Gamasutra is running an in-depth look at the regulation of video games in the US and other countries. They discuss the reasons for such legislation, such as child protection and intellectual property restrictions, as well as what gamers can expect to see in the coming years.
"Fairfield also points out combinations of laws, which, when put together make for strange outcomes. The biggest of these, for video games, is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In short, gaining unauthorized access to someone's computer and doing $500 in damages opens you up for criminal charges. It's good for prosecuting hackers, but it makes for a strange fit with social networking websites and user-generated content. That fit was especially strange when prosecutors weren't quite sure how to approach the widely publicized case of Megan Meier. The 13-year-old Meier committed suicide after being deceived and bullied by another girl and her mother, Lori Drew. Unable to find a good way to approach the issue, prosecutors charged Drew under MySpace's End User License Agreement, effectively giving MySpace the power to dictate criminal law."
There was a case in the Netherlands where kids obtained some items in Runescape through extortion of another kid. This is also punishable just like "normal" theft according to the judge (if you can call theft normal).
I should probably add that the kids didn't do this in the game, but outside the game with actual contact between the kids (they were in the same school)... although the items were only digital.
There is a slight difference that puts games more in line with films - graphics and the removal of the need for an imagination.
Give someone a book containing a sexual or violent scene and they require some imagination to make an image of it. For some people the same words can provoke lesser or greater images. For games and films you get it laid out in front of you with full colour and everything, so there's less ambiguity to the detail.
Books tend to self-regulate based on vocabulary as well - put complex words in your books and you're not likely to get many kids reading them, but put it in a film and it's accessible to loads of people who wouldn't have read a text version. Lord of the Rings is a great example - how many pre-teen kids would manage to read LotR and how many like the film? There's nothing terrible in LotR for sexual/violent content (there's violence, but nothing excessively described) but it still aims itself at an audience based on the vocabulary it uses.
Granted you still get books that are sexual or violent to greater and lesser degrees, but they've never been regulated and since most books are probably PG on content but for older readers based on vocabulary then there'd be a backlash from those used to books not being regulated/age rated.
> There's nothing terrible in LotR for sexual/violent content (there's violence, but nothing excessively described) but it still aims itself at an audience based on the vocabulary it uses.
No terrible violent content? People get stabbed to death with swords, shot with arrows, set on fire, drowned, etc. I don't have a problem with these things, but let's not pretend that LotR is not very violent.
I don't see how you can equate a simple statement like "Ozgnikt stabbed Frumbumnìr" with a moving image showing blood spurting everywhere and shit and giblets all falling out.
Now if it was Sven Hassel and not Tolkien it would be closer. But still different.
> I don't see how you can equate a simple statement like "Ozgnikt stabbed FrumbumnÃr" with a moving image showing blood spurting everywhere and shit and giblets all falling out.
I didn't. I just said that the books contained a lot of violence. I never in any way suggested that the violence in LotR was the same as people stabbing eachother in a moving picture 'showing blood spurting everywhere and shit and giblets all falling out', although now I feel the need to point out that IMHO books can do a bet
I didn't say there was no violent content, I said that nothing was terribly violent in that there's violence but nothing is excessively described. As other people pointed out, there's a difference between "X stabbed Y" and an animation of it complete with images of how to do it and the blood, guts, etc involved. That's probably the main difference between film/games and books.
Books tend to self-regulate based on vocabulary as well - put complex words in your books and you're not likely to get many kids reading them, but put it in a film and it's accessible to loads of people who wouldn't have read a text version. Lord of the Rings is a great example - how many pre-teen kids would manage to read LotR and how many like the film?
Considering the project was begun by a professor of literature and mythology for the entertainment of his children, your example is not very good.
Bringing accountability to Government means actually saying what you think [slashdot.org], not just accepting that you have no voice... Incidentally - the Internet & Web is the most effective tool for "having a voice" that the Human Race has ever had, why do you think China comes down so hard on it?
Don't just let Governments (or other people in power) pull the wool over your eyes with crap because it makes their jobs easier... Speak out!! (within legal boundaries)
Remember people, we live in Democracies (well, alot
Yeah, having myspace set legal precedent is a great idea. Since they do such a good job with things like css, (d)html, javascript and the like. I'm sure they'd do incredibly well in the judicial system.
Before you freak out, please read this post as sarcastic.
... Don't buy them for them, and turn on the content rating system, to stop them from borrowing them from friends. Both the XBox and PS3 have these features. Older consoles don't, I admit. But it's a trivial issue. Nonetheless
Most kids are bright enough to tell fiction from reality, and the ones who aren't are likely to get into trouble anyway.
I hesitate to say it, but George Carlin was right - "Wait, the kid who eats too many marbles doesn't get to grow up to have kids of his own? Good. Fuck 'em."
Most kids are bright enough to tell fiction from reality, and the ones who aren't are likely to get into trouble anyway.
Exactly. The ones who have problems with video games are the ones who have problems anyway. I played 18 rated games in my early teens and I worked out okay because I knew that there was a difference between reality and fiction. If you don't know that then films, books and even childhood "role playing" games like "Cowboys and Indians" can have pretty much the same effect and cause you to th
The danger is not so much as the child not knowing the difference between fictional and real. But the fact at young ages kids get emotionally connected. Even non-violent games, they get very angry when they loose candy land (a game of chance). But with Video games the child really gets emotionally connected the game, and normally really connects himself with the characters, and when he plays outside of the game he usually plays the video game that he is connected to. Leading them to do dangerous activities,
What you've just written is a monument to the mollycoddling that Western (but particularly middle class American) children get put through. It's utterly ridiculous. Little boys have run around with sticks, knocked each other over, fallen out of trees, and got busted nicking candy from the store since time immemorial, these things are an important part of establishing identity and social boundaries.
If a kid breaks another kids arm when playing with a baseball bat, he's learnt a damn hard lesson and won't d
Boo the Dictator Bush at several events while dodging Sheeple, Cronies and Zombie Service agents. Victory at the end of each round is celebrated with a pitcher of ice cold beer, a big fat blunt and a porn magazine.
Rated "E" for Everyone as everyone should know IT IS JUST A FUCKING GAME FOR CHRIST SAKE!
"effectively giving MySpace the power to dictate criminal law." is a load of rubbish, people need to read TFA before making statements like that. Lori was prosecuted for using a fake account to ILLEGALLY HARASS and VICTIMISE A MINOR!
The prosecution used the available and existing laws to ensure some sort of punishment for this crime as it generally fell into a non-existing law area. No laws were changed, no laws were trampled on. Unless people sign terms of agreement anywhere, AND intend to mis-represent th
The key issue here was that she did this in order to commit the crime of inflicting severe emotional distress on another. The first amendment has never protected people who want to do that. What really got Drew was the fact that she broke the ToS in a serious way in order to commit another crime.
Unless people sign terms of agreement anywhere, AND intend to mis-represent themselves AND harass and victimise minors to the point of physical/mental harm or death, they have NOTHING to fear.
No. If people sign terms of service anywhere AND break them in any way causing a minimum of $500 damages they have to fear criminal charges for unauthorized access.
intend to mis-represent themselves -> Not limited to that. More generally, break a ToS.
victimise minors to the point of physical/mental harm or death
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday January 22 2009, @06:02AM (#26558033)
Seriously, the solution is simple. Just do it like they do in NZ. Exactly the same system for video games as for movies. Effectively it just becomes the following:
R18 - Sexual content / Drugs / Extreme violence - GTA R16 - High levels of violence - UT M - Medium level violence, alcohol, etc - Baldur's Gate G - Everyone - Tetris
It's illegal to supply anything with an R rating to someone under the R rating age, even if you're their parent. Nice and simple, and you never have problems with people claiming they didn't know what their kids were playing.
Dude, that sucks. Why should the government dictate what games parents are allowed to give to their children? I played many games that would be considered R16/R18 when I was younger than 16, and many of my friends did the same, and none of us became crazy drunken women-beating drug-dealing axe-murderers.
Because a) the law makers don't understand the Internet and think it is somehow a completely different entity where existing rules don't fit*, b) they want to look like they're doing something and c) a good proportion of the general populace are in the same boat on point a) and demand or fall for point b).
.
* This is the same for parents who treat the Internet as some big nasty that'll cause their children to become drug-addicted psychopaths who get molested when the real-world rules of "avoid the bad bits"
Different societies have different value systems, and so different countries regulate different media in different ways.
What's important is that games get treated fairly against other media and regulated for what they are, not what scared, ignorant people worry they might be. The problem is that governments and legislators don't yet "get" games, and so fear and ignorance reign supreme.
As an example, in Australia, the government has a Classification Board that rates books, TV, movies and games. The Board is supposed to represent the values of the community and it generally does a pretty good job. Very few movies are refused classification (eg: banned).
Not so with video games. Games are regularly refused classification in Australia, largely because the highest classification for games is MA15+ - so if a game is considered only suitable for adults, then it can't be classified.
Yes, this is ludicrous and there's been a huge response from the local industry [abc.net.au] and a lot of local gamers. You can read more about it here [wikipedia.org] if you are interested.
The point I'm trying to make, though, is that games are not treated on the same level as other forms of media in Australia, because they're poorly understood by government as a medium - mainly because the people in government didn't grow up playing games. I'd bet there are similar issues to varying degrees in other countries.
Give it a decade or so and things will be different. Until then, we're going to have to keep putting up with emotive comments and costly ineffective legislation from politicians looking for cheap popularity amongst their ignorant and fearful dull-eyed constituents.
Firstly I (and many others) feel that the verdict in the Drew case was a travesty, set a horrible precedent and was the one of the absolute worst uses of the judicial system in recent years - the implications are huge and could affect all of us who spend a lot of time online. It was an abuse of the legal system in my mind, tapping into people's emotions about a tragedy to get a dubious legal ruling passed - it was a judicial lynch mob.
Secondly I am so tired of the double standard in video games in how any type of the most gruesome violence is permitted (with the rating system) but even a minor mention of sex or nudity and the game can;t be made. Sex has to be sanitized, yet you can blow someones brains out.
I love violent games as much as the next person, the generally are some of the best games out there - well made shooters are especially up my alley - loved GTA, but damn, it would be nice not to have to tiptoe around any sex or nudity (if it's appropriate). In games made for adults this should be an option. I am not talking about having those things just for the sake of having them, but am referring to the ability for a designer to make a game truly geared towards adults that isn't a lame excuse/attempt at porn. I would like to see the ability for AO titles to be viable, what that would be I don't know, but take the sex scene is GTA4 - they could have made those a lot more fun or funny had they had a little visual latitude.
As a parent I totally understand how and why people are concerned about violent games. I play a lot of games I wouldn't want my daughter to play until she is old enough to understand certain things. The biggest issue I would have with these sort of games is the same issue I have with TV and some movies when it comes to kids, and it the desensitization to violence and the pain and suffering of others. I think that can do a real disservice to the humanity inside a person if they grow up constantly witnessing violent acts.
However, with all of that said I think that it is a parent's job to monitor what their kids see and buy and put it in the proper context.
I do think that the voluntary ratings system is the way to go....The absolute worst thing that could be done is censorship of game content by the government - it would especially be pointless because it's not like it would have an effect on TV (which is much worse). Censorship doesn't solve anything - it's bad enough that the industry self censors based on what they think will sell or be controversial.
Parents who aren't digitally literate could use a little education about these ratings and what they mean, but all in all determining what is appropriate for a child or the market isn't a government job, it's a parent/industry job, and for the record if given the choice between my child seeing explicit violence or explicit sex it's my feeling that sex is much less harmful.
If you were to ask me personally, I'd say it was stupid and unconstitutional for the government to regulate the game video games business. It's the usual story of government trying to trample on our civil liberties and individual rights.
On the other hand, as somebody who feels that there are certain types of games minors definitely should not be playing, I wish we would see more self-regulation from the games and retail industry, or at least some serious attempts to keep games out of hands of minors witho
Do you think these 'serious attempts to keep games out of hands of minors' should restrict a parents ability to buy games for their children? After all, age does not denote maturity ( which is also why I think the 'age of consent' is ridiculous' but that's another topic )
I know that if my teenage nephews wanted the most violent gory game on the planet I would have NO problem with buying it for them. Why? Because not only have they been playing games from the time their little fingers could grasp a controller (for which I still get bitched at for ruining my sisters "hallmark moment" because instead of mommy or daddy my oldest first words were MINE! because I dared to try to sneak in some eternal champions while he was napping after playing Barney) but more importantly from the time they were little I showed them how games were made. The "behind the scenes" as it were.
I used WAD editors(remember those?) to show them how levels were made, used Bryce and Paintshop Pro to show them how scene and character art was made, showed them how scripts controlled the enemy characters, etc. So now when the oldest plays a shooter(the youngest prefers MMOs) I hear dialog like this "Who designed this thing? Would you look at the draw in? And look at all the jagged seams! Do they think this is a PSOne? And who wrote the AI for this thing? Can't they see I have just mowed down a dozen of their buddies? DUCK YOU DUMMY!" so I don't think I have to worry about my boys mixing up fantasy and reality.
But of course these regulations are trying to fix with pointless laws a much deeper and more sinister problem we have in this country: abandoned kids. What I mean by abandoned isn't thrown out onto the street, no, in some ways this is much worse. I am talking about all those kids out there whose parents have simply used the TV(and now the game console) as an excuse to never interact with their children. Picking up my nephews from their friends houses I have seen it first hand. Houses without a single book or magazine so you know the child has never been read to, parents too busy with their own lives to even notice if the kid isn't there, kid allowed to stare at the screen for hours as long as they don't bother the parents, etc.
It is no wonder that kids like that might have trouble separating what they see and play from reality, hell they were raised by the tube. But all the regulations in the world isn't going to make those parents spend time with their kids. Frankly I don't know of anything that would. Maybe instead of ever more stupid regulations we could be pushing for more personal responsibility? Hell if I know. It is just so sad to see with your own eyes kids being raised by a television set.
The biggest issue, it seems to me, is that people who spend a lot of time playing video games generally lack social skills. While everyone else was learning how to relate to the world, video game players were learning how to relate to video games.
Those who play games don't realize that they are socially backward because they are socially backward.
Interesting statement. Have you considered, though, that some people are drawn to video games because they are socially awkward and not the other way around?
As I parent and actually remembering my teenage years that's a good thing. Why? Because if they are at home watching TV or playing video games, I know exactly where they are, what they are doing, and what they aren't doing. During my teenage years those "not socially backward" kids as you would put them would be drinking, smoking, having sex, or sometimes partying. So I'd much rather my kids be "socially backward" in that respect.
From a parent's perspective of keeping their kids out of trouble, that makes p
They're not stamping on civil liberties or the individuals rights, they're trying to protect us from ourselves because we're too stupid to know better!
I'm off to play counter-strike and plant a bomb in a non-descript the middle eastern town...
Well.. according to the article, there were 2 laws made, and both have been shutdown.. Then it also talks about a Ca state law that is being fought..From what I gather, the industry is regulating themselves anyway.. I don't see what the hub-bub is all about.. The Constitution seems to be working just fine in this area.
As to "protecting" children... That is the parents job.. period. If I was a parent today, it would be up to me to decide when I felt they could handle the internet.. or to decide if I felt they had enough of a grasp on the difference between fantasy and reality to handle some of these games... Personally, I feel that any parent that has kids that are under the age of 16 or so surfing the internet by themselves are pretty shitty parents.
There is no kid safe internet.. and if people want that, they will have to build a separate read only internet with "approved" content.. until then, just keep em off it.. problem solved.
He would have probably had a paddy when you told him to stop playing with his toys regardless of what they were.
Hasn't anyone considered the possibility that the reason why children become aggressive when told to stop doing something they are enjoying, is because they were enjoying it?
Obtaining digital items through extortion (Score:3, Informative)
There was a case in the Netherlands where kids obtained some items in Runescape through extortion of another kid. This is also punishable just like "normal" theft according to the judge (if you can call theft normal).
Link to article in Dutch: http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/7/Misdaad/article/detail/38458/2008/10/21/Rechter-straft-jongens-voor-afpersen-in-computerspel.dhtml [parool.nl]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I should probably add that the kids didn't do this in the game, but outside the game with actual contact between the kids (they were in the same school)... although the items were only digital.
Re: (Score:2)
This is also punishable just like "normal" theft according to the judge (if you can call theft normal).
"This is also punishable just like theft in meatspace, according to the judge" Fix'd
Remember, it's only inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
when you accept it as such.
I don't see why they should regulate video games any more than they regulate the content of books.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why they should regulate video games any more than they regulate the content of books.
Do you think they should regulate movies any more than they regulate the content of books?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think they should regulate movies any more than they regulate the content of books?
No, I don't.
Would you be interested in a copy of Mein Kampf: The Game?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember, it's only inevitable (Score:5, Funny)
photoshop for dummies: the video game.
They did that a long time ago. It was called Mario Paint.
Parent
Re:Remember, it's only inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a slight difference that puts games more in line with films - graphics and the removal of the need for an imagination.
Give someone a book containing a sexual or violent scene and they require some imagination to make an image of it. For some people the same words can provoke lesser or greater images. For games and films you get it laid out in front of you with full colour and everything, so there's less ambiguity to the detail.
Books tend to self-regulate based on vocabulary as well - put complex words in your books and you're not likely to get many kids reading them, but put it in a film and it's accessible to loads of people who wouldn't have read a text version. Lord of the Rings is a great example - how many pre-teen kids would manage to read LotR and how many like the film? There's nothing terrible in LotR for sexual/violent content (there's violence, but nothing excessively described) but it still aims itself at an audience based on the vocabulary it uses.
Granted you still get books that are sexual or violent to greater and lesser degrees, but they've never been regulated and since most books are probably PG on content but for older readers based on vocabulary then there'd be a backlash from those used to books not being regulated/age rated.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> There's nothing terrible in LotR for sexual/violent content (there's violence, but nothing excessively described) but it still aims itself at an audience based on the vocabulary it uses.
No terrible violent content? People get stabbed to death with swords, shot with arrows, set on fire, drowned, etc. I don't have a problem with these things, but let's not pretend that LotR is not very violent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how you can equate a simple statement like "Ozgnikt stabbed Frumbumnìr" with a moving image showing blood spurting everywhere and shit and giblets all falling out.
Now if it was Sven Hassel and not Tolkien it would be closer. But still different.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor FrumbumnÃr, I knew him well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> I don't see how you can equate a simple statement like "Ozgnikt stabbed FrumbumnÃr" with a moving image showing blood spurting everywhere and shit and giblets all falling out.
I didn't. I just said that the books contained a lot of violence. I never in any way suggested that the violence in LotR was the same as people stabbing eachother in a moving picture 'showing blood spurting everywhere and shit and giblets all falling out', although now I feel the need to point out that IMHO books can do a bet
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say there was no violent content, I said that nothing was terribly violent in that there's violence but nothing is excessively described. As other people pointed out, there's a difference between "X stabbed Y" and an animation of it complete with images of how to do it and the blood, guts, etc involved. That's probably the main difference between film/games and books.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering the project was begun by a professor of literature and mythology for the entertainment of his children, your example is not very good.
Good
+1 Brilliant!!! (Score:2)
Bringing accountability to Government means actually saying what you think [slashdot.org], not just accepting that you have no voice...
Incidentally - the Internet & Web is the most effective tool for "having a voice" that the Human Race has ever had, why do you think China comes down so hard on it?
Don't just let Governments (or other people in power) pull the wool over your eyes with crap because it makes their jobs easier... Speak out!! (within legal boundaries)
Remember people, we live in Democracies (well, alot
Re:+1 Brilliant!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
> Remember people, we live in democracies (well, alot of us do!), you don't just have to bend over and take it unless THE MAJORITY AGREES
Fixed that for you.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:+1 Brilliant!!! (Score:5, Funny)
you don't just have to bend over and take it unless THE MAJORITY AGREES
And usually that only happens in prisons.
And some greek islands, if we trust some old travel books.
Parent
myspace legal guides .flv (Score:5, Funny)
Before you freak out, please read this post as sarcastic.
I for one. (Score:4, Funny)
Believe that we should start executing people for breaking their EULAs.
It's the next logical step towards a beautiful future.
The Subject Is Video Games (Score:2)
But the topic is MySpace. That's quite the tangent, unless there's a MySpace video game. Wait, there ISN'T, is there?
Can you *imagine* what the MySpace game would be like?
::shudder::
Re:The Subject Is Video Games (Score:5, Funny)
Can you *imagine* what the MySpace game would be like?
I don't remember the final score, but Dante wrote a detailed review.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Thanshin wins the thread.
If you don't want your kids to play these games... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most kids are bright enough to tell fiction from reality, and the ones who aren't are likely to get into trouble anyway.
I hesitate to say it, but George Carlin was right - "Wait, the kid who eats too many marbles doesn't get to grow up to have kids of his own? Good. Fuck 'em."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. The ones who have problems with video games are the ones who have problems anyway. I played 18 rated games in my early teens and I worked out okay because I knew that there was a difference between reality and fiction. If you don't know that then films, books and even childhood "role playing" games like "Cowboys and Indians" can have pretty much the same effect and cause you to th
Re: (Score:2)
The danger is not so much as the child not knowing the difference between fictional and real. But the fact at young ages kids get emotionally connected. Even non-violent games, they get very angry when they loose candy land (a game of chance). But with Video games the child really gets emotionally connected the game, and normally really connects himself with the characters, and when he plays outside of the game he usually plays the video game that he is connected to. Leading them to do dangerous activities,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If a kid breaks another kids arm when playing with a baseball bat, he's learnt a damn hard lesson and won't d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I never hesitate to say that George Carlin was right. He was always right.
Boo the Dictator (Score:2, Funny)
Boo the Dictator Bush at several events while dodging Sheeple, Cronies and Zombie Service agents. Victory at the end of each round is celebrated with a pitcher of ice cold beer, a big fat blunt and a porn magazine.
Rated "E" for Everyone as everyone should know IT IS JUST A FUCKING GAME FOR CHRIST SAKE!
Brought to you by Trollcom.
Why is so hard for people to read TFA? (Score:2, Insightful)
"effectively giving MySpace the power to dictate criminal law." is a load of rubbish, people need to read TFA before making statements like that. Lori was prosecuted for using a fake account to ILLEGALLY HARASS and VICTIMISE A MINOR!
The prosecution used the available and existing laws to ensure some sort of punishment for this crime as it generally fell into a non-existing law area. No laws were changed, no laws were trampled on. Unless people sign terms of agreement anywhere, AND intend to mis-represent th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That wasn't the key issue (Score:2)
The key issue here was that she did this in order to commit the crime of inflicting severe emotional distress on another. The first amendment has never protected people who want to do that. What really got Drew was the fact that she broke the ToS in a serious way in order to commit another crime.
Re: (Score:2)
No. If people sign terms of service anywhere AND break them in any way causing a minimum of $500 damages they have to fear criminal charges for unauthorized access.
intend to mis-represent themselves -> Not limited to that. More generally, break a ToS.
victimise minors to the point of physical/mental harm or death
Solution is simple (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, the solution is simple. Just do it like they do in NZ. Exactly the same system for video games as for movies. Effectively it just becomes the following:
R18 - Sexual content / Drugs / Extreme violence - GTA
R16 - High levels of violence - UT
M - Medium level violence, alcohol, etc - Baldur's Gate
G - Everyone - Tetris
It's illegal to supply anything with an R rating to someone under the R rating age, even if you're their parent. Nice and simple, and you never have problems with people claiming they didn't know what their kids were playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, that sucks. Why should the government dictate what games parents are allowed to give to their children? I played many games that would be considered R16/R18 when I was younger than 16, and many of my friends did the same, and none of us became crazy drunken women-beating drug-dealing axe-murderers.
The question is more... (Score:2)
Why are needed "new" laws for "online"?
The current laws for "offline" would work as well, so why???
Re: (Score:2)
Because a) the law makers don't understand the Internet and think it is somehow a completely different entity where existing rules don't fit*, b) they want to look like they're doing something and c) a good proportion of the general populace are in the same boat on point a) and demand or fall for point b).
.
* This is the same for parents who treat the Internet as some big nasty that'll cause their children to become drug-addicted psychopaths who get molested when the real-world rules of "avoid the bad bits"
New medium, new fear (Score:5, Informative)
Different societies have different value systems, and so different countries regulate different media in different ways.
What's important is that games get treated fairly against other media and regulated for what they are, not what scared, ignorant people worry they might be. The problem is that governments and legislators don't yet "get" games, and so fear and ignorance reign supreme.
As an example, in Australia, the government has a Classification Board that rates books, TV, movies and games. The Board is supposed to represent the values of the community and it generally does a pretty good job. Very few movies are refused classification (eg: banned).
Not so with video games. Games are regularly refused classification in Australia, largely because the highest classification for games is MA15+ - so if a game is considered only suitable for adults, then it can't be classified.
Yes, this is ludicrous and there's been a huge response from the local industry [abc.net.au] and a lot of local gamers. You can read more about it here [wikipedia.org] if you are interested.
The point I'm trying to make, though, is that games are not treated on the same level as other forms of media in Australia, because they're poorly understood by government as a medium - mainly because the people in government didn't grow up playing games. I'd bet there are similar issues to varying degrees in other countries.
Give it a decade or so and things will be different. Until then, we're going to have to keep putting up with emotive comments and costly ineffective legislation from politicians looking for cheap popularity amongst their ignorant and fearful dull-eyed constituents.
Meier case = travesty;hypocrisy of violence vs sex (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly I (and many others) feel that the verdict in the Drew case was a travesty, set a horrible precedent and was the one of the absolute worst uses of the judicial system in recent years - the implications are huge and could affect all of us who spend a lot of time online. It was an abuse of the legal system in my mind, tapping into people's emotions about a tragedy to get a dubious legal ruling passed - it was a judicial lynch mob.
Secondly I am so tired of the double standard in video games in how any type of the most gruesome violence is permitted (with the rating system) but even a minor mention of sex or nudity and the game can;t be made. Sex has to be sanitized, yet you can blow someones brains out.
I love violent games as much as the next person, the generally are some of the best games out there - well made shooters are especially up my alley - loved GTA, but damn, it would be nice not to have to tiptoe around any sex or nudity (if it's appropriate). In games made for adults this should be an option. I am not talking about having those things just for the sake of having them, but am referring to the ability for a designer to make a game truly geared towards adults that isn't a lame excuse/attempt at porn. I would like to see the ability for AO titles to be viable, what that would be I don't know, but take the sex scene is GTA4 - they could have made those a lot more fun or funny had they had a little visual latitude.
As a parent I totally understand how and why people are concerned about violent games. I play a lot of games I wouldn't want my daughter to play until she is old enough to understand certain things. The biggest issue I would have with these sort of games is the same issue I have with TV and some movies when it comes to kids, and it the desensitization to violence and the pain and suffering of others. I think that can do a real disservice to the humanity inside a person if they grow up constantly witnessing violent acts.
However, with all of that said I think that it is a parent's job to monitor what their kids see and buy and put it in the proper context.
I do think that the voluntary ratings system is the way to go....The absolute worst thing that could be done is censorship of game content by the government - it would especially be pointless because it's not like it would have an effect on TV (which is much worse). Censorship doesn't solve anything - it's bad enough that the industry self censors based on what they think will sell or be controversial.
Parents who aren't digitally literate could use a little education about these ratings and what they mean, but all in all determining what is appropriate for a child or the market isn't a government job, it's a parent/industry job, and for the record if given the choice between my child seeing explicit violence or explicit sex it's my feeling that sex is much less harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, as somebody who feels that there are certain types of games minors definitely should not be playing, I wish we would see more self-regulation from the games and retail industry, or at least some serious attempts to keep games out of hands of minors witho
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess parent used the wrong 'Reply' button.
Do you think these 'serious attempts to keep games out of hands of minors' should restrict a parents ability to buy games for their children? After all, age does not denote maturity ( which is also why I think the 'age of consent' is ridiculous' but that's another topic )
Re:man the last election sucked (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that if my teenage nephews wanted the most violent gory game on the planet I would have NO problem with buying it for them. Why? Because not only have they been playing games from the time their little fingers could grasp a controller (for which I still get bitched at for ruining my sisters "hallmark moment" because instead of mommy or daddy my oldest first words were MINE! because I dared to try to sneak in some eternal champions while he was napping after playing Barney) but more importantly from the time they were little I showed them how games were made. The "behind the scenes" as it were.
I used WAD editors(remember those?) to show them how levels were made, used Bryce and Paintshop Pro to show them how scene and character art was made, showed them how scripts controlled the enemy characters, etc. So now when the oldest plays a shooter(the youngest prefers MMOs) I hear dialog like this "Who designed this thing? Would you look at the draw in? And look at all the jagged seams! Do they think this is a PSOne? And who wrote the AI for this thing? Can't they see I have just mowed down a dozen of their buddies? DUCK YOU DUMMY!" so I don't think I have to worry about my boys mixing up fantasy and reality.
But of course these regulations are trying to fix with pointless laws a much deeper and more sinister problem we have in this country: abandoned kids. What I mean by abandoned isn't thrown out onto the street, no, in some ways this is much worse. I am talking about all those kids out there whose parents have simply used the TV(and now the game console) as an excuse to never interact with their children. Picking up my nephews from their friends houses I have seen it first hand. Houses without a single book or magazine so you know the child has never been read to, parents too busy with their own lives to even notice if the kid isn't there, kid allowed to stare at the screen for hours as long as they don't bother the parents, etc.
It is no wonder that kids like that might have trouble separating what they see and play from reality, hell they were raised by the tube. But all the regulations in the world isn't going to make those parents spend time with their kids. Frankly I don't know of anything that would. Maybe instead of ever more stupid regulations we could be pushing for more personal responsibility? Hell if I know. It is just so sad to see with your own eyes kids being raised by a television set.
Parent
Those who play games don't realize their loss. (Score:3, Insightful)
Those who play games don't realize that they are socially backward because they are socially backward.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As I parent and actually remembering my teenage years that's a good thing. Why? Because if they are at home watching TV or playing video games, I know exactly where they are, what they are doing, and what they aren't doing. During my teenage years those "not socially backward" kids as you would put them would be drinking, smoking, having sex, or sometimes partying. So I'd much rather my kids be "socially backward" in that respect.
From a parent's perspective of keeping their kids out of trouble, that makes p
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm off to play counter-strike and plant a bomb in a non-descript the middle eastern town...
Re:man the last election sucked (Score:4, Insightful)
Well.. according to the article, there were 2 laws made, and both have been shutdown.. Then it also talks about a Ca state law that is being fought..From what I gather, the industry is regulating themselves anyway.. I don't see what the hub-bub is all about.. The Constitution seems to be working just fine in this area.
As to "protecting" children... That is the parents job.. period. If I was a parent today, it would be up to me to decide when I felt they could handle the internet.. or to decide if I felt they had enough of a grasp on the difference between fantasy and reality to handle some of these games... Personally, I feel that any parent that has kids that are under the age of 16 or so surfing the internet by themselves are pretty shitty parents.
There is no kid safe internet.. and if people want that, they will have to build a separate read only internet with "approved" content.. until then, just keep em off it.. problem solved.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hasn't anyone considered the possibility that the reason why children become aggressive when told to stop doing something they are enjoying, is because they were enjoying it?