New California video gaming rules

[PureSnipe]

myrmaad: The law that was struck down made any game deemed to be violent enough to recieve a 18+ rating made it illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to play it, much like laws on pornography today. It's not so much as a ban more as it is a massive restriction. I too believe the ratings on games needs to be revamped. Let me go get a few of the games out of my entertainment center and read the ratings and reasoning for the ratings off, so I can explain my point a little better:

 

I've pulled eight games that I think I can use to hit on every aspect of the rating system, and all of these are for the 360.

 

Fallout 3:

M

Blood and Gore

Intense Violence

Sexual Themes

Strong Language

Use of Drugs

 

Gears of War 2:

M

Blood and Gore

Intense Violence

Strong Language

 

Call of Duty: World at War:

M

Blood and Gore

Intense Violence

Strong Language

 

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed:

T

Violence

 

Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation:

T

Mild Language

Violence

 

Assassin's Creed:

Blood

Strong Language

Violence

 

Halo 3:

Blood and Gore

Mild Language

Violence

 

Dead Space:

M

Blood and Gore

Intense Violence

Strong Language

 

Those are the ratings on the game cases. Read them, and you'll notice inconsistencies, and the fact that those are a mass over-simplification. What I believe should be done is to make a generic standard that does not change, and also create sub-categories on the violence field. This is how I'd revise the ratings:

 

Fallout 3:

M

Blood and Gore

Intense Violence - Sci-Fi Realism

Sexual Themes

Strong Language

Use of Drugs

 

Gears of War 2:

M

Blood and Gore

Intense Violence - Sci-Fi Realism

Strong Language

 

Call of Duty: World at War:

M

Blood and Gore

Intense Violence - Historical Realism

Strong Language

 

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed:

T

Violence - Sci-Fi Fantasy

 

Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation:

T

Mild Language

Violence - Airborne Vehicular Combat

 

Assassin's Creed:

Blood

Strong Language

Violence - Historical Realism

 

Halo 3:

Blood and Gore

Mild Language

Violence - Sci-Fi Realism

 

Dead Space:

M

Blood and Gore

Intense Violence - Horror

Strong Language

 

Now, as you can tell I'm a fan of shooters/fighting games. I do honestly believe that the ratings need a revamp, because I all too often find myself looking at the back of a game I'm thinking of buying and saying hmm, why did it get these ratings? I proceed to do what most people don't and pull out my phone, go on the internet and look up an in-depth review on the ratings of the game. I know that a good portion of the population of Americans are completely and totally lazy, and don't take the initiative to further educate themselves on the contents of a game before they purchase it for themselves or a child. The information needs to be more readily available.

 

I'm reading the back of Dead Space right now, and ffs, there's about a 3" x 2" box of information on how you need a subscription to Xbox Live in order to use it, the fact you have to register and subscribe to the publisher's site in order for assistance, and the fact you may need seperate cables for HD!!! That space could be better used for a little more information on the ratings, not to re-print the same information that's in the *edit*ing manual. I'd type it out, but it's at least four paragraphs of wasted space on the case. I'll even take a picture of it and place a box around the area I'm referring to for reference, and for comparison to that of the ratings.

 

On the pic (Not the best quality, as it was taken on my phone. Still enough to make a point.)

 

Anyone who has purchased a game before will recognize the rating box. In case you haven't (which I highly doubt, but I'll explain anyway), it's the small white box to the right. The MASSIVE part to the left that I masked off along with the rating while I darkened and blurred the image is unnecessary information that most people don't give a care about. We could use a portion of that space and improve how descriptive the ratings are, while leaving the tiny box as a quick reference.

[myrmaad]

Excellent points! Thanks for contributing.

[PureSnipe]

It's my belief that the further a game is from a realistic setting/plot, no matter how real the violence is, it's easier to distinguish fact from fiction due to the fact that, well, those things just aren't possible at this point in time.

[Vagrant0]

The way the ESRB rates games is actually quite complicated, and although it doesn't specify on the label, some more specific criteria are used when a game is being rated. An example of this would be Oblivion. It was initially rated Teen, but was re-rated after the games release because mods were developed to remove the underwear of females. After the review, the game was given a harsher judgement for the content of violence and gore, making the game now have a M rating.

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features...-m/68893/?biz=1

 

The problem is not so much the system being used to rate the games, although there does seem to be some subjectivity involved, so much as it is an issue of relaying the severity of that content. The current packaging was intended to be as uncomplicated as possible, and to distract as little as possible from the box art since it is something that every game must carry. This is not too different from the surgeon general's warning on cigarettes, the warnings on alcoholic beverages, or the "explicit content" labels on CDs just because one song uses the word "damn" once. The problem is that you cannot really create any sort of label which might be a bit more clear without further inconveniencing game makers. And, as with the other examples mentioned, just because there is a label on the package does not mean that anyone will particularly care. You could have a cigarette package covered with the words "These WILL kill you", and people would still smoke them if they were any good. Actually, anyone who's had a any dealing with teenagers, or can remember their teenage years could tell you, the presence of a warning label is something that teenagers tend to look at first to see if it is anything good. Half the crappy horror movies that get seen/rented is because you have teenagers who see the R rating on the back, and want to show how "mature" they are by asking their parents if they can see/rent it.

 

As for the situation, anyone who has done any research into behavioral studies can tell you that just because the violence happens in a fantasy setting does not mean that the impact of the violence is lessened. Violence is violence, and can be reproduced as long as any of the acts are something which can be physically or conceptually imitated in this universe. The chance of occurrence actually deals more with how well the viewer identifies with the characters than what settings the game takes place in. And all of it is inspirational to some extent. The difference is that some kids have the capacity to know that those things are not acceptable, while others do not, and instead blame whatever gave them the idea.

[PureSnipe]

Oh, I know that the system that the ESRB uses is actually very specific, but the labeling isn't. Take for example Mass Effect: It was given a listing that there was nudity in the game. The level of "nudity" is nothing more than what you would see on a simple TV show.

 

I know that their system on ratings is sound and thorough, but the way they explain that basis and the contents of a game to people isn't. They say that a game has violence, but in the case of two of those games I listed, Ace Combat and Halo 3, the violence is carried out in a completely different manner. I think that what they're listing is a gross over-simplification for the type of violence contained. The problem is the fact that they aren't printing on the label what the violence contains. Do we want people to have to read one more sentence, or be oblivious to what the game truly contains? Shooting a human? Shooting an alien? Shooting down a plane? I know families that don't want their kids playing a game, even if it's T rated, if they are shooting a person. They'll let them play something like Dead Space though, where they're shooting something that isn't human.

 

I made an error on how I worded it in the previous post: I meant that there needs to be a more specific explanation of what a game contains along with the simple rating that it's given. The ratings actually affect a parent's decision on the games/movies then it does for the kid due to the fact you stated of kids wanting to appear more mature. And this comes right back around to the point of a parent needs to be a parent and actually look into what is in that which they are renting/purchasing. Most of the time, people just glance over the back of a package, see the simplification of what it contains, and buy it.

 

Example: One of my good friend's dad bought him GTA 4 off of the basis that it had the same rating basis as some of the other games he owned. He gets home, gives the game to his son, and watches him play. He realizes that the violence in there is mainly the shooting of innocent civilians and law enforcement officials. Being in law enforcement himself, he yanks the game out of the PS3, goes back to Game Stop and demands to have it returned due to the ESRB's inability to convey fully what the game contained.

 

I still believe that some stuff on the packaging, such as the details being given on the requirements for Xbox Live, and even licensing information that is double printed, once in the manual, once on the case, can be partially left off of the case and use a little bit of that room to convey the severity and subject of the violence.

 

http://www.mcvuk.com/opinion/93/Violence-i...ect-on-children

 

Seventh paragraph down. States that the style of a videogame also has a large effect on violence.

[Vagrant0]

I still believe that some stuff on the packaging, such as the details being given on the requirements for Xbox Live, and even licensing information that is double printed, once in the manual, once on the case, can be partially left off of the case and use a little bit of that room to convey the severity and subject of the violence.

Again, not a good idea since the requirement of a Live connection to play the game would kinda be important to those who don't have that connection. And legal information HAS to be printed on the external packaging as a requirement.

 

As for your comment about GTA, most of the game is not shooting bystanders or officers, most of the game is usually centered around shooting other criminals. It was the person playing who decided to unload their weapon into the crowd of innocents. See, that is ultimately the issue here. People shouldn't blame others for their own actions. As fun as it might be to go driving a semi along the sidewalk and seeing how many people you can hit, or as fun as it might be to stand on an overpass with a sniper rifle and do head shots on passing motorists to see the carnage that unfolds from their vehicle going out of control, it is the individual's choice to do those things. It is also up to the individual to realize that while something is reasonably acceptable in a game world, it is not acceptable in real life.

 

The problem is that too many people try to blame things other than themselves for their crimes, and although that person still ends up in jail/dead, the mentality that a game can force you to do something persists. Not once has "a game made me do it" been a successful defense, but people continue to do it because they realize how screwed they are, know others have made similar claims, and hope for anything that might save them. And as a result, the media catches wind, runs the story 24/7 and gets the idea out to others.

 

Anyway, I will agree, the problem is one of packaging and knowledge. But as I said a few pages ago, that whole knowledge issue won't exist for much longer, and the packaging issue will always be there since the more information you have, the harder it is for clueless individuals to understand it. Several states already have laws banning the sales of mature rated materials to minors unless parent consent is given, and it doesn't do a damn thing. Parents are generally either oblivious or unconcerned because they are convinced that their child is not so screwed up that they might do those things in real life. And these days, having a teenager in the house, spending several hours a day with a videogame is perceived as still being safer than having a teenager who is always out of the house. When children are happy, parents are happy. When children are not happy, all hell can potentially break loose depending on how vengeful and misguided that child is. Furthermore, the law does nothing about persons who are 18, or who have fake IDs, and buy those games for themselves or friends.

 

This is really just needless politics since most chain companies already have their own regulations about sales/rentals to minors, and have had those things for the last 20 years, and obviously, those never worked. Just because its a law doesn't mean it will be enforced, or that it will change anything. There are laws banning smoking 100 feet from any entrance to a public place, but you still find groups of people who are in violation of this law almost anywhere you go that people work. It's a law that's just there to give comfort to those of small minds, and to suggest that lawmakers are actually doing anything with taxpayer money.

 

The presence of violence in games is believed to be of more concern, than the violence seen on tv. This is because the player is active and making decisions to use violence in the game to achieve an objective, whereas the tv viewer is passively watching the actions done by someone else to someone else.

 

The impact of a game also depends on the game’s style. A realistic situation in which violent behaviour has a positive outcome (e.g. street fighting) is more likely to be internalised by the child and therefore more likely to encourage violent behaviour. A fantasy adventure with dragon slaying and good guys winning is not.

Both things I already talked about, but the assumption here is that it is entirely the situation here, and not how the viewer relates to that situation. As an extreme hypothetical example, an 8 year old playing a game based around something like rape would look at the game differently than a 17 year old. The content in the game remains the same, but the experiences of the player are what is needed to give any of that content meaning. The 8 year old probably wouldn't know what to make of most of it, while the 17 year old would have a bit more understanding of the concepts, and may be able to relate more with the rapist character that they play, adding in experiences of powerlessness, sexual confusion, or past relationships that didn't work out. Naturally, such an example would be rather immoral in any context, but the concept is there. The same thing is true for anything else. In less offending terms, an 8 year old would have different reactions to a romance movie than a 17 year old. THAT is what is important here, and what was not appropriately addressed in that particular article. It is not the situations, nor the context of those situations, but how the viewer perceives and relates to those things. If anything, the main issue related to media inspired violence is that violence has been glorified in media for so long that most people accept it as being normal.

 

It would be irresponsible of me to suggest that playing violent video games is not causing increased violence in children

Is essentially a big sign saying "I really don't know, but don't sue me if I happen to be wrong here".

 

and that there may well be other factors responsible for the increase in violence in children today.

Such as diet, education, productive social outlets (since many schools have cut after school activities), parental involvement, social norms (hard to say that being a criminal is bad when we're building more prisons than schools, is glorified in the media, and when atleast 1 out of 8 people over the age of 20 has spent some time in police custody). This is a systemic problem, one that will likely only to continue to get worse as we continue to pass the blame to anything other than ourselves.

[antonkr]

well i am in US for 1 year and when i saw ESRB rating i was standing like this :ohmy:

Oh common Fallout 3 should be made 13+

Some race games are 7+

Well i was shocked

My point is guys at ESRB are A******s