Dana MasseyWhat do popular pastimes say about the cultures that they represent? Today, in our global culture, we have seen the rise of videogames, movies and television as nearly global pastimes. Danay Massey looks at how these pasttimes effect us.
Issue 35 - Pastimes Defining a Civilization: Videogames
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Original Comment by: Dave Allen
"Over time, as societies age, they become more and more enamored with violence."
I guess I'd like to hear some elaboration on this. I guess I have assumed that our love of violence is pretty much a constant--what changes is the technology that allows us to more efficiently execute violence. And by efficiency I mean in terms of its deadliness, its effect on multitudes, the physical easiness, the lowering of skill required, and the freedom from personal consequence. Needless to say, this also true about "makle-believe" violence.
I don't know if it's possible to tease out a given culture's love of violence from its increased skill at violence. Seriously, I don't know. Is there an example of a society whose technology level has remained a constant but their love of violence (measured in prevalence, perhaps) has increased?
As a counter-example, in Western European society, we have more or less abrogated the right to individual retribution, and granted the monopoly to the state. I'm just throwing this idea out there, but is it possible that the increase in violent videogames is due in part to people being more able and willing to effectively compartmentalize and isolate their propensity for mayhem? And, maybe, we are helped by the fact that our ability to play at violence has gotten so much better?
"Over time, as societies age, they become more and more enamored with violence."
I guess I'd like to hear some elaboration on this. I guess I have assumed that our love of violence is pretty much a constant--what changes is the technology that allows us to more efficiently execute violence. And by efficiency I mean in terms of its deadliness, its effect on multitudes, the physical easiness, the lowering of skill required, and the freedom from personal consequence. Needless to say, this also true about "makle-believe" violence.
I don't know if it's possible to tease out a given culture's love of violence from its increased skill at violence. Seriously, I don't know. Is there an example of a society whose technology level has remained a constant but their love of violence (measured in prevalence, perhaps) has increased?
As a counter-example, in Western European society, we have more or less abrogated the right to individual retribution, and granted the monopoly to the state. I'm just throwing this idea out there, but is it possible that the increase in violent videogames is due in part to people being more able and willing to effectively compartmentalize and isolate their propensity for mayhem? And, maybe, we are helped by the fact that our ability to play at violence has gotten so much better?
Original Comment by: Tom Rhodes
"I am also totally supportive of legislation that limits who can and cannot buy games, based on rating."
Eek, Dana, I'm going to have to disagree with you. The government is a terrible thing to allow regulation of what is and isn't appropriate and for who, this is why we have parents. I'm speaking from an American perspective, of course (I'm not aware if you have any laws governing films or things up there), but once the government sticks its nose into people's homes and houses (and Amazon.com accounts), things go sour quite quickly.
As for parents being irresponsible, I suppose that's always a worry, but it's been time and time again throughout the 20th and now 21st century that something is demonized as being morally and mentally corrupting. First it was film in the 40's and 50's, then again in the 70's. Then it was music (need I remind of Tipper Gore's attack on rap and hip-hop in the 80's); in the 90's, it was pornography, and now it's videogames.
But, looking at the statistics, the violence correlation doesn't really add up. As Duke Ferris wrote about in this article [http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/articles/violence/violence.htm]:
Check out that ugly graph [http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/articles/violence/doj_chart_1.gif] on the right. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that violent crime is at the lowest it has been in a good thirty years. For effect, I�ve also marked the release of the Playstation console, the first Grand Theft Auto game, the PS2 console, and the infamous GTA 3. Wow, look at those surges in violence!
Believe it or not, I got that graph - and all the others in this piece - directly from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics. All I added was the video game timeline. This isn�t some privately-funded poll or crazy game journalist defense mechanism - this is the actual, most recent government data on crime as used by the FBI. The fact that they all max out at 2003 is irritating, but this debate has raged much longer than the past few months.
[...]
Something must be missing. That first graph is the overall violent crime rate, and we're talking about youth violence here. So I found the data sorted by age, and it turns out that through 2002, youth homicide actually dropped [http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/articles/violence/doj_chart_2.gif] across the board, the only increase being among adults. If I may quote directly from the D.O.J. report, "Recently, the offending rates for 14-17 year-olds reached the lowest levels ever recorded."
The lowest levels ever recorded. In other words, the Playstation era has, in fact, produced the most non-violent kids ever.
Maybe (and I do mean MAYBE) if there was a correlation, this might be worth the time and investigation, but there isn't.
As for firearms (FPS games, anyone?), although the number of firearms in the US has almost quintupled since the 1930's (it's now at an all-time high), the number of firearm-related deaths have reached an all-time low, down 92% since the high of 1904. There's also a decrease of 19% since 1993.
More than that, though, I don't want to ever have to read in a newspaper, "19-year-old John Doe was arrested today on charges of selling a violent videogame to a minor of 16. Sargeant Pants McFistibaum said, 'This is a great victory in the fight against youth violence.'"
I've seen this song and dance before, and I don't like it.
Whew, I wrote quite a lot there. Sorry about that, just needed to vent. ;-)
"I am also totally supportive of legislation that limits who can and cannot buy games, based on rating."
Eek, Dana, I'm going to have to disagree with you. The government is a terrible thing to allow regulation of what is and isn't appropriate and for who, this is why we have parents. I'm speaking from an American perspective, of course (I'm not aware if you have any laws governing films or things up there), but once the government sticks its nose into people's homes and houses (and Amazon.com accounts), things go sour quite quickly.
As for parents being irresponsible, I suppose that's always a worry, but it's been time and time again throughout the 20th and now 21st century that something is demonized as being morally and mentally corrupting. First it was film in the 40's and 50's, then again in the 70's. Then it was music (need I remind of Tipper Gore's attack on rap and hip-hop in the 80's); in the 90's, it was pornography, and now it's videogames.
But, looking at the statistics, the violence correlation doesn't really add up. As Duke Ferris wrote about in this article [http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/articles/violence/violence.htm]:
Check out that ugly graph [http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/articles/violence/doj_chart_1.gif] on the right. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that violent crime is at the lowest it has been in a good thirty years. For effect, I�ve also marked the release of the Playstation console, the first Grand Theft Auto game, the PS2 console, and the infamous GTA 3. Wow, look at those surges in violence!
Believe it or not, I got that graph - and all the others in this piece - directly from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics. All I added was the video game timeline. This isn�t some privately-funded poll or crazy game journalist defense mechanism - this is the actual, most recent government data on crime as used by the FBI. The fact that they all max out at 2003 is irritating, but this debate has raged much longer than the past few months.
[...]
Something must be missing. That first graph is the overall violent crime rate, and we're talking about youth violence here. So I found the data sorted by age, and it turns out that through 2002, youth homicide actually dropped [http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/articles/violence/doj_chart_2.gif] across the board, the only increase being among adults. If I may quote directly from the D.O.J. report, "Recently, the offending rates for 14-17 year-olds reached the lowest levels ever recorded."
The lowest levels ever recorded. In other words, the Playstation era has, in fact, produced the most non-violent kids ever.
Maybe (and I do mean MAYBE) if there was a correlation, this might be worth the time and investigation, but there isn't.
As for firearms (FPS games, anyone?), although the number of firearms in the US has almost quintupled since the 1930's (it's now at an all-time high), the number of firearm-related deaths have reached an all-time low, down 92% since the high of 1904. There's also a decrease of 19% since 1993.
More than that, though, I don't want to ever have to read in a newspaper, "19-year-old John Doe was arrested today on charges of selling a violent videogame to a minor of 16. Sargeant Pants McFistibaum said, 'This is a great victory in the fight against youth violence.'"
I've seen this song and dance before, and I don't like it.
Whew, I wrote quite a lot there. Sorry about that, just needed to vent. ;-)
Original Comment by: Mark
I'm going to throw a bomb here.
I propose that there is more violence in America today than at any other previous time. Bear with me, here, this is going to become much more sensible.
There's more violence today than ever before - and most of this violence is simulated. We're doing lots and lots of killing, and nearly all of the victims are NPCs and avatars in video games. Fewer than ever are meatspace humans.
How's that sound?
I'm going to throw a bomb here.
I propose that there is more violence in America today than at any other previous time. Bear with me, here, this is going to become much more sensible.
There's more violence today than ever before - and most of this violence is simulated. We're doing lots and lots of killing, and nearly all of the victims are NPCs and avatars in video games. Fewer than ever are meatspace humans.
How's that sound?
Original Comment by: Dave Allen
"How's that sound?"
Well, hey! It sounds like you have taken my idea about the increase in violent videogames and run with it!
So maybe (paradoxically) we should hope for more and more "realistic" violent games so that people's ability to channel their violent impulses into games is constantly being improved.
And by the way, I totally agree that the question of what is violent and what is appropriate is way too personal to be left to the hands of majority rule government. I don't ever, ever want someone to tell me I can't look at Picasso's "Guernica" or "Schindler's List" because they are too violent. And that's the door you leave open with video-game content legislation.
"How's that sound?"
Well, hey! It sounds like you have taken my idea about the increase in violent videogames and run with it!
So maybe (paradoxically) we should hope for more and more "realistic" violent games so that people's ability to channel their violent impulses into games is constantly being improved.
And by the way, I totally agree that the question of what is violent and what is appropriate is way too personal to be left to the hands of majority rule government. I don't ever, ever want someone to tell me I can't look at Picasso's "Guernica" or "Schindler's List" because they are too violent. And that's the door you leave open with video-game content legislation.
Original Comment by: Dave Allen
A quote from the article:
"In the early part of this century, it is entirely conceivable that a child could grow into adulthood without ever seeing anything more violent than a school-yard brawl."
It's conceivable, but how likely is it? Kids loved reading and hearing stories of violence back then, just like they do now. Western magazines, serial kids' mags and so on were just as popular as PSP's are today. Maybe they didn't have anybody visibly getting carjacked in stunning hi-rez polygons, but the concepts were there.
But, what I think is more significant is that kids in the US (for example) were exposed to much more death and violence in their real lives than kids today--check out the infant and child mortality rates at the CDC website for circa 1900, for example. Disease, poverty, and other popular characters from the Book of Revelations were as well-known to kids back then as Kim Possible is today.
A quote from the article:
"In the early part of this century, it is entirely conceivable that a child could grow into adulthood without ever seeing anything more violent than a school-yard brawl."
It's conceivable, but how likely is it? Kids loved reading and hearing stories of violence back then, just like they do now. Western magazines, serial kids' mags and so on were just as popular as PSP's are today. Maybe they didn't have anybody visibly getting carjacked in stunning hi-rez polygons, but the concepts were there.
But, what I think is more significant is that kids in the US (for example) were exposed to much more death and violence in their real lives than kids today--check out the infant and child mortality rates at the CDC website for circa 1900, for example. Disease, poverty, and other popular characters from the Book of Revelations were as well-known to kids back then as Kim Possible is today.
Original Comment by: Dana Massey
http://www.mmorpg.com
Hey all,
Thanks for the comments. One thing I do want to comment on is the line where I say: "I am also totally supportive of legislation that limits who can and cannot buy games, based on rating."
I really mean to say is, I would not be upset if the way we rate games impacts the ages of who can go see them, more or less exactly as the movie industry does it. Telling an 8-year-old he cannot buy Grand Theft Auto does not seem to be going too far. I should have added though that while I think it is the place of the government to put in legislation that restricts who can buy games based on the game's rating and the buyer's age... I do not think the government should be the one doing the rating
http://www.mmorpg.com
Hey all,
Thanks for the comments. One thing I do want to comment on is the line where I say: "I am also totally supportive of legislation that limits who can and cannot buy games, based on rating."
I really mean to say is, I would not be upset if the way we rate games impacts the ages of who can go see them, more or less exactly as the movie industry does it. Telling an 8-year-old he cannot buy Grand Theft Auto does not seem to be going too far. I should have added though that while I think it is the place of the government to put in legislation that restricts who can buy games based on the game's rating and the buyer's age... I do not think the government should be the one doing the rating
Original Comment by: Funky J
http://www.funkyj.com
Australia has govt regulation of computer games and other media, and apart from the 'non-classification' of games because we have no R18+ rating for games - which is an entirely different issue more related to the self interests of a State Minister than anything about censorship - I think it works quite well.
Just like supplying alcohol and smoking has been made illegal for those under 18+ here, with both parties up for punishment if caught supplying / buying it, I think mature games should be restricted to Adults in the same way.
And the government should determine the classifications. In Australia, there's a selection of people who view all the material, and vote on it. These are selected from a cross section of the community, and on the whole it has worked very well. In this way, the notions of what is acceptable to the public and what isn't changes over time, and isn't dependent on words nailed into law.
Sure, it's not a perfect system, and the recent debarcle over Mark Ecko's Getting Up is a case in point, but on the whole it does protect children AND retailers AND game makers from suffering worse consequences such as litigation from self interested lawyers. It puts the onus on parents to know the ratings, and because they're the same across ALL media, from books to TV to movies, ignorance isn't a defence.
http://www.funkyj.com
Australia has govt regulation of computer games and other media, and apart from the 'non-classification' of games because we have no R18+ rating for games - which is an entirely different issue more related to the self interests of a State Minister than anything about censorship - I think it works quite well.
Just like supplying alcohol and smoking has been made illegal for those under 18+ here, with both parties up for punishment if caught supplying / buying it, I think mature games should be restricted to Adults in the same way.
And the government should determine the classifications. In Australia, there's a selection of people who view all the material, and vote on it. These are selected from a cross section of the community, and on the whole it has worked very well. In this way, the notions of what is acceptable to the public and what isn't changes over time, and isn't dependent on words nailed into law.
Sure, it's not a perfect system, and the recent debarcle over Mark Ecko's Getting Up is a case in point, but on the whole it does protect children AND retailers AND game makers from suffering worse consequences such as litigation from self interested lawyers. It puts the onus on parents to know the ratings, and because they're the same across ALL media, from books to TV to movies, ignorance isn't a defence.
Original Comment by: Ryan Schwab
Using pastimes to analyze a culture opens up many interesting questions aside from the violence one (many aspects of which were called into good question by Dave and Tom). For instance, how might participants interact with each other differently in various cultural pastimes, or how do they comparitively fit into the broader society?
To address the question of violence... There could be many more damning arguments made against video games using these lines of reasoning, but I think most of them miss the point. What we have isn't a problem with the form or content of our games, woes like violence and crime are only symptoms of deeper problems. Look to things like an economy with a large percentage in poverty, not the media or hobby the average person decides to entertain themselves with.
Using pastimes to analyze a culture opens up many interesting questions aside from the violence one (many aspects of which were called into good question by Dave and Tom). For instance, how might participants interact with each other differently in various cultural pastimes, or how do they comparitively fit into the broader society?
To address the question of violence... There could be many more damning arguments made against video games using these lines of reasoning, but I think most of them miss the point. What we have isn't a problem with the form or content of our games, woes like violence and crime are only symptoms of deeper problems. Look to things like an economy with a large percentage in poverty, not the media or hobby the average person decides to entertain themselves with.
Original Comment by: John
http://john-stephi.blogspot.com
Grammar Nazi:
Danay Massey looks at how these pasttimes effect [http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/affect.html] us.
http://john-stephi.blogspot.com
Grammar Nazi:
Danay Massey looks at how these pasttimes effect [http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/affect.html] us.
Original Comment by: Adriana Aires
Comment to Tom Rhodes.
Tom Rhodes said:
"The government is a terrible thing to allow regulation of what is and isn't appropriate and for who, this is why we have parents. I'm speaking from an American perspective, of course (I'm not aware if you have any laws governing films or things up there), but once the government sticks its nose into people's homes and houses (and Amazon.com accounts), things go sour quite quickly."
Coming from Sweden I must say that my culture is more similar to Canadas than USAs so my perspective is different to yours and more like Dana Masseys, in the sense that the people of Canada and Sweden share the feeling of trusting (more or less) to the democratic process in their respective countries. Saying that it is terrible to let the government regulate what is appropiate or not, sounds a lot like the argumentation against governments criminalising beating of children, spouse beating or marital rape, when those things were up on the board years ago. Which creates some thoughts, but then again, I don't know if I would like the government of the USA to come into my home ;-)
Comment to Dana Massey:
First of all thank you for a good and interesting article.
One thing that struck my mind reading your article was my own perseption of violence in movies contra games. The reason why I find violence in movies much more repulsive and alarming than in games is just because of that line that you define. In a movie I don't get to participate in the violence, with that meant that I don't get to decide what is ok and not, I just have to take something that someone else has defined. In a game I get to decide what is ok or not. Even though both of these worlds are fictional, the game world is the one I create with my own conditions.
Comment to Tom Rhodes.
Tom Rhodes said:
"The government is a terrible thing to allow regulation of what is and isn't appropriate and for who, this is why we have parents. I'm speaking from an American perspective, of course (I'm not aware if you have any laws governing films or things up there), but once the government sticks its nose into people's homes and houses (and Amazon.com accounts), things go sour quite quickly."
Coming from Sweden I must say that my culture is more similar to Canadas than USAs so my perspective is different to yours and more like Dana Masseys, in the sense that the people of Canada and Sweden share the feeling of trusting (more or less) to the democratic process in their respective countries. Saying that it is terrible to let the government regulate what is appropiate or not, sounds a lot like the argumentation against governments criminalising beating of children, spouse beating or marital rape, when those things were up on the board years ago. Which creates some thoughts, but then again, I don't know if I would like the government of the USA to come into my home ;-)
Comment to Dana Massey:
First of all thank you for a good and interesting article.
One thing that struck my mind reading your article was my own perseption of violence in movies contra games. The reason why I find violence in movies much more repulsive and alarming than in games is just because of that line that you define. In a movie I don't get to participate in the violence, with that meant that I don't get to decide what is ok and not, I just have to take something that someone else has defined. In a game I get to decide what is ok or not. Even though both of these worlds are fictional, the game world is the one I create with my own conditions.
Original Comment by: Chris
It is refreshing to read of violence and videogames with regards to the culture. Restricting violence in videogames is a bit like hiding the corpse under the rug. Ssmelly, isn't it?
The author did not really take in account the clutural differences between countries and I am curious how that could influence the argumentation. America / Europe / Asia have a different take on what's acceptable and what's not as far as violence go in movies or games. The presentation of religion, politics, family and sex are probably other very good indicators of a culture.
Thank you
It is refreshing to read of violence and videogames with regards to the culture. Restricting violence in videogames is a bit like hiding the corpse under the rug. Ssmelly, isn't it?
The author did not really take in account the clutural differences between countries and I am curious how that could influence the argumentation. America / Europe / Asia have a different take on what's acceptable and what's not as far as violence go in movies or games. The presentation of religion, politics, family and sex are probably other very good indicators of a culture.
Thank you
Original Comment by: Felipe Meneguzzi
http://fmeneguzzi.blogspot.com
If I may digress from the topic of government regulation over games, your comment on how early 20th century kids did not experience as much violence leads me to another line of thought with regards on the thing of experiencing violence in a society. Namely, I think that experiencing violence is an important, even necessary, part of the education of a child.
My argument has nothing to do with fear of developing "wussies", but rather creating a healthy level of concern from the effects of violence on other people, as well as developing the mental mechanisms to cope with real violence one might experience in his/her lifetime. One thing to bear in mind is that these kids who were educated (in North America and Europe) at the end of the 19th century/ beginning of the 20th century, were the ones who allowed (and some might say lead the world into) the two world wars.
I might be entirely wrong, but I think that these people who did not experience violence and were raised in an "anti-septic" world and were educated to glorify wars and "the honor in battle" were not entirely aware of the gruesome business that killing people first-hand actually is. The culture of glorifying war is all but over in Europe, but is very much alive in the US, and I honestly believe that one thing that is keeping the US from being even more beligerant is the fact that people in the US have a better notion of how disgusting killing people might be. If you look closely, the US politicians who are putting their fellow citizens in harm's way are exactly the ones who have the least contact with violence (virtual or not).
http://fmeneguzzi.blogspot.com
If I may digress from the topic of government regulation over games, your comment on how early 20th century kids did not experience as much violence leads me to another line of thought with regards on the thing of experiencing violence in a society. Namely, I think that experiencing violence is an important, even necessary, part of the education of a child.
My argument has nothing to do with fear of developing "wussies", but rather creating a healthy level of concern from the effects of violence on other people, as well as developing the mental mechanisms to cope with real violence one might experience in his/her lifetime. One thing to bear in mind is that these kids who were educated (in North America and Europe) at the end of the 19th century/ beginning of the 20th century, were the ones who allowed (and some might say lead the world into) the two world wars.
I might be entirely wrong, but I think that these people who did not experience violence and were raised in an "anti-septic" world and were educated to glorify wars and "the honor in battle" were not entirely aware of the gruesome business that killing people first-hand actually is. The culture of glorifying war is all but over in Europe, but is very much alive in the US, and I honestly believe that one thing that is keeping the US from being even more beligerant is the fact that people in the US have a better notion of how disgusting killing people might be. If you look closely, the US politicians who are putting their fellow citizens in harm's way are exactly the ones who have the least contact with violence (virtual or not).
Original Comment by: EthDem
Just to start, I think this was an extremely well argued article, far from the hysteria we see in many of the other forms of media. I see parental responsibility as a definite concern, and still believe that the largest caveat of the rating system is lack of awareness. The ESRB is making a concerted effort to advertise the ratings and their system seems sound, but noone can make a parent care.
Just to touch on the history repeating bit for a moment. There's another historical phenomenon that has most likely been around just as long as gladiatorial bloodsport: moral panic. Throughout the ages we've blamed witchcraft, pulp magazines, communists, pornography, movies, role-playing games and music for corrupting the youth. It's a force made much more influential as various forms of media become more accessble and connected. The same 100 word reuters snippet will generate a completely different account of any given event; the diversity of accounts on the severity of Hot Coffee provides yet another barrier to a parent looking for the straight dope.
If videogames do help people channel their violent impulses, I don't see that as such a terrible thing. With many games (like GTA) getting increasingly open-ended, I see more of an opportunity for people to satisfy their other escapist compulsions, many of them more innocent. Take driving, for instance: I certainly can't drive in real life the way I do in games, even racing games allow the player to floor the pedal and break speed limits in ways no safe driver would condone. Is that harmful? In the end they're both miniature adrenaline rushes you can experience in your own home, free of the constraints imposed upon the real world. Encouraging people to think beyond general constraints might start with violence, but as kicking prostitutes gets dull and tastes refine. What starts as the same old gib and frag often evolves into games that require strategy and teamwork. Games like Metal Gear Solid will appear, which plays as both a tribute to subtlety and a treatise on non-violence [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/29/7].
That said, I think that more balanced methods of educating parents about video game choices are imperative. The fear-mongering that takes place seems only to breed ignorance where in its place there could be education. Review segments that incorporate discussion of a game's rating, for example. But that's just not good TV.
Just to start, I think this was an extremely well argued article, far from the hysteria we see in many of the other forms of media. I see parental responsibility as a definite concern, and still believe that the largest caveat of the rating system is lack of awareness. The ESRB is making a concerted effort to advertise the ratings and their system seems sound, but noone can make a parent care.
Just to touch on the history repeating bit for a moment. There's another historical phenomenon that has most likely been around just as long as gladiatorial bloodsport: moral panic. Throughout the ages we've blamed witchcraft, pulp magazines, communists, pornography, movies, role-playing games and music for corrupting the youth. It's a force made much more influential as various forms of media become more accessble and connected. The same 100 word reuters snippet will generate a completely different account of any given event; the diversity of accounts on the severity of Hot Coffee provides yet another barrier to a parent looking for the straight dope.
If videogames do help people channel their violent impulses, I don't see that as such a terrible thing. With many games (like GTA) getting increasingly open-ended, I see more of an opportunity for people to satisfy their other escapist compulsions, many of them more innocent. Take driving, for instance: I certainly can't drive in real life the way I do in games, even racing games allow the player to floor the pedal and break speed limits in ways no safe driver would condone. Is that harmful? In the end they're both miniature adrenaline rushes you can experience in your own home, free of the constraints imposed upon the real world. Encouraging people to think beyond general constraints might start with violence, but as kicking prostitutes gets dull and tastes refine. What starts as the same old gib and frag often evolves into games that require strategy and teamwork. Games like Metal Gear Solid will appear, which plays as both a tribute to subtlety and a treatise on non-violence [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/29/7].
That said, I think that more balanced methods of educating parents about video game choices are imperative. The fear-mongering that takes place seems only to breed ignorance where in its place there could be education. Review segments that incorporate discussion of a game's rating, for example. But that's just not good TV.
Original Comment by: Tom Rhodes
Adriana:
"Saying that it is terrible to let the government regulate what is appropiate or not, sounds a lot like the argumentation against governments criminalising beating of children, spouse beating or marital rape, when those things were up on the board years ago."
Come now, that's quite hyperbolic. Video games are hardly to be equated with child and spousal abuse (much though Jack Thompson would like you to believe).
Funky J:
Again the odd analogies. Watching certain films or playing games is like smoking or drinking now? But I digress.
Films have been banned in Australia for many reasons. I can think of one off the top of my head (the film and its contents, but not the name for some odd reason), and I'm not warmed up to a system that allows for censorship of any kind. A determination of what is and isn't art based on sex and/or violence in a film (especially a determination that could result in a banning) is not kosher for me.
Yes, this is coming from an American perspective. Probably the single most important law for us is the First Amendment (the free speech one, for those not in the know), and we are very weary of anything limiting that.
I know, you said the effective banning "non-classification" rating was "more related to the self interests of a State Minister than anything about censorship," but think about that. If politicians get to exert influence on art through the law, that's all about censorship. Perhaps I'm missing a nuance in the system over there, so I'll opt up that I could be mistaken about how things work, so correct me if I'm wrong.
As for videogames, see below...
Dana:
So-called independent organizations doing the rating aren't usually much better. Has anyone in here seen This Film Is Not Yet Rated [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/]?
But let's take your example on it's face:
"Telling an 8-year-old he cannot buy Grand Theft Auto does not seem to be going too far."
Sounds reasonable, no? But all changes to the law I've seen are listed as allowing parents to purchase games regardless (anyone over 18, of course). So where would this hypothetical eight-year-old get this game? Can't get it online, no credit card, so that's out. Can he get it in a store? I suppose so. But most stores have policies that they set -- based on customer feedback -- which prohibits selling certain games to people under such-and-such years old. Let's say there is a store that doesn't have such a policy, where does this young child get the $40-50 needed to get the game? Bargain bin awhile later? Okay, I'll even give you that. But it's still up to the parents to monitor their child's viewing and gaming. This makes such ideas of legislation unnecessary, and one thing I loathe the most in unnecessary legislation, because pork comes with it, and so does increased power (I'm looking at you, Hillary).
Children have much more ready access to cable and satellite, or premium channels like HBO, but we feel no need to regulate them. Why? Because we trust parents more than the government. And, y'know, with a few exceptions, most parents are good people trying to raise their children right, and the more control is wrestled away from them, the worse we are all for it.
Despite my problems with the MPAA's rating system (of which I have many), it manages to work without the need for governmental regulation. There's no law against allowing an underage kid into a movie that's rated R (almost all theaters respect the policy, though), and society has yet to collapse.
But we have to ask ourselves, do we really want to criminalize the sale of an artform in the name of "protecting the children"? Does that teenage store clerk deserve a fine or jail time for that? First it's the stores, then it's the home, and then, and then...
Maybe I'm being overly dramatic, but I've seen government protectionism, and it's never a net benefit.
Adriana:
"Saying that it is terrible to let the government regulate what is appropiate or not, sounds a lot like the argumentation against governments criminalising beating of children, spouse beating or marital rape, when those things were up on the board years ago."
Come now, that's quite hyperbolic. Video games are hardly to be equated with child and spousal abuse (much though Jack Thompson would like you to believe).
Funky J:
Again the odd analogies. Watching certain films or playing games is like smoking or drinking now? But I digress.
Films have been banned in Australia for many reasons. I can think of one off the top of my head (the film and its contents, but not the name for some odd reason), and I'm not warmed up to a system that allows for censorship of any kind. A determination of what is and isn't art based on sex and/or violence in a film (especially a determination that could result in a banning) is not kosher for me.
Yes, this is coming from an American perspective. Probably the single most important law for us is the First Amendment (the free speech one, for those not in the know), and we are very weary of anything limiting that.
I know, you said the effective banning "non-classification" rating was "more related to the self interests of a State Minister than anything about censorship," but think about that. If politicians get to exert influence on art through the law, that's all about censorship. Perhaps I'm missing a nuance in the system over there, so I'll opt up that I could be mistaken about how things work, so correct me if I'm wrong.
As for videogames, see below...
Dana:
So-called independent organizations doing the rating aren't usually much better. Has anyone in here seen This Film Is Not Yet Rated [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/]?
But let's take your example on it's face:
"Telling an 8-year-old he cannot buy Grand Theft Auto does not seem to be going too far."
Sounds reasonable, no? But all changes to the law I've seen are listed as allowing parents to purchase games regardless (anyone over 18, of course). So where would this hypothetical eight-year-old get this game? Can't get it online, no credit card, so that's out. Can he get it in a store? I suppose so. But most stores have policies that they set -- based on customer feedback -- which prohibits selling certain games to people under such-and-such years old. Let's say there is a store that doesn't have such a policy, where does this young child get the $40-50 needed to get the game? Bargain bin awhile later? Okay, I'll even give you that. But it's still up to the parents to monitor their child's viewing and gaming. This makes such ideas of legislation unnecessary, and one thing I loathe the most in unnecessary legislation, because pork comes with it, and so does increased power (I'm looking at you, Hillary).
Children have much more ready access to cable and satellite, or premium channels like HBO, but we feel no need to regulate them. Why? Because we trust parents more than the government. And, y'know, with a few exceptions, most parents are good people trying to raise their children right, and the more control is wrestled away from them, the worse we are all for it.
Despite my problems with the MPAA's rating system (of which I have many), it manages to work without the need for governmental regulation. There's no law against allowing an underage kid into a movie that's rated R (almost all theaters respect the policy, though), and society has yet to collapse.
But we have to ask ourselves, do we really want to criminalize the sale of an artform in the name of "protecting the children"? Does that teenage store clerk deserve a fine or jail time for that? First it's the stores, then it's the home, and then, and then...
Maybe I'm being overly dramatic, but I've seen government protectionism, and it's never a net benefit.
Original Comment by: Tom Rhodes
What am I doing drawing all the discussion to your article? Go comment on mine! Mine is better!*
* Kidding, kidding.
What am I doing drawing all the discussion to your article? Go comment on mine! Mine is better!*
* Kidding, kidding.
Original Comment by: Dave Allen
"Just like supplying alcohol and smoking has been made illegal for those under 18+ here, with both parties up for punishment if caught supplying / buying it, I think mature games should be restricted to Adults in the same way."
OK, this may be a case of cultural myopia on my part, but in the US we draw a line, legally speaking, between the control of material property and the control of ideas and speech. We have been willing to let our nominally representative government create and enforce laws relating to alcohol and so on. But when it comes to the realm of thought, many Americans, myself included, are extremely reluctant to allow majority rule to determine our access to ideas and the access we allow to our children. If we must have a ratings system, let it be determined by a coalition of citizens and mebers of the gaming industry who are willing to regulate themselves before someone else regulates them.
And while we're on the topic of government:
"Coming from Sweden I must say that my culture is more similar to Canadas than USAs so my perspective is different to yours and more like Dana Masseys, in the sense that the people of Canada and Sweden share the feeling of trusting (more or less) to the democratic process in their respective countries. Saying that it is terrible to let the government regulate what is appropiate or not, sounds a lot like the argumentation against governments criminalising beating of children, spouse beating or marital rape, when those things were up on the board years ago. Which creates some thoughts, but then again, I don't know if I would like the government of the USA to come into my home ;-)"
The government of the US was quite literally built by people who didn't trust governments, and this "tradition" is built into our mindset when we discuss government regulations. And no, you shouldn't let the US government into your home, by the way.
And on the topic of child abuse and rape, although you could argue that all moral legislation is a matter of interpretation, the difference between interpreting what is acceptable story-telling make-believe violence and what is acceptable REAL violence is so vast that comparisons are completely impossible.
As far as I'm concerned, the US (and I'm sorry I'm sticking with the US, but it's what I know) has utterly failed its children in terms of real resources, educational support, child mortality reduction, legal protection against REAL violence, and in so many other ways, that for legislators and self-appointed moral arbiters to get up and attempt to legislate video-game ethics is just hypocrisy of the rankest type. It's like we're attempting to slap paint on the flowers when the roots are dying.
"Just like supplying alcohol and smoking has been made illegal for those under 18+ here, with both parties up for punishment if caught supplying / buying it, I think mature games should be restricted to Adults in the same way."
OK, this may be a case of cultural myopia on my part, but in the US we draw a line, legally speaking, between the control of material property and the control of ideas and speech. We have been willing to let our nominally representative government create and enforce laws relating to alcohol and so on. But when it comes to the realm of thought, many Americans, myself included, are extremely reluctant to allow majority rule to determine our access to ideas and the access we allow to our children. If we must have a ratings system, let it be determined by a coalition of citizens and mebers of the gaming industry who are willing to regulate themselves before someone else regulates them.
And while we're on the topic of government:
"Coming from Sweden I must say that my culture is more similar to Canadas than USAs so my perspective is different to yours and more like Dana Masseys, in the sense that the people of Canada and Sweden share the feeling of trusting (more or less) to the democratic process in their respective countries. Saying that it is terrible to let the government regulate what is appropiate or not, sounds a lot like the argumentation against governments criminalising beating of children, spouse beating or marital rape, when those things were up on the board years ago. Which creates some thoughts, but then again, I don't know if I would like the government of the USA to come into my home ;-)"
The government of the US was quite literally built by people who didn't trust governments, and this "tradition" is built into our mindset when we discuss government regulations. And no, you shouldn't let the US government into your home, by the way.
And on the topic of child abuse and rape, although you could argue that all moral legislation is a matter of interpretation, the difference between interpreting what is acceptable story-telling make-believe violence and what is acceptable REAL violence is so vast that comparisons are completely impossible.
As far as I'm concerned, the US (and I'm sorry I'm sticking with the US, but it's what I know) has utterly failed its children in terms of real resources, educational support, child mortality reduction, legal protection against REAL violence, and in so many other ways, that for legislators and self-appointed moral arbiters to get up and attempt to legislate video-game ethics is just hypocrisy of the rankest type. It's like we're attempting to slap paint on the flowers when the roots are dying.
Original Comment by: Adam
Tom makes an excellent point: "But it's still up to the parents to monitor their child's viewing and gaming."
All of the rating systems, advisories, and warnings are going to do absolutely no good if parents continue to think that just because it's a video game it's automatically appropriate for their 6 year old. Every time I talk to someone who ever worked in a video game retailer, they tell the same story:
Mother: Hi, I want to buy this game. [Holds up GTA:SA as a 6 year old boy looks on hopefully.]
Employee: You do realize that this game contains [list of adult elements], and is not appropriate for children of that age, right?
Mother: Oh, my Billy is mature for his age. He can handle all of that. Now ring me up.
The ESA (or ESRB or whatever) should be actively trying to combat this. The little displays in the game stores don't seem to be doing the trick, so the ESA should step up the advertising. If it takes a national TV advertisement campaign to convince parents that they should pay attention to the ratings, then do it. But sticking your head in the sand and saying "we have a rating system, what else do you want" is just going to open the game industry up to more bad PR.
And this ignores completely the scenario where the 6 year old kid himself buys GTA, which I personally find no different from a 6 year old walking into an R rated movie by himself.
Tom makes an excellent point: "But it's still up to the parents to monitor their child's viewing and gaming."
All of the rating systems, advisories, and warnings are going to do absolutely no good if parents continue to think that just because it's a video game it's automatically appropriate for their 6 year old. Every time I talk to someone who ever worked in a video game retailer, they tell the same story:
Mother: Hi, I want to buy this game. [Holds up GTA:SA as a 6 year old boy looks on hopefully.]
Employee: You do realize that this game contains [list of adult elements], and is not appropriate for children of that age, right?
Mother: Oh, my Billy is mature for his age. He can handle all of that. Now ring me up.
The ESA (or ESRB or whatever) should be actively trying to combat this. The little displays in the game stores don't seem to be doing the trick, so the ESA should step up the advertising. If it takes a national TV advertisement campaign to convince parents that they should pay attention to the ratings, then do it. But sticking your head in the sand and saying "we have a rating system, what else do you want" is just going to open the game industry up to more bad PR.
And this ignores completely the scenario where the 6 year old kid himself buys GTA, which I personally find no different from a 6 year old walking into an R rated movie by himself.
Original Comment by: Dana Massey
http://www.mmorpg.com
To me, the difference between a parent buying a child a game and a child buying the game themselves is an important distinction. I firmly believe that it should be to parents, not the government, to regulate what their child sees or does not see. This should apply to video games and films alike. Thus, if regulations are in place to prevent kids from buying the games themsleves, that means the parent must be blatantly aware of the situation in order for their child to have the game.
Now, you can say that the parent must be aware for the 12 year old to accumulate the 60 dollars necessary to buy the game, but let's be honest. That just isn't true. I remember being 12. I could convince my parents to give me money on perfectly innocent grounds, even if my intentions were not equally innocent. For example, I used to travel to the corner store to rent movies. My parents would give me the six dollars I needed, but they had no control over content. That store would let me rent whatever I wanted.
By making it necessary for the store to check my ID, you ensure that the parents are actively aware of what their child is viewing. If they still approve, then all the power to them. That is their parental right. I just feel there should be rules in place to ensure that they actually exercise that parental control. Too often, we give kids too little credit. If a kid wants an "M" rated game, they'll secure the money in some clever fashion from their parents. If we make their parents actually be present to buy it, that adds another layer of security. This to me is not exactly a crazy idea.
http://www.mmorpg.com
To me, the difference between a parent buying a child a game and a child buying the game themselves is an important distinction. I firmly believe that it should be to parents, not the government, to regulate what their child sees or does not see. This should apply to video games and films alike. Thus, if regulations are in place to prevent kids from buying the games themsleves, that means the parent must be blatantly aware of the situation in order for their child to have the game.
Now, you can say that the parent must be aware for the 12 year old to accumulate the 60 dollars necessary to buy the game, but let's be honest. That just isn't true. I remember being 12. I could convince my parents to give me money on perfectly innocent grounds, even if my intentions were not equally innocent. For example, I used to travel to the corner store to rent movies. My parents would give me the six dollars I needed, but they had no control over content. That store would let me rent whatever I wanted.
By making it necessary for the store to check my ID, you ensure that the parents are actively aware of what their child is viewing. If they still approve, then all the power to them. That is their parental right. I just feel there should be rules in place to ensure that they actually exercise that parental control. Too often, we give kids too little credit. If a kid wants an "M" rated game, they'll secure the money in some clever fashion from their parents. If we make their parents actually be present to buy it, that adds another layer of security. This to me is not exactly a crazy idea.
Original Comment by: Adriana Aires
Just to answer some of the comments about my lines saying:
"Saying that it is terrible to let the government regulate what is appropiate or not, sounds a lot like the argumentation against governments criminalising beating of children, spouse beating or marital rape, when those things were up on the board years ago. Which creates some thoughts, but then again, I don't know if I would like the government of the USA to come into my home ;-)"
What I meant by these lines was that sometimes it's not bad letting the government have influence and give guidelines in what is accepted or not by the country's culture. What I wanted to acknowledge was that the same arguments have been used before in a very different context that we don't want to (I think) be grouped together with.
I'm not at all for censorship, but I'm not against regulations.
Just to answer some of the comments about my lines saying:
"Saying that it is terrible to let the government regulate what is appropiate or not, sounds a lot like the argumentation against governments criminalising beating of children, spouse beating or marital rape, when those things were up on the board years ago. Which creates some thoughts, but then again, I don't know if I would like the government of the USA to come into my home ;-)"
What I meant by these lines was that sometimes it's not bad letting the government have influence and give guidelines in what is accepted or not by the country's culture. What I wanted to acknowledge was that the same arguments have been used before in a very different context that we don't want to (I think) be grouped together with.
I'm not at all for censorship, but I'm not against regulations.