New California video gaming rules

[Michlo]

Why are people having a problem with this? Isn't it our duty to protect kids as much as we can? We have standards for films which are deemed inappropriate for them and we all know some of these games are too. Kids are growing up far too fast these days.

 

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090220/tc_nm/us_videogames

[Deleted269910User]

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the labeling requirement unfairly forces video games to carry "the state's controversial opinion" about which games are violent.

 

The problem is that it puts all the games that contain even the smallest bit of the mildest possible violence to the same gategory with the more gorier games such as Gears of War for example. The problem with the law is how it is defined, not the purpose itself. The question really is, has playing games like Tekken(I'd categorize as mild/medium violence, even though it is a fighting game.) or Final Fantasy(Mild violence.) that focuses far more on the story and other things, rather than on the fighting/violence itself, caused some kid to get a gun and start killing people around him/her? Don't answer that, I know someone will claim so, but that means the kid was mentally ill anyway.

 

If a law like this is intended to ever be succesfully put up, it will have to be extremely well defined in order for it not to crumble like a sand castle. Admittedly there may be some games that aren't perhaps labelled as violent, but do contain enough of it to justify the tag, however most of the games that have mild/medium level violence are quite often taking the focus off of the violence into the storyline and plots, which isn't something that is necessarily bad.(Causes the player to think and do some problem solving, which can be educational.) I have to say I'd be pretty pissed to see if some games, that aren't focusing on the violence as much as the storyline etc., would be categorized to violent, 18+, due to the fact that there was a scene where a guy hits another guy for example. Good example of failures such as this would be the "sex" scandal with Mass Effect.

 

My main point is; Protecting kids is fine, but it isn't any kind of excuse to be ignorant and blindly categorize games, like the law did, as ultra-violent 18+. Some games contain violence, yes, but do they cause a >normal< kid to go on a beat up rage filled rampage in their school? I don't think so. People need to see that games that contain violence, but aren't centered in it actually are not even nearly as bad as they think they are. If they're anti-gamers well... that's their problem, not mine. Games can be fun, contain a mild/medium level of violence and even be educational at the same time. They can teach lots of different things, both good and bad, depending on the game, but no one who isn't more or less out of their mind, will ever start doing things they saw in a game, to real people. The games that really are ultra-violent are already carrying the tag, so that is not the problem.

[worm82075]

I think context has to play large role in what is considered acceptable violence. Martial Arts and Boxing are both part of the Olympics and as such should be considered casualtilistic (i made that up) competition and no more unacceptable than Football or Hockey. Like any rating system though it means absolutly nothing on it's own and it's only when parents decide what they do and do not want their children exposed to and use the rating system to determine what is acceptable or not that it then has any merit. The cold hard truth is that this system means nothing to us gamers because we don't use it. The only way to enact a change in the parents that use and have these systems created is to confront them with any debate on the merits of these systems. As I have said previously it is those parents that don't game that are lobbing our governments for these systems and no gamer is going to stand up as our voice in these matters because they aren't willing to give up their gaming to do so. The parents aren't on this site so It's a war we can not and will not win. Our hobby lies in the hands of those that despise it and because of that our precious gaming is doomed to a slow and painful death. As long as Bethesda is around for another decade or so I know I'll be OK but all you cats out there that gotta play every game that hits the market, well...Good Luck, your going to need it.

[Birrii]

I have been playing violent games since I was 9, and I have never been beating up anyone at school. I think violence in games isn't bad. Actually, I think erotic content in games is worse.

Besides, if a child is afraid of violent content, the child will more likely be scared and stop playing the violent game. If a child plays violent games and get violent him/herslef, then the parents can always teach the child to be less violent. Some people just are violent themselves, and only because they played a violent game, everyone thinks that it's the games' fault.

 

I may be underestimating the power of the violent games, now that I always liked princess games when I was 4-9 :}

[myrmaad]

The point is that the rating is there to help parents to evaluate whether they want their child/children exposed to the content in the game. I'm sorry but that's my right as a parent, bottom line. While I'm a bit more game savvy than most parents (my kid got me into gaming as a matter of fact) many parents don't have the time or interest to research every game our kids might want to play. (My kid will be 29 next month.)

 

And furthermore, I don't give a &*%$# what other parents let their kids do, as long as it doesn't affect me in any way.

[doomjockey]

Michlo, I have issues with it because we already have the ESRB which is equivalent to MPAA ratings. So our games already come rated just like the films you mentioned and I think they do a good job of it.

 

I guess this is supposed to be more about getting the retailers to fall in line than anything. Though my experience with Gamestop (the largest game retailer in the land over here) says they typically ask for ID then can and will refuse sale to minors. Obviously, not everyone does that or there wouldn't be a problem.

 

If I understand it, the difference here is that legislators want to relegate games to the same status of booze, cigs, and porn by fining retailers even though other forms of entertainment aren't really subject to this kind of censorship.

 

Don't really see the need for all that extra, imo.

[Deleted269910User]

Also one thing you have to consider when you're dealing with laws such as this; Every single country in the world will have different opinions and attitudes towards gaming, which is a direct result of each country's own history. History->Culture->How children are raised=Attitudes towards violence, romance and pretty much everything you can think of->Relates DIRECTLY into the attitude towards games and their content. I can use my own home country as a great example. Violent games aren't anything odd here(I first played Resident Evil 1 when I was 7.) and that is likely the result of our country's(Finland.) long history of wars, fighting etc. I can confidently say Finland has been in more wars than the USA has states.(Starting from the 1500 and even earlier.) Long term history is something that does effect the culture in it's entirety so much that you can see the effects of it every day by simply going out to the streets for a walk, or looking at the news.

 

If you can't see what my point with the above, I'm going to make some further clarifications:

 

-How kids are raised, how our parents have been raised, how our grandparents were raised, it all effects the attitudes regarding violence, nudity etc. This can be directly related into gaming.

 

-Some cultures do not accept games as anything more than a distraction, waste of money and as a way for the devil to steal the souls of their kids.

 

-Gamers have always been a minority in the society, yes there are many of us, BUT, we are nontheless a minority when compared to the general populace.

 

-Laws prohibiting games from entering the market in some countries, are due to the fact that their culture doesn't accept what is provided in that genre of games or in some specific game.

 

-Laws regarding the 'tags' a game has are simply a waste of time as there will never be a universal system that everyone will approve off, or agree with.

 

-The 'tags' that have been made for games, are not aimed for the players, but for those who don't know a c*** about games, namely the parents that allow their kids to play, but want strict control over it, or people who want to buy some game as a gift to someone and need some kind relative info source on what the game contains.

 

-Simply having the tag for age groups of what a specific game would suit would be enough for all the people who use their brains. I've found more often parents looking at the tags, than the age group some game is aimed at and then later on they complain that their 5 year old kid was playing GTA IV and they want to sue microsoft for it. It's their own god damn responsibility to use their brains when they're selecting games for their kids, them being total idiots is not any excuse to make a general gamers life hell with access to certain products being denied from them.

 

-There are always some exceptions in each culture, but they're "lynched" like the whole gaming industry is. You know what I mean.(You know; The general complaints about you playing on your PC when you could go out for a jog in the -60C cold, with wind speeds exceeding 120meters per second. You get the idea.)

 

-Parents and people in general want to blame something when a kid goes to school and starts shooting his friends and teachers. That is the fault of the PARENTS, not the fault of games or movies/tv series. Any half-decent parent would notice if their kid has a 9mm Beretta under his/her pillow, a 9mm SMG in his/her closet not to even speak of the behavioral changes that occur when someone is planning to take a gun and aim it at innocent people... I may sound harsh, but that's the reality. There's no way in hell anyone wouldn't notice such things, unless they were blatantly ignorant or didn't care about what their kid was doing. I'm not going to go into further discussion regarding that, but I've got pretty damn solid sources and a fair amount arguments to back this up.(If a moderator finds this paragraph too offending to some, or going into a too touchy subject, I won't have any objections if you want to remove it. My opinion will stay the same, but non-public.)

 

-Now to collect all of the above and how it relates to the actual debate;

---->The rating system is there, to prevent access into certain games from the minors, however, the people that are able to make any decisions regarding games and have no experience with them themselves, quite often want to blame everything on them and if at all possible, to limit the access to games from as many people as possible. What people do need to understand is that games, even though they claim otherwise, are sources of education aswell.(Addicts are a different story, but that is not what this topic is about.) As one source of proof regarding that, I can use myself. I'm from Finland, I am and have been always practically sleeping through all my English lessons and I have never, not even once read any dictionary. I've learnt every single word I know and their meanings from games.(And forums such as this.) You can call me "one of the minority" or a "liar" but the fact is that it's true. Also according to my teachers, my level of understanding the language when spoken and pronouncing words correctly is at the level of having lived in England roughly for about 3-5 years. I've never set my foot into English soil, flown over it once though. :rolleyes:

 

---->What needs to be done regarding rating systems is for them to actually hire someone who has played games other than Hello Kitty Online and Runescape, possibly several of them, to help in developing a REASONABLE system, that would keep the extra violent and violence based games off the hands of the 7-year olds, but not prohibit the other, "little bit" more matured gamers from having access to them. I know that this paragraph is just a dream and probably won't be happening in the next 10 years, if ever.

 

~Elraine

 

P.S. I apologize for the long read and if my views are offensive to you. These are simply my opinions, results of the little research I've done into the subject and almost 12 years of gaming experience. If you've got a problem with something I've said in this post(Probably many will.) then by all means tell me, but please stay on topic. If you want me to clarify something or think I went far off-topic somewhere, tell me and I'll try re-phrasing it.

 

P.P.S. I'm not afraid for the general posters in this forum, but rather the replies of those random lurkers that want to kill me for ever having said anything bad about the people criticizing games. :sweat:

[exanimis]

I think the whole rating system is a bit ridiculous. I read where Bethesda had to change their rating of Oblivion from teen to mature because someone found a nude mod. (Game Informer) I have the collectors edition (rated T) and the game of the year version (rated M) and there is no difference that I know of. Just like the reworking of the movie ratings, the system sucks. I hate the mature/adult rating anyway because I think it's misleading. Adults in general don't want sex in their video games we normally fast forward through the sex scenes on DVDs. Rating a movie or a game as being mature or adult assures that every teen aged boy who sees it will want it. Having sex in God of War wasn't that big of a deal to me, I've had sex in real life before, but the kids love it.

 

I sometimes see movies that are made for small children and am offended by the sexual situations and innuendos in them, yet they have a rating of PG, I see others that have none of that but because someone gets into a fight it's rated PG13. I believe that there should be a system for concerned parents to go by but in it's current incarnation the rating system leaves much to be desired.

 

I used to be for the death penalty until I became more informed about it. If you commit a violent crime, you stand a better chance of hitting the state lottery than you do of getting the death penalty. I am against the rating system for the same reason.

 

Game informer also had an article about a group that had made a game of the Columbine school shootings. In the game you play one of the boys who went on the shooting spree, you plan your rout, listen to the music that they listened to and plan who you will kill. I think that this is a good example of why we need a rating system. I'm not saying that the game should not have been made no matter how disgusting I personally find it but I believe that parents should have some type of fair rating that would accurately inform them of the content.

[Birrii]

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>&rel=1">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355">

[Vagrant0]

The thing is that laws like this are ultimately meaningless when put into practice. Anyone who has worked in videogame/movie rentals or sales can attest to this fact. Simply put, parents either don't pay attention, or can't be bothered with trying to argue with their teenager over what games/movies they buy/rent. First off, it's rare that vendors even question anyone who obviously doesn't look to be a minor, and in the case when they do, those children are usually accompanied by a parent who couldn't care less. Although most renters have conditions on customer accounts where certain members may be restricted from mature rentals, many of these customers don't end up using it, or show outright hostility when you bother them about their child renting a violent/explicit game/movie. In the short time I was employed in the video rental/sales industry, I can't tell you how many apathetic parents yelled at me for calling them to ask if it was alright for their 12-14 year old son to rent an R, or unrated movie, or whatever ultra violent M rated game was popular at the time. Although the law has changed a bit since then, thanks in part of those couple seriously disturbed teenagers who decided it might be fun to shoot up a school, the fact that parents really don't care, or can't be bothered to spend the energy to care, hasn't changed.

 

And technically speaking, just because someone is 18 doesn't necessarily mean that they are particularly capable of determining fantasy over reality. One need only look at the number of adults who claimed GTA inspired crimes to recognize that. The unfortunate truth, that few want to consider, is that there just might be people who are looking for something, other than themselves, to explain their behavior. They blame videogames for violence because everyone else seems to, just like how heavy metal was blamed for criminal behavior back in the 80s.

 

Ultimately, laws like this are meaningless, even when enforced, since it still doesn't prevent minors getting those games. Even if you make it mandatory, and punishable by criminal offense to rent/sell a M rated game to a minor without written parental consent at the time of purchase, the only thing you are doing is making the life of the videostore clerk more dangerous as some parents would likely become violent themselves because of all the hassle involved. The only solution to the issue is to just rely on better education and after school programs for keeping kids from exhibiting destructive behavior in an inappropriate setting, rather than trying to use videogames as a scapegoat for every act of violence. The reason why videogames are blamed is because they are typified as being anti-social, or solitary activities, and generally, any sort of behavior which is seen as anti-social gets perceived as being hostile to others. You can compare this to other generally anti-social activities, such as reading, poetry, certain kinds of music, or pornography, and likewise, people who participate in these activities are usually scrutinized by the rest of society. In contrast, social things such as blogging, partying, or sports are seen as being generally safe, and non-destructive.

 

In the case of sports, in school, athletes are told to kill, crush, or destroy whatever team they are playing against that week, these sentiments are drilled into them repeatedly, and violent behavior is encouraged. Yet few blame sports for violent behavior because sports often help bring participation or money into the school. More over, as has been documented in recent years, parents/coaches attending such games are also prone to violent behavior over the slightest argument. Although there was some attention given to this by the media, unlike in the case of nearly every crime where videogames were linked, the parents themselves were blamed. Sports related acts of violence are far more common than anything related to videogames, even those few that get documented, yet videogames, like heavy metal 2 decades before, get most of the blame. Problems like this exist almost entirely because people would rather blame some form of media for why a kid is seriously screwed up in the head, rather than blame the parents for not doing their job, or accepting that maybe the kid could have been screwed up in the head no matter what.