Britain's Anti-Games Politician Says He's Pro-Games

[thenumberthirteen]

Vaz attended Parliament Games Day yesterday

Is that like the last day of school where you can play Twister?

I just can't get the image of MPs having a massive Street Fighter tournament out of my head, and I hear Nick Clegg owns at Dance Dance Revolution.

 

[Legion]

"I've never been against games," Vaz said. "I've been against violent games that are able to fall into the hands of young people who are perhaps not able to understand the implications of what they're doing."

Which I also personally agree with, and I first played GTA (the first one) when I was around 9 years old.

My Mothers God Son is 10 and he has Modern Warfare 1 and 2 as well as Black Ops, and he plays them over Xbox Live, and to me that is very wrong, especially considering he hasn't got the mental capacity to fully interpret them correctly. He seemed genuinely surprised when I told him that they are not realistic in the slightest.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Hold on, I just spotted this on a re-read

an event where British MP's could play games for themselves and discuss the gaming industry.

So, they had a LAN party? Which I assume we paid for...

And snacks and nibbles of course...

Tell me, America, what would you feel like doing if the Senate got a day off to play computer games? Or the Australian Attorney-Generals getting down for a Shrimp and Surf barbie?

 

[vxicepickxv]

Hold on, I just spotted this on a re-read

an event where British MP's could play games for themselves and discuss the gaming industry.

So, they had a LAN party? Which I assume we paid for...

And snacks and nibbles of course...

Tell me, America, what would you feel like doing if the Senate got a day off to play computer games? Or the Australian Attorney-Generals getting down for a Shrimp and Surf barbie?

Me, I'd feel relieved, because it meant a day they weren't spending is that much more into oblivion.

Something seems a bit off about this guy. I think the headline sums it up best.

 

[Goody]

Guess what this rating means:

Spoiler: Answer

You must be 18 years old to play (or watch)

Actually that is only a PEGI rating, it is only a GUIDELINE for retailers (who often follow them anyway) and parents, BBFC ratings however can ONLY be sold to people who prove they are of the appropriate age

 

[Sporky111]

Well, it's a nice gesture but it doesn't help that fact that he's completely full of shit. He'll have to do more than appear at a gaming event to get the good will of this industry. This is just a PR event for him.

Incidentally, I found an interesting contradiction in the article:

"I've never been against games," Vaz said. "I've been against violent games that are able to fall into the hands of young people who are perhaps not able to understand the implications of what they're doing."

He continued: "I just think it's very important that people respect and acknowledge the age limits. And the campaign has always been about ensuring there is proper labelling so that people know exactly what kind of games they should have."

We have the ESRB and PEGI for ensuring proper labeling. Yet it also said that he supported censorship and banning. If he's changed his mind, great. I support it fully. But don't go calling for the ban and censorship of games, then turn around and say that all you wanted was "proper labeling".

Also, did anyone find it strange that he wanted to investigate a connection between a shooting and CounterStrike in Sweden?

 

[Palademon]

I call political shenanigans.
It sounds like a trap of trusting him.

 

[Amnestic]

And THIS is the guy who you think is showing the way forward in games? He's a sleazy, underhand, New Labour con-man, whose greatest trick is smelling of roses after he's dumped nuclear fuels next to a playgroup.

Agreed. The guy's spinning for political points and his record speaks for itself, with not a whole lot of positive to say.

He calls for "clearer" ratings but I'm not really sure how much clearer a giant 18 sticker can be.

Edit:

And the campaign has always been about ensuring there is proper labelling so that people know exactly what kind of games they should have.

Bullshit! To quote the Escapist [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.154608-Shocking-Modern-Warfare-2-to-be-Raised-in-U-K-Parliament#3749172] on his Modern Warfare 2 objections:

"I am absolutely shocked by the level of violence in this game and am particularly concerned about how realistic the game itself looks," he said.

Uh-huh. All about the 'proper labelling', eh Keithy boy?

 

[westx207]

They came for the inappropriate video games but I did not play them, so I said nothing...

I lul'd.

I absolutely agree. It's clear that this guy's idea of responsibility in the industry involves liberal application of the government Banhammer. The fact that he doesn't want to ban everything (i.e., games he likes) does not make him pro-games.

I seriously wonder if his anti-game history is also just a political fabrication to curry favor and support his career.

 

[Ekonk]

Sounds like a well-meaning, but misguided man.

Unlike Jack Thompson, who is a ravenous misguided jerkbag.

 

[The Stonker]

Well, it's a good thing that he's turning a new leap.

 

[TheFPSisDead]

Manhunt 3 for Kinnect!

Do it! Do it!

LOL!

 

[DenSomKastade]

Good thing there is atleast one anti-game politician who wasn't a lunatic!

 

[Delusibeta]

Guess what this rating means:
-snip-

Spoiler: Answer

You must be 18 years old to play (or watch)

Actually that is only a PEGI rating, it is only a GUIDELINE for retailers (who often follow them anyway) and parents, BBFC ratings however can ONLY be sold to people who prove they are of the appropriate age

From my understanding, British law doesn't have this distinction.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

He continued: "I just think it's very important that people respect and acknowledge the age limits. And the campaign has always been about ensuring there is proper labelling so that people know exactly what kind of games they should have.

That is... logical. I am confused. It's almost as if this guy is not an idiot. In any case, I admire the fact that he was man enough to essentially show up where he wasn't really wanted and state his case.

The problem with this arguement can be demonstrated with a test.

Guess what this rating means:

Spoiler: Answer

You must be 18 years old to play (or watch)

It's not hard, is it?

Ultimately, I can't think of how clearer the ratings can be.

That said, the BBFC ratings (which are used on films, and everyone in the land should be familiar with them) are still occasionally used, but they're just as easy. For example:

Spoiler: Answer

You must be 15 years old to play (or watch)

Britain (and indeed most of Europe): where the age rating is exactly what it says on the box.

Exactly this is why the argument pisses me off, if this isn't clear to you you shouldn't have kids let alone buy them inappropriate entertainment.

 

[Deathsaw]

And THIS is the guy who you think is showing the way forward in games? He's a sleazy, underhand, New Labour con-man, whose greatest trick is smelling of roses after he's dumped nuclear fuels next to a playgroup.

Agreed. The guy's spinning for political points and his record speaks for itself, with not a whole lot of positive to say.

He calls for "clearer" ratings but I'm not really sure how much clearer a giant 18 sticker can be.

I understand that his support of "proper labeling" doesn't match his track record, but he does have a point. I don't live in Europe, but it's my opinion that the descriptions of in-game content on the box, not the PEGI 18 label itself, should be a bit clearer. Take this box for example:
http://www.vgboxart.com/boxes/PS3/15959_ratchet_and_clank_future_tools_of_destruction-v2.png

This Ratchet and Clank game has "online gameplay" and "violence". Let's say i'm a parent who's buying a game for my kid. I know that he shouldn't play games that are out of his age group, but when I read this box, all I know is that it has online gameplay and violence. What kind of violence? I don't know. I could always go to youtube and check out some gameplay, but let's say i'm standing in the store and I've never heard of Ratchet and Clank before. I could always ask the clerk about the game, but by itself, the box can't tell me anything other than "online capable" and "some sort of violence".

The ESRB, while more specific, also has this problem. Let's look at the boxart for Halo ODST:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/bigboxshots/1/954261_119796_back.jpg

The game features "Blood", "Language" and "Violence". What kind of blood? Does it pool after you kill somebody or does it serve as a reaction effect to a gunshot? What kind of language does "Language" mean? Is it just a few damn's and hell's or does it feature more colorful language? How violent is the violence? Even the more specific ESRB has a somewhat long way to go in order to provide a more effective label.

Being gamers, we know the extent of Halo 3's language or Ratchet and Clank's violence, but to the uninformed masses out there that are the active majority in the game purchasing world, they only know what's on the box. If Modern Warfare 2's rating included "Scene/s of extreme violence/murder", maybe the No Russian controversy could have been somewhat deflated.

Like I mentioned in the first paragraph, I know that Keith Vaz's track record doesn't match up, but he still brings up a valid point. Game ratings, being either PEGI, ESRB or other, could be a bit more specific.

 

[Canid117]

Tell me, America, what would you feel like doing if the Senate got a day off to play computer games? Or the Australian Attorney-Generals getting down for a Shrimp and Surf barbie?

I would laugh my ass off

 

[RatRace123]

Hmm, a rational argument against violent videogames...
Satan must be cold.