read the storyline and this seems more of an 'escape from the bad place' type of game rather than just the snuff movie style that the first Manhunt had. Personally I think, from first glimpses, that Manhunt 2 looks to have the same amount of violence but with more justification than the first one.
I enjoyed the first one and because of this ban in the uk, I will be importing it from a different country. I don't even play games that much anymore, but because of the ban i find this game more intriguing, just to see what all the fuss is about really. This controversy will probably inspire so many imports of the game. They would have been better off leaving it at an 18 rating and just kicking up a little fuss about it.
I enjoyed the first one and because of this ban in the uk, I will be importing it from a different country. I don't even play games that much anymore, but because of the ban i find this game more intriguing, just to see what all the fuss is about really. This controversy will probably inspire so many imports of the game. They would have been better off leaving it at an 18 rating and just kicking up a little fuss about it.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 5:19 am PT
FYE sells AO games to minors....
Posted Jun 20, 2007 5:24 am PT
I think your blog is right on. My parents have been doing what you say parents should be. Along with that, my dad plays videogames all the time, so he knows whats really screwed up and whats not.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 5:53 am PT
"Seeing a real person murdered in front of your eyes shouldn't cause apathy. But as video games become more realistic, and more immersive couldn't this become a reality?" As far as video games goes, one may get a little unsensitive at least in the virtual world. But is not the same as seen SAW or Hostel or a real death for that matter. I for one, following this example, play lots of violent video games but i when i saw Hostel or SAW i was completely disgusted. I wouldnt know how i feel seen an act of murder right before my eyes but im sure is not a pretty sight. Obviously everyone is not like me so their experience may or may not relate to mine. Nice article btw, try to send it to Jacky boy and lets see what happens... =P
Posted Jun 20, 2007 6:48 am PT
100% true and I back it all the way
Posted Jun 20, 2007 7:24 am PT
I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this. You are right it is the parents job to keep games intended for adult audiences out of the hands of children however that doesn't change whether or not the game is violent enough to deserve an AO rating. If the game is indeed as violent as it seems, it deserves the rating. An AO rating is not a condemnation for a game, its a rating. Just as you feel you have the right to own the game, retailers have the same right to refuse to sell a game that has a high rating. Rockstar knew what the limits are and if they have anyone to blame for it getting an AO its themselves.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 7:45 am PT
I agree with you.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 7:48 am PT
Dude you are at a game site. That article you wrote up there are like one plus one to us.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 7:59 am PT
Its up to the parent to understand there kids state of mind. I was playing GTA in high school, my gradfather used to be a bit of a casual gamer himself so they only let me start playing violent games such as GTA once they thought I understood the diffrence between fantasy and reality. That said, some people I know wheren't ready for a violent game like GTA before they were 18 yet there parents bought it for them non the less. You could see a slight raise in violent thought with him after that and ofcourse you have people that can't even take violence when there 30, but games are only as violent as reality, and if a kid can't understand reality, they can't understand a violent game.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 8:00 am PT
I don't think kids should be forbidden from playing games rated M or AO (except for the ones contain nudity and sex themes) , because we live in a violent world , world full of wars and terror .
kids watch news and they see real violence in the real world not in a virtual world , I mean when a kid buys a game he knows that its just a game for entertainment , but what is going on in the real world that is what affects both kids and adults .
kids watch news and they see real violence in the real world not in a virtual world , I mean when a kid buys a game he knows that its just a game for entertainment , but what is going on in the real world that is what affects both kids and adults .
Posted Jun 20, 2007 8:12 am PT
The only real reason the AO rating is a problem for Rockstar is that the majority of chain retailers (EB Games, Best Buy, Toys R Us, etc.) won't carry any game with an AO rating.
If they did, the rating might have a positive effect on sales. As it is now, with the AO rating, it is a "mail-order-only" or potentially a download piece on the next-gen consoles (if Sony and Microsoft allow AO content to be downloaded).
To judge how "bad" the game might be, to be gleaned by the banishment in the UK, is a highly suspect thing to do.
I don't believe that videogames alter people's behavior in a tangible way. If they did, we'd have a world full of car thieves looking to hunt down zombies near football stadiums! These are the same arguments used against the classic Bugs Bunny cartoons for being "too violent". Cartoons, I might add, that the people arguing against them for being "too violent" grew up with, probably consumed a ton of, and turned into intellectual eggheads making the "too violent" argument!
The answer, in my opinion, as always is --> less censorship; more parenting. Parents won't take the time to do their job, so we have to have Government Censorship of "questionable" material to do it for us.
If they did, the rating might have a positive effect on sales. As it is now, with the AO rating, it is a "mail-order-only" or potentially a download piece on the next-gen consoles (if Sony and Microsoft allow AO content to be downloaded).
To judge how "bad" the game might be, to be gleaned by the banishment in the UK, is a highly suspect thing to do.
I don't believe that videogames alter people's behavior in a tangible way. If they did, we'd have a world full of car thieves looking to hunt down zombies near football stadiums! These are the same arguments used against the classic Bugs Bunny cartoons for being "too violent". Cartoons, I might add, that the people arguing against them for being "too violent" grew up with, probably consumed a ton of, and turned into intellectual eggheads making the "too violent" argument!
The answer, in my opinion, as always is --> less censorship; more parenting. Parents won't take the time to do their job, so we have to have Government Censorship of "questionable" material to do it for us.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 8:13 am PT
harleyrulesall- *Runs to FYE*
Morhavoc- I really think your thought is pretty much the truth, eventually the people making the decisions will be from our time and it won't matter.
Several people mentioned that their parents play video games with them, that's great. It really not only strengthens the relationship between parent and child but it also makes sure that the parent is up to date with what their son is doing, and that the parent understand just what video games are, represent, and can be.
Platearmor6- thats really the thing, every child is different and should be treated that way. Not just a huge mob of "Young kids regardless how mature they are cannot play violent video games."
Morhavoc- I really think your thought is pretty much the truth, eventually the people making the decisions will be from our time and it won't matter.
Several people mentioned that their parents play video games with them, that's great. It really not only strengthens the relationship between parent and child but it also makes sure that the parent is up to date with what their son is doing, and that the parent understand just what video games are, represent, and can be.
Platearmor6- thats really the thing, every child is different and should be treated that way. Not just a huge mob of "Young kids regardless how mature they are cannot play violent video games."
Posted Jun 20, 2007 9:08 am PT
Nice post. But I sometimes wonder if those who complain are the minority. For example, the fanboys must be like the 1% to 5% of all gamers out there, but they manage to make such noise that you think everybody is one... Why aren't any parents, who are also gamers, making their voice heard? I know that when I have my kids I will let them play, and speak loud about the difference between adult games and games suited for children.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 9:14 am PT
Kudos to the author for the well written post.
While I agree with your statements, my thoughts on the AO rating are:
1) Manhunt 2 deserves an AO rating, and
2) ESRB is doing their job
That being said, I believe the problem in this case is that some major retailers do not carry AO rated games and movies. I think we as adult consumers should be writing to the retailers to show that there is a market for AO titles and encourage them to carry such titles.
While I agree with your statements, my thoughts on the AO rating are:
1) Manhunt 2 deserves an AO rating, and
2) ESRB is doing their job
That being said, I believe the problem in this case is that some major retailers do not carry AO rated games and movies. I think we as adult consumers should be writing to the retailers to show that there is a market for AO titles and encourage them to carry such titles.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 10:00 am PT
One thing I would like to add is that a few parents complain that their Teens play M games becouse they go to the store, fake being older, and play the game while their parents are away. This is lazy parenting as well, becouse you can and SHOULD invade you childs privacy once in a while: They have to keep the game somwhere. One other thing: Video games arn't the only thing that gets criticism like this. Not to say that your article isn't well written, Infact I liked it, but RPG games get nearly an equal amount. (Jack Chicks) Criticizim on RPGs Rivals that of (Jack Thompsons) criticism of video games. However, the same concept holds true- If you dont want your child playing Grand Theft Auto, Tabletop RPGs, watch them, search their rooms etc. The government cant do everything.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 10:07 am PT
OrkHammer007 - My thoughts exactly. I've always thought that this confusing jumble of stigmatizing letters should be replaced by a detailed account of the game's content ON THE FRONT OF THE BOX. It would let adult games be released more easily and help parents make better decisions than the current alphabet soup rating system allows for at the moment.
And to the people attacking parents, just STOP. Yes, there are bad parents out there. However, for the most part, it's a case of people not having as much trouble with this sort of content as the obscure nanny groups would have you think. It's worth remembering that what's "appropriate" differs from home to home. A horror shooter like DOOM 3 might be more objectionable to some than a sci-fi shooter like HALO, for example. It goes back to that whole replacing the ratings with better content descriptors thing. Not every M rated game is the same, just as not every R rated movie is the same.
And to the people attacking parents, just STOP. Yes, there are bad parents out there. However, for the most part, it's a case of people not having as much trouble with this sort of content as the obscure nanny groups would have you think. It's worth remembering that what's "appropriate" differs from home to home. A horror shooter like DOOM 3 might be more objectionable to some than a sci-fi shooter like HALO, for example. It goes back to that whole replacing the ratings with better content descriptors thing. Not every M rated game is the same, just as not every R rated movie is the same.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 10:49 am PT
Well Written, I agree, people want to blame video games for being too violent, but hell. CNN telivised a war, and no one say a problem with that. You turn on the news and it's war, murder, flood, car chases, and ect.. but I guess thats diffrent because it's on the news, and it's real. As opposed to a game being played. I guess for the most part we (gamers) will just have to wait till the next thing that comes along that politicians will tell people is wrong and should be mad at during the election years.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 10:50 am PT
First off, excellent article you've written.
Second... Here's my two cents on the matter...
I agree with you. A large part of the whole 'children playing violent games' problem is due to parents not paying attenion. I'm only 20 and not yet a parent myself, but I'll be damned if I'm not smarter on this matter than a lot of people who are parents that just let their kids play violent games. Games like Grand Theft Auto, Gears of War, God of War... Those games aren't for young children. They never were intended to be in the first place. They have the rating they have for a reason. Mature audiences only. If those games were meant for kids, then they'd have an 'E' rating (or 'K-A', if anyone remembers that). Of course, they'd also be a completely different game. However, just because a game carries the rating of 'M' and says it's only supposed to be played by people ages 17 and up, that doesn't automatically mean it's a profanity-laden trigger-happy gore-fest. And this is where parents should really be paying attention to the actual content of a game. I remember playing several M-rated games (the original Diablo and Red Faction come to mind, maybe even the original Unreal Tournament) a few years before I was 17 and technically "legally allowed" to play those games, but not without my dad deciding that it was okay for me to play those games. When I'm eventually a parent, I'll do the same thing, because I know what how to judge what is and isn't appropriate for a kid to play based on my experiences spending a decent amount of my time playing games. And I already do things along these lines anyways; if my 10-year-old brother decides he wants to sit down and watch me play God of War, I'll send him away or turn the game off and play it later when he's not around.
In conclusion to my little rant here... I think the game industry is going to be taking this kind of flak for a little while. Efforts are being taken to educate parents on what is and isn't appropriate for their kids to play, but it doesn't seem like it's enough to me. It's still the easiest thing to do to just blame your kids games when they misbehave in some way. I think we'll have to wait until the current generation of intelligent gamers that knows how to use the rating system is having kids and becoming parents, and eventually buying games for their kids. When that happens, I think people will start to let up on the industry (I hope...).
Second... Here's my two cents on the matter...
I agree with you. A large part of the whole 'children playing violent games' problem is due to parents not paying attenion. I'm only 20 and not yet a parent myself, but I'll be damned if I'm not smarter on this matter than a lot of people who are parents that just let their kids play violent games. Games like Grand Theft Auto, Gears of War, God of War... Those games aren't for young children. They never were intended to be in the first place. They have the rating they have for a reason. Mature audiences only. If those games were meant for kids, then they'd have an 'E' rating (or 'K-A', if anyone remembers that). Of course, they'd also be a completely different game. However, just because a game carries the rating of 'M' and says it's only supposed to be played by people ages 17 and up, that doesn't automatically mean it's a profanity-laden trigger-happy gore-fest. And this is where parents should really be paying attention to the actual content of a game. I remember playing several M-rated games (the original Diablo and Red Faction come to mind, maybe even the original Unreal Tournament) a few years before I was 17 and technically "legally allowed" to play those games, but not without my dad deciding that it was okay for me to play those games. When I'm eventually a parent, I'll do the same thing, because I know what how to judge what is and isn't appropriate for a kid to play based on my experiences spending a decent amount of my time playing games. And I already do things along these lines anyways; if my 10-year-old brother decides he wants to sit down and watch me play God of War, I'll send him away or turn the game off and play it later when he's not around.
In conclusion to my little rant here... I think the game industry is going to be taking this kind of flak for a little while. Efforts are being taken to educate parents on what is and isn't appropriate for their kids to play, but it doesn't seem like it's enough to me. It's still the easiest thing to do to just blame your kids games when they misbehave in some way. I think we'll have to wait until the current generation of intelligent gamers that knows how to use the rating system is having kids and becoming parents, and eventually buying games for their kids. When that happens, I think people will start to let up on the industry (I hope...).
Posted Jun 20, 2007 10:55 am PT
Very well said. Im very impressed
Posted Jun 20, 2007 11:09 am PT
This all comes from the worst generation: the Boomer generation. Those born in the late 40s through the 50s and early 60s. This is a group of people that want it all. They want kids, but they don't want to parent. They'd rather spend time watching TV or reading self-help books. When their kids mess up, they point the finger at something else, namely the media. They enjoy alot of what comes out of the media these days, but at the same time they wouldn't mind having government come in and censor it. The boomer generation has taken away the main difference between our two political parties. It used to be big gov't vs. small gov't. Now we don't have that choice. Big gov't has won. It just depends on what type of big gov't you want. Do you want one that tries to help people (ie Democratic Nanny state), or do you want one that restricts people (ie Republican Paternal state). Lately Boomers have been saying they want the latter. They want to be told what they can't do, as long as Republicans are the ones issuing the orders. That way they can trick themselves into thinking they are voting for traditional American small gov't and "freedom" when in fact they are still voting for big gov't.
Posted Jun 20, 2007 11:17 am PT
Friends
My Friends
hullo12