|
Post by Ben on Mar 27, 2008 11:28:56 GMT
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7314751.stmand www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3628894.eceIn particular the second one... How sensationalist can you get? And this is the Times! "Games are being marketed to children, so it's game developers' fault when kids go off on one and kill people". Erm... No. The fact they've brought in proposals to get this new rating system on board is just ridiculous. Games like GTA, Manhunt, Halo etc ALL have BBFC classifications on them (the first 2 have 18, the third 15), and yet kids are STILL playing them. The reason? Little Jonny (Aged 12 and throws a tantrum in the store) wants it, and to be considered a good parent, mummy buys him it. Despite it having a massive "18" plastered on the front. The 3 current-gen consoles on the market ALL have parental control settings on them, but are they used? In the vast majority of cases, no they aren't. The systems are bought by parents to babysit the kids while they enjoy themselves without a care in the world with what their little angels are exposed to. I commented on the Times story, and yes - my parents let me play GTA back in the day, but only after they played a demo and were ok with me playing it, as well as sitting in the same room whilst I played on it. With games getting more graphic though, it's a bit different than driving a square that vaguely resembles the top of a car over something that vaguely resembles the top of a person and making a bit of a red splodge... When it comes down to it, games are, and probably always will be, a scapegoat. I realise there is a slight air of hypocrisy in that I'm moaning at parents for letting their kids play violent games when I myself was allowed to play GTA, but that was only after my parents were convinced I was gonna be ok with it. (And believe me, it took a lot of convincing!). But the way things are today it's just a case of "Mummy, buy this" and "Daddy, get this". There is absolutely NO excuse with the parental control systems on the consoles these days to let kids who aren't old enough to play the games on them. There's supposed to be a mandatory age limit on the online services like Xbox live and the Playstation Network, but all I hear on Call of Duty (a 16+ rated game according to PEGI) is pre-pubescent kids mouthing off and swearing more than I do at football matches. It's not up to developers, the tools are in place for parents to step up to the plate and do their freakin' jobs.
|
|
|
Post by bigospedros on Mar 27, 2008 11:40:35 GMT
not sure either of those reports were sensationalist ?
I agree that parents need to be more involved and take more control ... but isn't that essentially what the reports say anyway ? It's not banning these games, but suggesting that parents are more informed about what's in them and making use of certificates and parental controls on consoles.
It's not saying that violent games won't get released, it's just saying that they will get better certification. How does that affect the adult gamer ?
Personally speaking, I cannot understand why anyone would want to play such graphic games.
|
|
|
Post by Chloe on Mar 27, 2008 11:45:28 GMT
ahh the good old violent games make kids go kill people debate. which has no grounding in fact or evidence to back it up. 'cos you can't prove a cause & effect link.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Mar 27, 2008 11:59:34 GMT
The BBC one isn't bad really, just gets the point across, but the Times saying "Games are as bad/dangerous as cigarettes so need a 'healt warning'" is a tad extreme. Why not just put "Games to get same ratings as films"?
It just really winds me up. There's a massive stigma attached to video games now, and it's completely unjustified. Whenever there's an incident of violence the cause seems to have moved away from music and is now onto videogames, when it's really not the fault of games or the developers at all.
The current rating system shows the information on the front and back of the boxes, along with any information parents could possibly want to see if it would be relevant for their kids. Any new system would be pointless, as it would provide the same, if not less information.
I guess the reaction of some people on the times article wound me up the most. "These people should be locked away and games taken off sale" was one, which is just outrageous. The general public needs to be educated that these games are NOT marketed toward children, and never were.
However, I do agree to some extent on the 'why you'd want to play them' point. The main reason I got annoyed that Manhunt 2 was banned was due to one of the reasons being "because it's being marketed to kids".
|
|
|
Post by Kevio on Mar 27, 2008 12:38:01 GMT
Video games don't kill people. People kill people. Video games defend people against people who play violent video games.
Or something.
This is ridiculous, I'm sorry. Ben's already said it - the bigger 'offenders' already have BBFC-style ratings on them, and either way, EVERY OTHER GAME has a rating from the gaming ratings people (PEGI in Europe) - these as (if not more) effective because they also have symbols alongside the rating depicting violence, drugs, whatever.
It's down to the parents. You can't blame the guy behind the counter because he can easily assume daddy is buying the game for himself.
In my case my mum and dad don't have a problem with my 8-year-old brother playing GTA: San Andreas but I do and I've gone and hidden it in my room.
|
|
|
Post by bigospedros on Mar 27, 2008 13:12:47 GMT
again, I don't think they want a new system ... they just want 1 consistent system of rating and education to parents so that they fully understand them. Quite why some parents can't understand a big red symbol with an "18" in it is beyond me, but simply providing the education cannot hurt.
Violence must have some kind of influence on kids, especially ones without a strong parental influence ... but it's not necessarily only to be seen in video games, so singling them out is a little unfair.
Still, more controls can't hurt ... just needs to get through down to parents as well.
|
|
|
Post by Ath on Mar 27, 2008 13:14:05 GMT
Personally speaking, I cannot understand why anyone would want to play such graphic games. Because it's FUN
|
|
|
Post by Kevio on Mar 27, 2008 13:16:47 GMT
I don't think it's the graphic side of it that makes it appeal to people. GTA for example is a massive, open game with loads to do which is why it appeals to me.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Mar 27, 2008 16:13:18 GMT
same, im not going to go and kill people.
|
|
|
Post by [Ghost] on Mar 27, 2008 18:28:22 GMT
Personally I find it an insult to my intelligence that people can say that just because you kill someone in a game it makes you want to do it in real life. The fact is though, these ratings arn't going to change anything, if someone blames real life violence on copying something in a game they will anyway. I'm glad they waited until Im 21 before putting these ratings on anyway By the way, I think the Manhunt game that was banned on the wii was too far, the fact you are literally making the moves to stab people and such is a bit wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bigospedros on Mar 27, 2008 20:18:05 GMT
you can't deny that when you're young, you are influenced by what you see ... violent games weren't around when I was a kid (at least, I didn't have any) but I remember copying wrestling moves from the TV and things like that.
Stands to reason that some kids will therefore copy violence they see on TV or in films or in games ... or if they don't copy, they will be desensitised to it and the consequences of violent behaviour.
But as I said above ... this issue isn't about not making these things available, it's about making sure that they're not very easily accessible to kids. Just the same as alcohol or drugs or whatever.
At the end of the day, something has happened in our society whereby the family unit and respect for authority has broken down. That is the real cause of all of this ... and fixing those issues is how to make progress. Providing education to parents and the youth of today is probably the only way to change things ...
At the end of the day, it won't make any difference to adult gamers ... so not quite sure why these kind of studies cause adult gamers to get some outraged?!
|
|
|
Post by [Ghost] on Mar 27, 2008 21:10:02 GMT
you can't deny that when you're young, you are influenced by what you see ... violent games weren't around when I was a kid (at least, I didn't have any) but I remember copying wrestling moves from the TV and things like that. To an extent, but copying wrestling moves isn't the same as getting a knife out of the kitchen drawer and stabbing someone! I just think if someone is crazy enough to do that then they will regardless, if video games arn't the cause something else would be, tv, film or whatever...which is exactly what you are saying here... Which is bang on. I suppose this is a step in that direction but even so it seems a very specific target and as Ben said, that Times article is absolutely ridiculous. Letting your 12 year old play Grand Theft Auto is hardly the same as letting your 12 year old have a packet of cigerettes...
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Mar 27, 2008 23:18:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigospedros on Mar 28, 2008 8:38:50 GMT
All that does is confirm that some kids are completely and utterly desensitised to violence and are unaware of the real world consequences! Quite whether this has come from games or not can't be proven either way as a result of this story .. but the general trend of the dangers of exposing kids to violence from various forms of media is clear.
No doubt that story will be twisted however ... but that just shows how are media are 95% gutter press who twist any story to make it more dramatic and therefore sell more copies of their publication and/or allow them to get more for adverts.
*sigh*
|
|
|
Post by homeforsummer on Mar 28, 2008 9:29:49 GMT
I don't think it's the graphic side of it that makes it appeal to people. GTA for example is a massive, open game with loads to do which is why it appeals to me. Exactly. I never played it for the violence, violence in the game is just a byproduct of a game which allows the player to do pretty much anything. GTA is a 'sandbox' game, which means you can play through the missions or just doss about. There is so much to do - I know of people whon don't like racing games, but enjoy the driving and racing elements of GTA. Or people who don't like the gore of Resident Evil et al, but the more cartoonised violence of GTA is less graphic. I was probably about 15 when my parents bought me GTA3, the first of the 3d GTA games. i.e. too young, but then my parents knew I wasn't about to go on a killing spree and replicating what I saw on the screen. There were calls to ban GTA in the states recently because a convicted car criminal had a GTA tattoo on his back. "Oh, he must have got the idea from GTA!"... yes, or maybe he's a car criminal who understandably likes playing GTA because of this... maybe it happened that way around instead. I don't want to sound like a toff, but I've been brought up properly. It's why my parents trusted me and my brother (who would have been 13 when we got GTA3) to play such games. We were playing DOOM when we were about 10 or younger, for God's sake. If you haven't been brought up badly and your parents have imparted a sense of morals into you,then you can appreciate violent games as games, not as ideals. At the end of the day, it won't make any difference to adult gamers ... so not quite sure why these kind of studies cause adult gamers to get some outraged?! I disagree - the public look for a scapegoat when something violent happens.If it's a kid and they say it's down to videogames, then it's much easier for people to call for a ban on those games altogether than it is for them to regulate who buys them. This affects the people who enjoy them as well as the kids who shouldn't be playing them.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Mar 28, 2008 9:48:25 GMT
I did notice that they didn't mention *which* game it was... If it was a game like Call of Duty then I could imagine that'd be blown out of all proportion, but if it was Mario Galaxy then it could be slightly different...
When it comes to 'it doesn't affect adult gamers', it does. In my initial post about Manhunt 2 a while back I said it was 'one of the factors in me getting a Wii'. That may have been slightly out of proportion, but it did intrigue me... As a result of the game "being marketed for children" (Which it wasn't), the game was subsequently banned, changed dramatically, banned again, then changed and finally released... The game on the shelves now is not the game that was intended to be released, and as such the reviews for it are absolutely terrible. I saw an initial review for the 'original' game and it was pretty good...
|
|
|
Post by bigospedros on Mar 28, 2008 9:51:46 GMT
that's 1 game out of thousands and to be quite honest, the sheer notion of the game is sickening to me ... quite why you would want to physically recreate the action of hacking someone to death is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Mar 28, 2008 10:10:08 GMT
Yes, it is one game out of thousands, but it's the start of something. Any game in the future that has a violent context will now be picked out and treated the same way. It irritates me that the Condemned series is as, if not more extreme than Manhunt, yet it's fine to be released everywhere.... Think it's just 'cos it's a Rockstar game.
Where are they going to stop though? Ban lightgun games because they teach kids how to fire the real thing?
|
|
|
Post by mw on Mar 28, 2008 11:02:29 GMT
I agree that we need a new rating system. A simple BBFC rating applied to every game would be fine - then there'd be no need for the apparently 'confusing for parents' (why is it confusing?) PEGI ratings system as well. However, the real problem the games industry has is that it's a new industry and there are lots of people out there who don't understand it (Daily Mail readers, mostly) "Xboxes, Gamecubes, PS2s, these are Satan's Sudoku, crack cocaine of the brain. Even the crappiest cartoon or lamest soap teaches a child about character, plot, drama, humour, life. Playing videogames, children are mentally imprisoned, wired into their evil creators' brains." ^ written by Janice Turner in The Times only three months ago. Janice obviously did herself no research whatsoever - and how she can get paid for writing that kind of slanderous garbage is beyond me - had it been any other industry she was wielding the axe on, she'd be in court for defamation faster than shit off a shovel. Thing is though, this is the worst the ignorance will ever be. In twenty years time, the games industry will be widely experienced and understood by the newer generations and those currently trying to bring it down will be a dying breed. The Internet suffered similar issues just a few years ago – and now everybody uses it. Television was seen as brain-rot when it first came about. Even the written word was considered to be the work of Satan. Some people just can’t, and never will be able to accept the change. Anyway, everyone should watch this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixt1eu11LXk, sums up the Mass Effect/SexBox/Fox News debacle perfectly. The actual "SexBox" video clip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU&feature=related
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Mar 28, 2008 12:00:37 GMT
Oh christ, don't get me started on the Mass Effect thing. I don't even own a 360, but the woman who started that all up was brilliant. "I've not played the game but I'm sure it's got sex in it, and that's bad".
I hope you're right about the 'dying breed'... But there will always be ultra conservative people who think that everything outside their 'normality' is evil and needs to be put down.
That quote from the Times is outrageous! Games like Metal Gear Solid have a better plot than most hollywood garbage... That's unbelievable...
|
|