The 64% Violent Pacman 435
DreamWinkle writes "During the recent Senate hearings on video game violence, one expert claimed that the ESRB underrated violent games. They went on to say that Pacman was 64% violent. To some, this means you shouldn't play Pacman; to others, it highlights what's wrong with Senate hearings. Whether a game is violent or not depends on how you classify violence, and the ESRB has the job of doing just that. They're not regulated by the government, they let the game makers recommend their own ratings, and don't play every game they rate. Is the ESRB to be trusted?"
42 (Score:5, Funny)
Saying Packman is "64% violet" is like saying the meaning of life is "42 [techtarget.com]".
Re:42 (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the whole ratings system needs an overhaul, and it needs to stay out of Congress. They can't even describe the Internet correctly or decide on a definition of "pornography"; how can they decide how violent something is?
This is why I don't play Pacman (Score:5, Insightful)
I only play games with a violence rating of 65% or higher.
Anyway, congress should really just let video games be, and let the ESRB and parents do their jobs.
Re:This is why I don't play Pacman (Score:5, Funny)
It's up to the congress to legislate our childs upbringing.
It's only through laws that we can teach our children what they need to learn.
Re:This is why I don't play Pacman (Score:4, Insightful)
It's up to the congress to legislate our childs upbringing.
So I am a good parent. I watch what my kid does on the internet and what my kid sees on TV. I try to teach my kid about looking at things critically and how to see through marketing BS. I teach my kids violence isn't right and they should treat people with respect and carry themselves with dignity.
Some other parents though might negelect their children. They are too self absorbed to be watching what their kids see on TV or what video games these kids play. These kids may watch violence all the time. They feel toughness is empowering. These are the kids that go to school and bully other kids around. They steal and fight and act with impunity. I think I'd like my government to protect me and my kids from kids like that. It's not the fault of those children but the fault of their parents, but my children might pay the price of those parent's incompetance.
I'm generallizing. I realize there are exceptions to the rules, but children who watch violence on TV tend to be more violent than those who do not.
The problem is this. Parents have a god-given right to not teach their children a damned thing. Do we have a right to be subjected to those children who cannot tell right from wrong because the TV raised them, or can we do something about it.
I don't agree with their rules for myself, but I think these rules can help protect me from bad parents.
Re:This is why I don't play Pacman (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, some parents raise their kids in a religion that I don't agree with. They let them read books I don't agree with. Or even discuss political topics I don't agree with. Do we have a right to be subjected to those children who are not raised the way I think they should be raised, or can we do something about it!
There is really no difference between what I wrote above and what you wrote. You are essentially saying that you want the government to protect you and your family from children raised a way you don't agree with. Sorry bud, but some parents have been raising screwed up kids since day one. It is part of living in a world full of people. I am sure you can find a parent who thinks you are screwing up your kids in one way or another because of the way you are raising them. Are you more right than they are? For your kids, yes, you are right. For their kids, no, they are. Just like you don't want people telling you how to raise your kids, do you think they want people telling them how to raise theirs?
So, you don't let your kids play Pac-man?
Re:This is why I don't play Pacman (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of religion. The people's law allows this, and I believe that most of the western countries' cultures allow that.
They let them read books I don't agree with. Or even discuss political topics I don't agree with.
Freedom of speech. The people's law allows this, and I believe that most of the western countries' cultures allow that.
Compare that to :
These are the kids that go to school and bully other kids around.
Vio
Re:This is why I don't play Pacman (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of being an adult is having the ability to live in a world where people aren't all exactly like how you want them to be.
Part of being a good parent is teaching your children how to deal with living in that same world.
Re:This is why I don't play Pacman (Score:3, Interesting)
I call BS.
Children whose parents neglect them, or abuse them, or bully them, or simply aren't supportive and nurturing tend to be more violent than kids whose parents aren't.
I was allowed to watch movies that were "above" my age by my parents when I was a kid - I'm not talking about slasher flicks when I was 5 or anything silly, merely more "grown up" films that
Re:This is why I don't play Pacman (Score:3, Informative)
Only a couple, but they'd have to demonstrate that violent media caused violent behaviour, not not just that violent people preferred both violent media and violence.
SFBwian nailed my position in the other response to your post - I'm not disputing there's a correlation there, but us humans have a distinct propensity for confusing correlation with causation.
For example, people often claim cannabis is dangerous because "the major
Re:42 (Score:3, Funny)
--Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
Oh wait, that was about pornography.
64% violet? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:64% violet? (Score:4, Insightful)
now, pacman printed on paper... that's 100% yellow. but who plays pacman on paper?
wasn't there some crazy bastard who wrote a pacman implementation in postscript once, though? or was that tetris?
Re:64% violet? (Score:4, Interesting)
I see you (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I see you (Score:2)
Pacman == Patrick Danville? Brilliant, I tell ya!
Re:I see you (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I see you (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I see you (Score:2)
Waka (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Waka (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Waka (Score:4, Funny)
This Just In... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This Just In... (Score:2)
-the thin red line, what a great movie
64%? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:64%? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:64%? (Score:2)
Re:64%? (Score:5, Informative)
You can't take a (admittedly fuzzy) interval measurement, convert it into and ordinal measurement, and tally them up over a data set to create a rational measurement.
By that method, you'd decide that a three stooges is far worse than a snuff film.
Re:64%? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/mainFrame/news/fa
Re:64%? (Score:5, Funny)
slaughtering ghosts, dots, and bigger dots.
Ghosts are also hunting pac when he isn't
hunting them.
30% of the screen isn't available to the characters
because of the way the maze is designed. This leaves 70%
as the max violence percentage.
However, in the post 9-11 world, pac killing ghosts has been
reclassified as doing Gods work, and is seen as promoting
freedom and democracy while killing evildoers.
Integrating over time, we can see that only 64% of the game is
actually violent, and 6% of the time pac is doing gods work.
Re:64%? (Score:5, Funny)
It's the square of ate.
Re:64%? (Score:5, Funny)
On the way home, I realized I was wrong. It's the square of "dot ate". I can't believe nobody caught me!
I've seen... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've seen... (Score:5, Funny)
int or long? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:int or long? (Score:3, Funny)
So what happened...? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So what happened...? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So what happened...? (Score:5, Funny)
(34% + 64%)
Re:So what happened...? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So what happened...? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So what happened...? (Score:2)
Re:So what happened...? (Score:2)
Re:So what happened...? (Score:5, Funny)
I really must upgrade my old Pentium 60.
Re:So what happened...? (Score:2)
Re:So what happened...? (Score:2)
Re:So what happened...? (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone have more information? (Score:5, Insightful)
Numbers should not be assigned to fundamentally non-numeric entities, that way lies a number of cognitive and rhetorical traps.
But I am curious, does anyone have more information on where that number may have come from precisely, however flawed it may be? Ideally, some form of "violence checklist", where you check off various attributes of the game and add up the "score".
I'm sure it will allow us to all-the-more effectively collectively mock the number, but hey, who knows, maybe the list will have some redeeming value.
Re:Anyone have more information? (Score:5, Interesting)
I managed to dig up a little from a site by the creators of the study [harvard.edu]. Here's the juicy bit:
So it seems that the number refers to the percentage of time that the game is violent. Now, how is violence defined such that Pacman gets such a brutal rating?
If Pacman's ghosts were replaced by rolling boulders, it would have nearly no violence. Discuss.
Re:Anyone have more information? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you really commit violence against them?
Moreover, it's not immediately obvious that Pac-Man is alive either. (Discuss.
Re:Anyone have more information? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe Pac-Man is really just a creature that enjoys the taste of clothing worn by a dark skinned creature. Eating the clothing seems to be enjoyable to Pac-Man, but receiving a whip crack to the ass from the mystical material transports Pac-Man back to his starting position.
How do we know the Ghosts don't enjoy chasing Pac-Man! They get to smack him on the rear if they catch him, but if he catches them they have to go home naked. It could all be in fun and jest, and us dolts of the human race have misinterpreted the entire ritual!
Re:Anyone have more information? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are 4 people who are it and one person running away. If he can collect all the markers before he's tagged, he wins. He gets 3 chances before he loses. There's also these bonus markers which gives him invincibility and if he tags one of the 4 when he's in invincible mode, they have to return to a spot before coming after him again.
Re:Anyone have more information? (Score:4, Insightful)
Next time a politician starts taking pot shots at violence in 'games', join his campaign and try to expand it to include Chess and Football. See how it goes.
Re:Anyone have more information? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, nothing like thousands of dollars spent on an eduction so you can write a long winded dissertation stating the obvious. The negative impact of things like sports and smoking and drinking is largely glossed over because these things are institutionalized. Crush people on the gridiron and you're some sort of hero. Snipe people in a game and you're a violent crime waiting to happen. Drink miller and girls in bikinis will flock to you (or so the ads im
Re:Anyone have more information? (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yes, there is violence, and cussing. Mostly directed at the DS though.
Re:Anyone have more information? (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, almost every law I've seen which addresses this issue is targetted at minors. I can't recall a single one which suggested that such games should be banned outright
Re:Anyone have more information? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Anyone have more information? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Anyone have more information? (Score:3, Insightful)
Those presenting this report must think congress is quite gullible.
Actually, I would guess half of them really think the earth was created in seven days (and the rest just pretend to do so). That IS pretty gullible.
Uncessary (Score:3, Insightful)
When they are old enough not to be cared for they are old enough (and should have been taught enough) to decide what to watch and play for themselves. Movies theatres and retail stores are not needed in the process.
Nice attempt at not connecting the dots. (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice. Well, as the "caretaker" of two children I find rating systems like the ESRB essential. Exactly how do you expect me to keep adult material from children if I can't determine which material is "adult"?
Do you expect me to purchase a game and play it through before I give it to my children?
Re:Nice attempt at not connecting the dots. (Score:2)
Do your homework and read some reviews.
Perhaps there's a void to be filled by creating a childrens game review site?
LoL. (Score:2)
Or you could read all the reviews and note that the ESRB rated the game "T" for language.
Re:Nice attempt at not connecting the dots. (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you expect good parenting to be easy and convenient?
Re:Nice attempt at not connecting the dots. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think expecting a parent to play every game their children might play is a tad excessive. If only there were some organization who was expert in video games, and could provide parents with guidance as to what a game is like, and what ages it might be appropriate for. Oh right....
Re:Nice attempt at not connecting the dots. (Score:4, Funny)
Wife: Honey do the dishes.
Me: Are you kidding? I'm only 2/3 of the way through Jumior's christmas parent. WHAT KIND OF A MOTHER ARE YOU?!?!?
Wife: (sobbing)
Re:Nice attempt at not connecting the dots. (Score:5, Insightful)
While it may not cover every little cut scene and detail it will cover 90% of the content or at least give you a good idea of the context. Plus some times something which challenges YOUR view is good for your kids, it lets them see that mummy and daddy arn't always right and to think for themselvs a bit.
While it may not be popular with the Slashdot crowd who seem to want 100% freedom for everyone but kids who need to be handcuffed to the parents constantly, you have to remember to challenge your kids and their ideas/opinions/ideals at times. It lets them develope ways to deal with it and become a real person rather than a mini version of you built to follow instead of lead.
Re:Nice attempt at not connecting the dots. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good lord no! I fully expect you to do as little as possible and yet maintain your expectation that your children will not be exposed to things you don't care for.
Re:Nice attempt at not connecting the dots. (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Because if your children become mass murderers, drug addicts, or sex offenders when they grow up... Then chances are it wasn't because they played Doom or looked at a Playboy magazine.
I'd say it will have to do something to the fact you did not take interest in their lives or didn't love them unconditionally. That and teach them a good moral framework and the ability to discern fantasy from reality (and the importance of higher education and getting a job)
Many of us 20-30 somethings today as kids played D&D, listened to "satanic" heavy metal, looked at playboys, played violent video games (Wolf3d and Doom), read really violent comics, and even tried to smoke a cigarrette before we were 13 back in the late 80's and early 90s... Yet today 99.99% of us slashdotters are well adjusted people who are very successful in what we do who are starting to have families on their own.
You could let your kids play GTA all they want (as long as it doesn't interfere with sleep, school, and social activities) and they won't turn into criminal or evil person.
The reason kids do turn out bad is because video games are often used in lieu of a parent. It doesn't matter if it Pac Man, Doom3, Mortal Kombat, My Little Pony, EQ, Barney Loves Kids, or Mario Brothers.
If you think raising kids means simply means putting your kid in front of a TV or computer and letting them sit there forever without ever being involved in their life... Then well... You are going to be suprised when they don't come home after 3 in the morning and are failing every class they have in school.
At the same time... A kid who plays Doom and GTA can still have good grades and social skills if you moderate his playing time and have him do other activities like chores, reading books, and schoolwork.
Even then you still can make those things fun... Give your 12 year old the Lord of the Rings trilogy book and after he reads them let him watch the movie. Your 8 year old passes his grade with flying colors... Go buy him a video game... Don't be as much concerned about the content of the game as how he reacts to it. As in... Just because he sees people behave in a certain way or say certain words that it isn't ok for them to say it or do those things.
Re:Uncessary (Score:3, Funny)
You mean, sort of like a..... big brother?
Re:Uncessary (Score:2)
And as far as circumventing the 1st amendment, it's not *restricting* speech in any way. Companies are still free to make games however they want and include whatever they want. Whether or not game stores decide whether or not to
Re:Uncessary (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet you'll find that decency standards have been enforced throughout history (including here in the 1st-amendment-protected USA). I'm not completely disagreeing with you -- it's just that communities have always enforced decency standards of some
Let's rank sports, too... (Score:5, Funny)
Football -- People kick the heck out of an innocent ball.
American Football -- Two teams blitz, bomb, and violently tackle each other.
Hockey -- Nuff said.
Basketball -- People bounce an innocent ball repeatedly against a hard floor.
Pong Pong -- People whack a very small ball back and forth.
Golf -- People whack a very small ball, often wounding it and/or sending it into water/sand.
They all sound unacceptable violent to me...
Re:Let's rank sports, too... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's rank sports, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorists?
Re:Let's rank sports, too... (Score:5, Funny)
Naah, the violence ranks from 40% to 95%. The acceptable level of violence, as everyone knows, in the US is 101%.
The acceptable level of nipples, on the other hand, is 0%.
ESRB = Good? Sometimes. (Score:3, Insightful)
But back to topic. The ESRB rates games erratically, its hard to quantify dynamic content simply based on what behaviors and actions you perform in a game. Some game companies will submit many 'versions' to the ESRB just to get one thats rated at what they want it to be. The system is screwed up, but somehow manages to self regulate well 99% of the time.
The main reason for this is because game companies realize that certain markets want violent games, and certain ones don't. You could try to get GTA3 rated as 'early adolecent', and heck, it might work, but why would you? Theres no profit in it, theres no motivation, there is no bucket of cold hard cash at the end of that tunnel.
Show Me! (Score:2, Funny)
He jumps on creatures to kill them.
Kicks most likely endangered turtles
Throws fire at living creatures
In Mario 64, he punches and kicks poor, innocent animals and bombs
- Incites random attacks on royalty.
- Kill moles and attempts to block their homes.
- Chases and attacks monkies.
Re:Show Me! (Score:5, Informative)
Ahh, nostalgia.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not kidding around here, I believe I was in 6th grade. Another thing I remember about 6th grade was live white mice being fed to the class snake for the edification of our young minds.
So, Pac-Man eating Ghosts==Evil and Wrong
Real Snake eating Real Mice==Edumacational.
Remaing 36% percent... (Score:5, Funny)
15.08% squeely beeps
18.00% necrophagy
27.71% drugs
24.02% gender ambiguity
10.62% spin-offs
4.08% blue period
0.57% unknown... scratch that... tar
64% violent, perhaps... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They don't play every game they rate? (Score:4, Informative)
My understanding is that they don't play any game they rate.
Have things changed? Their description seems a little off. I'll highlight what they seem to get wrong in the quote from the article below.
Instead of having members of the ESRB sit down and play the games in order to decide a rating, developers must submit a written report of everything the game includes. They must also compile a video that is representative of the content a gamer will find in the game when they purchase it at the store. Additionally, the game is played by a number of people who are unaffiliated to the game industry, and who then recommend the game's rating. All three elements, as well as others, are taken into consideration when the rating is assigned.
For the first highlight, it's a little misleading, "representative of the content a gamer will find" makes it sound like a representitive cross-section of the content. So, for a game like Animal Crossing you would expect hours of gathering fruit and catching fish. But actually the footage is of selected acts and elements (there is a list) and of those acts or elements carried out the the greatest degree present anywhere in the game. So, for Animal Crossing you would have footage of the character getting bitten by Tarantulas and Scorpions, showing the greatest degree of violence in the game.
They make a point of saying that they don't care about the context of the event, because a parent glancing over at the screen won't care either.
This system is why Rockstar is liable in the eyes of the ESRB for not disclosing the content on the disc - they shipped those animation paths, models,et al. They provided footage that was supposed to show the greatest degree of sexuality on the disc and it was probably just kissing and a bouncing car. It doesn't matter that it required a hack to access because the ESRB doesn't care how the shipped content is played, they just care about the content.
For the second point, "the game is played by a number of people who are unaffiliated to the game industry" -- maybe I just don't remember the process correctly and maybe it's changed, but I don't think that you ever send the ESRB actual code. After all, a lot of games recieve their ratings before they're complete.
and if they can't, so what? (Score:2)
Poor Duke... (Score:5, Funny)
Ratings are a Guide (Score:5, Insightful)
A rating isn't anything based in fact or science. Any rating, including those for movies, games, 4 starts, 5 stars, etc. isn't based in math and science, they are based on opinion and criteria deemed important for the medium.
The MPAA and ESRB are just a bunch of critics who happen to use an established set of criteria to establish a somewhat consistent system of judging the content.
As with any critic, you have to be in an educated consumer. Not everyone agrees with Ebert and Roper, but Ebert and Roper have a track record that you can depend on which allows you to make decisions based on their opinions. The same can be said for the MPAA and ESRB. Content is reviewed and critiqued based on the board's criteria for material appropriate to age group X, Y, and Z.
this just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Catharsis vs Television Violence (Score:3, Interesting)
I find that playing violent games does not, and has not, lead to me being a more violent person. I also find that playing games like Gauntlet, Lego Star Wars, Full Throttle, and others with my six year old daughter does not lead her to conclude that violence is the answer to her problems. In fact, the net result of playing these violent games is that we have fun and entertain ourselves.
Looking at the #1 "Most Violent Game" per this cited study, I was wondering what would compel a person to play something like "Nuclear Strike 64". I came up with two reasons (there are probably more). 1) someone wanted to enjoy breaking things down a little via harmless video images, or 2) someone wanted to practice making nuclear strikes on someone and this was the best simulation they could come up with.
Yes, those are facetious, but none of the games listed propose to be acts of realism and that's very obvious in the same way that Bugs Bunny was simply funny because it was a cartoon. That is in contrast to prime time television that is reality-based drama or documentary where violence is acted out and manipulated as a form of entertainment. Not only is violence displayed outright but television also provokes an emotional longing for it by leaving shows with cliff-hangers and tension.
As an adult, I can view television with context and objectivity. Children who are still developing emotionally can be dramatically affected from viewing those sorts of images much more so than by interacting with a game or cartoon. I am much more concerned with exposing my daughter to prime time drama television than I am to cartoons and/or video games like the ones cited in the research.
p.s. Bear in mind that I would NOT arbitrarily expose her to GTA or realistic military games either.
More Election year grand standing.. (Score:3, Insightful)
DNC headquaters - "our opposition is in real political trouble but we still cant get votes because we refuse to take a firm position and are weak like wet noodles!" *5 minutes later* "LOOK PUBLIC! OVER THERE! VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES!"
Blantant Hypocrisy... (Score:3, Insightful)
As we all know, violence and sports [wikipedia.org] go hand in hand. And yet these researchers are saying that playing virtual hockey is less violent than virtual pac-man? It always bugged me that people are worried that video games might make their child violent, but don't worry about football making their children violent. How many convicted felons have played for the NFL? How often is some current NFL player being charged with assault or rape? Seems to happen every week. And, somehow, these guys are seen as heroes by most of America, while 'gamers' are seen as unstable and violent.
Big win for P3!! (Score:4, Funny)
DEATH TO THE HUNGRY ONE!
I happen to know a lot about Senate hearings. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I happen to know a lot about Senate hearings. (Score:3, Funny)
I asked for a meeting of the Congressional Oversight Committee and it took an entire Administration to arrive.
Pac-Man alternates between 25% and 0% violence (Score:4, Funny)
Pac-Man's mouth is his only weapon, and it alternates between 25% open and 0% open, for an average of 12.5% open-mouthed violence.
-Don
Wack-A-Mole (Score:3, Interesting)
Pac-Man is a Cop Killer (Score:3, Funny)
A Lesson in How Politics Work (Score:4, Insightful)
Answer: whichever one supports there agenda. There is an active political group, which includes Hillary Clinton, whose goal is to legislate video games to heck and back again. Like in all political moves, they are only going to pick out studies that back up their arguements whether they are legitimate or not. And why do these studies make news when the other ones do not? Simple, the other studies are, what we call in the non-political world, "logical" and "common sense". So why report on news that everyone knows to be true? It's like fielding a news story saying "sugar is sweet".
So, when a political group latches on to a crazy study, it makes news because it's so outlandish. That's what politicians are hoping for because they are hoping it makes enough news that people start accepting it to be true because "everyone else is reporting this so it must be true!". This is not to say all studies held up and waved by members of the government are crazy. A lot of them are factual and make sense. But, again, this just goes to show take what you hear with a grain of salt, use a little common sense, and make your own judgements based on actual experiences.
In USA NO entertainment ratings are governmental (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If video games really influence our behavior... (Score:5, Funny)
They called this dark period in our history "The 80's".