Tanya Byron's Videogame Report is out

Æthelred

The UK government launched a review on the video-game rating system last year and it's reported back now. It was headed by the (TV) pyschologist Tanya Byron, who said at the time: "Video gaming and the internet themselves are a very positive and important part of children's and young children's growing up and learning and development. But it is also about saying where are the risks?"

Now it's given its recommendations (you can read the full pdf here)

And.. it's not that bad. It's a bit of a fudge, really. UK videogames at the moment have two ratings on them - the (UK) BBFC (who do films as well) rating (if the game is violent) and the (EU) PEGI rating. The report recommends that the BBFC rating be applied to all games - so 12s, as well as 15s and 18s. The PEGI rating will still be there, but will be pushed onto the back of the box.

This means the BBFC will have to rate something like 4 or 5 times as many games a year. That's going to be a real strain on them - unlike the ERSB, the BBFC actually play all the videogames they rate.

I'm a bit baffled Byron could honestly say that the rating system at the moment is confusing. If you watch the first video on the BBC, they scroll past video-game boxes and you can see the great big 12+, 15+. 18+ on them.. Standardising the ratings with the film industry even more is definitely a good thing, but I worry that it'll affect the quality of the BBFC's rating procedure.

APZonerunner

All good stuff in my opinion.

Bring on one standardised ratings system for games. Rate them all via the BBFC or set up a new government agency purely dedicated to rating games, and leave the BBFC to film. All ratings should be law, meaning if a stores sells GTA to a child they can get sued.

The best thing to do would be to poach some people from the BBFC and set it up as an offshoot organisation - the BBGC or something.

The_Scarab

Saw this on BBC news this morning on the way to work.

They interviewed 'gamers' for their opinion on the matter.

Let's just say that my definition of gamer is different than the BBCs definition. Think that asshole in that PS3 trail from e3 'Im gonna beat you and its gonna hurt, and i dont know why'

darleysam

The_Scarab wrote: »

Saw this on BBC news this morning on the way to work.

They interviewed 'gamers' for their opinion on the matter.

Let's just say that my definition of gamer is different than the BBCs definition. Think that asshole in that PS3 trail from e3 'Im gonna beat you and its gonna hurt, and i dont know why'

Well-played BBC.
:x

Read about this on Eurogamer, and while I've not had time to go over everything said, it sounds like it's positive stuff. Now to see what the tabloids make of it.
"Parents outraged as Byron backs violent video-games"

Æthelred

APZonerunner wrote: »

All ratings should be law, meaning if a stores sells GTA to a child they can get sued.

That's already law; although (if it's the same as knives etc) then it's the individual seller that gets fined.

LewieP

Bad -
Ratings system was broken before, still broken now.
Mainstream media will still fail to understand the issues.
Extremists (on all sides of the argument) will not be satisfied by this

Good -
Vaguely rational realisation that games are not teh evil by someone who apparently has the public and governments respect.
No attempt to ban 18 certificate games.

davidbarry

APZonerunner wrote: »

All ratings should be law, meaning if a stores sells GTA to a child they can get sued.

I'm not really sure why you want the government messing around with mediums of expression, even if it's the sale end of things. I understand the principle of keeping violent, perhaps inappropriate material out of the hands of people who are not ready to play them, I'm just not sure that it needs to be enforced by law. When it comes to kids, the onus should be on the parents to protect them, not the government.

Æthelred

Reading the Daily Mail, so you don't have to!

Computer games will be given tough new [??] cinema-style age ratings under proposals to protect children from violent material.

The age guidance would be printed clearly and prominently on its sleeve in a way that can be understood by parents who are not computer savvy.

Since when does looking at a picture need computer-saviness?

At present, only about 10 per cent of computer games - those featuring "gross" violence or offensive sexual images - are covered by an age classification system overseen by the British Board of Film Classification. Other games come under a separate, entirely voluntary European-wide scheme, meaning that less than three per cent of games carry an 18 certificate.

This is a very clever paragraph. There are no lies in it, but a casual reader comes away from it thinking that violent games are slipping through the rating net. The reason that only 3/4% of games receive an 18-certificate because only that many deserve an 18 certificate. The vast majority of games are U / T.

She said all games consoles should include a blocking mechanism so parents could stop children watching unsuitable games on them.

Top research there, Tanya. Top research.

LewieP

davidbarry wrote: »

APZonerunner wrote: »

All ratings should be law, meaning if a stores sells GTA to a child they can get sued.

I'm not really sure why you want the government messing around with mediums of expression, even if it's the sale end of things. I understand the principle of keeping violent, perhaps inappropriate material out of the hands of people who are not ready to play them, I'm just not sure that it needs to be enforced by law. When it comes to kids, the onus should be on the parents to protect them, not the government.

If we don't have an infrastructure in place which completely enforces the ratings system, then the ratings system as a whole is undermined.

It is much easier to make an argument for strict censorship of games if the ratings system is moot.

darleysam

Æthelred wrote: »

Reading the Daily Mail, so you don't have to!

Computer games will be given tough new [??] cinema-style age ratings under proposals to protect children from violent material.

The age guidance would be printed clearly and prominently on its sleeve in a way that can be understood by parents who are not computer savvy.

Since when does looking at a picture need computer-saviness?

At present, only about 10 per cent of computer games - those featuring "gross" violence or offensive sexual images - are covered by an age classification system overseen by the British Board of Film Classification. Other games come under a separate, entirely voluntary European-wide scheme, meaning that less than three per cent of games carry an 18 certificate.

This is a very clever paragraph. There are no lies in it, but a casual reader comes away from it thinking that violent games are slipping through the rating net. The reason that only 3/4% of games receive an 18-certificate because only that many deserve an 18 certificate. The vast majority of games are U / T.

She said all games consoles should include a blocking mechanism so parents could stop children watching unsuitable games on them.

Top research there, Tanya. Top research.

:x
I can only fear what the Express will have in it.

Æthelred

This part of the report is quite.. ironic, really:

Overall parents feel that deciding what games are appropriate has to be their decision
because it depends on their child, but that they would welcome clearer and more specific
guidance explaining the rationale for the age ratings. In particular, some parents assume
that the ratings would be too conservative and hence ignore them.

The_Scarab

Æthelred wrote: »

She said all games consoles should include a blocking mechanism so parents could stop children watching unsuitable games on them.

Top research there, Tanya. Top research.

If only there was some... thing which controlled the purchases children made. Some kind of large child, more powerful than the others. Older too. Some kind of adult or something who was in charge of those children and was responsible for controlled what kind of games they played.

Edcrab

Oh god. So in other words parents have an inexplicable brain-block regarding games and games ratings and this is somehow the fault of the industry?

I'd love to see one of you guys interviewed in a rag like the Mail, even if you're having to deflect questions from the most ignorant and sensationalist journalists imaginable. I find it too irksome for words that the topic is so poorly represented.

LewieP

Recently an MP came up with the suggestion that all web pages should be password protected, and only adults should have access to the password.

Scooter

A blocker on the system makes a lot more sense to me than fining people for selling video games. The system should pretty much always be under the parent's control, while there's tons of ways to get games from other sources, and if a parent feels their kid can handle the games then they'd be able to go buy them on their own.

Æthelred

The Report wrote:

There is no clear evidence of desensitisation in children

6.39 Some researchers have argued for a desensitization effect of violent content. That is,
repeated exposure to media violence such as in video games, will lead to a decreased brain
and physiological response. This blunting of players’ reactions could remove their normal
inhibitions against aggression and lead to increased aggressive behaviour (Bartholow,
Bushman and Sestir, 2006). There seems to be some evidence from adults that heart rate
and some brain responses normalize after prolonged playing of violent video games which
would suggest desensitisation in adults (Carnagey, Anderson and Bartholow 2007;
Bartholow et al, 2006). However,

Daily Mail wrote:

A Government-commissioned report - welcomed by Gordon Brown today - says video games can harm the development of children's beliefs and value systems - and desensitise them to violence.

raised eyebrow

Æthelred

Scooter wrote: »

A blocker on the system makes a lot more sense to me than fining people for selling video games. The system should pretty much always be under the parent's control, while there's tons of ways to get games from other sources, and if a parent feels their kid can handle the games then they'd be able to go buy them on their own.

I don't know if my point was missed but.. all three current consoles have parent-locking systems on them.

The_Scarab

I'll tell you one thing. Putting a child lock on something is only going to make the kid want it more.

When I have kids Im not going to ban them playing GTA10 or whatever, Im going to tell when why it is not suitable.

Flat out locking the child out of the system means:

A: They can and will often end up buying games that the system wont let them play, aka a waste of their and by extension, my money.

B: Loopholes will be found instantly and passed around, making what they are doing illicit and more daring, aka more popular.

darleysam

Æthelred wrote: »

The Report wrote:

There is no clear evidence of desensitisation in children

6.39 Some researchers have argued for a desensitization effect of violent content. That is,
repeated exposure to media violence such as in video games, will lead to a decreased brain
and physiological response. This blunting of players’ reactions could remove their normal
inhibitions against aggression and lead to increased aggressive behaviour (Bartholow,
Bushman and Sestir, 2006). There seems to be some evidence from adults that heart rate
and some brain responses normalize after prolonged playing of violent video games which
would suggest desensitisation in adults (Carnagey, Anderson and Bartholow 2007;
Bartholow et al, 2006). However,

A Government-commissioned report - welcomed by Gordon Brown today - says video games can harm the development of children's beliefs and value systems - and desensitise them to violence.

raised eyebrow

What the holy hell?
Is that the Mail?

Edcrab

"A" should really be a null issue if the sales were enforced, which is one of the few aspects I wouldn't have any problem with. I support any retail outlet that expects ID for age-restricted products.

Still, yeah, child locks are just daft. If the kid really is that young I can't understand how they could get access to that sort of material without parental knowledge in the first place.

davidbarry

LewieP wrote: »

davidbarry wrote: »

APZonerunner wrote: »

All ratings should be law, meaning if a stores sells GTA to a child they can get sued.

I'm not really sure why you want the government messing around with mediums of expression, even if it's the sale end of things. I understand the principle of keeping violent, perhaps inappropriate material out of the hands of people who are not ready to play them, I'm just not sure that it needs to be enforced by law. When it comes to kids, the onus should be on the parents to protect them, not the government.

If we don't have an infrastructure in place which completely enforces the ratings system, then the ratings system as a whole is undermined.

It is much easier to make an argument for strict censorship of games if the ratings system is moot.

Well, movie ratings (at least here in Canada) are not enforced by law, and everyone seems to be doing just fine. In fact, the only real problem with the system is the natural issue with any rating system; you will never see a perfect one, which means certain movies are either going to be rated too mature or too young, and the whole system breaks.

I see your point, but I guess I don't believe in the government-as-parents angle.

taliosfalcon

Æthelred wrote: »

This part of the report is quite.. ironic, really:

Overall parents feel that deciding what games are appropriate has to be their decision
because it depends on their child, but that they would welcome clearer and more specific
guidance explaining the rationale for the age ratings. In particular, some parents assume
that the ratings would be too conservative and hence ignore them.

I think this really hit the nail on the head. Maybe if the ratings weren't so conservative more people would listen to them. Its not that parents are assuming they're too conservative, its that if they have normal, well raised children and not small psychopaths who were completely ignored by their parents except for the occasional beating they are too conservative

Snare

So lets make sure they get strict like they do with alcohol, so you can't go into a shop with your mummy and daddy/older sibling to buy games. EVEN IF YOU ARE CARRYING A BABY, they shouldn't let you in theory, or that's what supermarkets are leading me to believe...

Anyway, it's a positive step, maybe we will hear less things like "I didn't know GTA wasn't for 6 year olds"

Zilla360

Looking at my games collection, at least eight of them have the BBFC rating clearly displayed on the front and side of the case; I really can't see how the ratings system could be seen as confusing at all. The PEGI system could be clearer though, or phased out in favour of the BBFC.

Scooter

Æthelred wrote: »

Scooter wrote: »

A blocker on the system makes a lot more sense to me than fining people for selling video games. The system should pretty much always be under the parent's control, while there's tons of ways to get games from other sources, and if a parent feels their kid can handle the games then they'd be able to go buy them on their own.

I don't know if my point was missed but.. all three current consoles have parent-locking systems on them.

I'm a PC gamer, my entire current-gen console experience is an hour or so on one of my friend's Wiis when he was in town for Xmas.

LewieP

You know, when I was a kid, my parents told me what games I could and couldn't play. If they bought me a new game which they knew nothing about they watched me play it, or asked what it was like in the shop.

I was taught that I should not play certain types of games, and why. Whenever I went round to a friends house, if they decided to play violent games I left the room, or suggested we played something else.

Hell, I can think of a dozen games which a five year old could buy that have violent concepts in them (even if they are very abstract graphically) DEFCON is probably one of the most violent games ever, but (iirc) it has no age certificate.

Parents know their kids, or at least good ones do, and the best way to ensure healthy development for them is to interact with them, and be a part of their hobbies. Discuss why they like playing games. If it's things like puzzle solving, lateral thinking, pattern recognition, story or challenge then great, find a bunch of games that are appropriate for them that contain those kind of things. If they like violence, gore, crime, bad language and sexism, then it is the parents job to teach them otherwise, explain to them why these things are bad and direct them towards more positive hobbies.

Ratings system is borken.....blah blah blah....good parents are good parents, bad ones are not....blah blah blah....

You've all heard this before, it's not you guys that need to hear this. I think I'll make a blog post later.

Æthelred

The content of the report itself really is quite balanced:

6.42 It would not be accurate to say that there is no evidence of harm but equally it is not
appropriate to conclude that there is evidence of no harm. Relatively small and short-term
effects of playing violent video games on young children‘s behaviour and attitudes have
been demonstrated, but many questions remain about how to interpret this at an
individual level or it’s meaning for behaviour and attitudes in the real world. Research has
not taken a strong developmental perspective and I believe this is a key factor, as children
of different ages have different levels of skill and understanding about the world (e.g.
critical evaluation, ability to make judgments) which will impact on how they interpret
content, their behaviour and their understanding of the world.


The benefits and risks of online gaming are analogous to those from the
internet more generally


6.41 Most researchers consulted during the Review would say that they believe there is some
kind of effect of inappropriate content on some children in some contexts and
circumstances. But the right studies are lacking due to the nature and complexity of the
problem and because a truly robust longitudinal research approach to this question would
simply be unethical (i.e. to let children play violent games over time and assess the effects
on their attitudes, beliefs and behaviour). However, there is also a strong view held by
some academics, many of whom are based in the United States, that there is clear evidence
of (short-term) harmful effects of video game violence on children and young people which
has been published in a number of prestigious academic journals. There is little middle
ground to be found in this debate. It is difficult to base policy responses on such polarised
research evidence.

Æthelred

LewieP wrote: »

You know, when I was a kid, my parents told me what games I could and couldn't play. If they bought me a new game which they knew nothing about they watched me play it, or asked what it was like in the shop.

<snip>

I have good parents too, but they simply didn't understand video-games. I bought all mine on my own from about 12 onwards, often over the internet. Most parents just don't think about video-games in the same way they do films, vis a vis violence. And I played most my games in the main living room. I think I only ever bought one 18-rated game before I was 18, though (Perfect Dark). Shadowman swearing annoyed my dad more than anything..

Hopefully this report will at least help in the process of educating parents further. There's some good pages in there with mnemonics and things. Of course, probably most people will read the media report of the report, tut disdainfully to themselves and then carry on giving their children hooker-beating games.

APZonerunner

davidbarry wrote: »

APZonerunner wrote: »

All ratings should be law, meaning if a stores sells GTA to a child they can get sued.

I'm not really sure why you want the government messing around with mediums of expression, even if it's the sale end of things. I understand the principle of keeping violent, perhaps inappropriate material out of the hands of people who are not ready to play them, I'm just not sure that it needs to be enforced by law. When it comes to kids, the onus should be on the parents to protect them, not the government.

I don't want the government messing with mediums of expression. Not at all. Rockstar can make what they want - likewise for all the game companies. They can release it too.

What I want is that if that game is rated 18, if it is sold to a person under 18, the store is penalized. Severely.

If a parent brings the game to the counter with their child, the store should warn them of the content. Just like movie ratings here, if the parent chooses to ignore the warning and buy it anyway, it's their problem.

But individual sales of these items to kids needs to be stopped by law. That's the way with movies. Why not with games?

Æthelred wrote:

That's already law; although (if it's the same as knives etc) then it's the individual seller that gets fined.

You're right and you're wrong. It's currently the law for BBFC rated games (like GTA) - but a PEGI rated game can be sold to anyone with no consequences whatsoever. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is a strange instance of this, for example - lots of blood, lots of swearing, death, adult themes, horror elements with people dying in chemical attacks and whatnot. PEGI 16. Can be sold to a 6 year old if the store wants to. This shouldn't be allowed.

Surely it should be rated the same as something comperable - say a Season of 24, featuring most of the same themes - that's rated a 15, and if it's sold to somebody under that age the store and clerk can be prosecuted.

Once again - if a parent wants to buy it - their choice. But kids shouldn't be able to buy this shit on their own. What's even more bizaare about my example is Vegas 2 didn't qualify for 'proper' rating, yet Halo 3 got a 15, and to me is much less brutal. This system is shit, basically.

The government needs to
a) Set a Standard for ratings for videogames, as they are for film. These ratings should effect all games and stores breaking them should face the consequences
b) Educate parents about the ratings and what they mean. Many parents wouldn't let their child watch The Godfather or Scarface, but would quite happy buy their son GTA despite the big fat 18 certificate on the front (which is bigger than the film ones, for christs' sake!) There's clearly a lack of understanding here.

I don't want to sound like Jack Thompson. I don't agree with censorship. I think all games and movies should be released, no matter the content. All I believe is that if a game is deemed violent enough to recieve a rating, it becomes law that it not be sold to somebody below that age without parental consent.

PEGI do a good job, but they're a chocolate teapot. They're 'guidelines', and mean nothing to parents or gamers.

Khavall

davidbarry wrote: »

APZonerunner wrote: »

All ratings should be law, meaning if a stores sells GTA to a child they can get sued.

I'm not really sure why you want the government messing around with mediums of expression, even if it's the sale end of things. I understand the principle of keeping violent, perhaps inappropriate material out of the hands of people who are not ready to play them, I'm just not sure that it needs to be enforced by law. When it comes to kids, the onus should be on the parents to protect them, not the government.

Remember that this report was given in the UK.

Remember that Europeans hate freedom.

By which I mean it's not as unheard of there for the government to step in and censor artistic expression.

Æthelred

This report recommends most the things you want, then, APZonerunner. I think we all agree the system should be standardised. None of the UK people posting in the last few threads we've had on tihs subject have the same irrational American quibbles over 'free speech' etc.

‘Gamesmart’

Picture a scene; your child comes running up
to with a game that has an 18 on it. What do you
do? First of all, always read the box, don’t naturally
assume the game is Ok as it’s just a game or its morally
dubious, neither are true. Also, if you have concerns,
research is key, find out what the game is about, always read
the back as most games have a description of content and, most
importantly, talk to your child, find out why they want it, and
see if a more suitable alternative is available.

Also, encourage them to talk about their games and what they
actually do in them, communication is great in anything and
its criminal to neglect it here as well, so find out what they
have to do, watch what they do and play for yourself to get
a feel of it. Just like music and movies, games aren’t just
for children, many are designed for adults and mature
audiences, so playing and seeing this first hand is
the best way to make sure your child isn’t playing
anything inappropriate.

Ben Tyrer, 12

Nice.

Khavall

APZonerunner wrote: »

What I want is that if that game is rated 18, if it is sold to a person under 18, the store is penalized. Severely.

If a parent brings the game to the counter with their child, the store should warn them of the content. Just like movie ratings here, if the parent chooses to ignore the warning and buy it anyway, it's their problem.

But individual sales of these items to kids needs to be stopped by law. That's the way with movies. Why not with games?

In America that is not the way with movies.

APZonerunner

Khavall wrote: »

davidbarry wrote: »

APZonerunner wrote: »

All ratings should be law, meaning if a stores sells GTA to a child they can get sued.

I'm not really sure why you want the government messing around with mediums of expression, even if it's the sale end of things. I understand the principle of keeping violent, perhaps inappropriate material out of the hands of people who are not ready to play them, I'm just not sure that it needs to be enforced by law. When it comes to kids, the onus should be on the parents to protect them, not the government.

Remember that this report was given in the UK.

Remember that Europeans hate freedom.

By which I mean it's not as unheard of there for the government to step in and censor artistic expression.

It's nothing to do with fucking freedom, it's to do with the sale of these items to minors. Jesus christ, an 18 rated game should be treated the same as a pint of beer - a kid can't walk into a pub and buy one until he's 18, but then again if his dad wants to get him a birthday drink at any age, he can.

Reading comprehension, I mean christ - they're not talking about banning the games, they're talking about better ratings and penalizing those who break the rules the ratings set out.

LewieP

The BBFC tried pretty hard to bad manhunt 2, I am pretty sure the only reason it got a release was that Rockstar out-lawyered them and agreed to censorship.

darleysam

Æthelred wrote: »

This report recommends most the things you want, then, APZonerunner. I think we all agree the system should be standardised. None of the UK people posting in the last few threads we've had on tihs subject have the same irrational American quibbles over 'free speech' etc.

‘Gamesmart’

Picture a scene; your child comes running up
to with a game that has an 18 on it. What do you
do? First of all, always read the box, don’t naturally
assume the game is Ok as it’s just a game or its morally
dubious, neither are true. Also, if you have concerns,
research is key, find out what the game is about, always read
the back as most games have a description of content and, most
importantly, talk to your child, find out why they want it, and
see if a more suitable alternative is available.

Also, encourage them to talk about their games and what they
actually do in them, communication is great in anything and
its criminal to neglect it here as well, so find out what they
have to do, watch what they do and play for yourself to get
a feel of it. Just like music and movies, games aren’t just
for children, many are designed for adults and mature
audiences, so playing and seeing this first hand is
the best way to make sure your child isn’t playing
anything inappropriate.

Ben Tyrer, 12

Nice.

This should be printed off and put through the door of every parent in the country.

LewieP

He's 12?!?

Awesome

Khavall

APZonerunner wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

davidbarry wrote: »

APZonerunner wrote: »

All ratings should be law, meaning if a stores sells GTA to a child they can get sued.

I'm not really sure why you want the government messing around with mediums of expression, even if it's the sale end of things. I understand the principle of keeping violent, perhaps inappropriate material out of the hands of people who are not ready to play them, I'm just not sure that it needs to be enforced by law. When it comes to kids, the onus should be on the parents to protect them, not the government.

Remember that this report was given in the UK.

Remember that Europeans hate freedom.

By which I mean it's not as unheard of there for the government to step in and censor artistic expression.

It's nothing to do with fucking freedom, it's to do with the sale of these items to minors. Jesus christ, an 18 rated game should be treated the same as a pint of beer - a kid can't walk into a pub and buy one until he's 18, but then again if his dad wants to get him a birthday drink at any age, he can.

Reading comprehension, I mean christ - they're not talking about banning the games, they're talking about better ratings and penalizing those who break the rules the ratings set out.

You cannot be comparing Alcoholic beverages with Games.

There is no way you can make that comparison like it's valid seriously.

I agree that M games shouldn't be sold to younger audiences. I do not agree that the government should censor artistic expression in any way.

Dr Snofeld

Khavall wrote: »

APZonerunner wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

davidbarry wrote: »

APZonerunner wrote: »

All ratings should be law, meaning if a stores sells GTA to a child they can get sued.

I'm not really sure why you want the government messing around with mediums of expression, even if it's the sale end of things. I understand the principle of keeping violent, perhaps inappropriate material out of the hands of people who are not ready to play them, I'm just not sure that it needs to be enforced by law. When it comes to kids, the onus should be on the parents to protect them, not the government.

Remember that this report was given in the UK.

Remember that Europeans hate freedom.

By which I mean it's not as unheard of there for the government to step in and censor artistic expression.

It's nothing to do with fucking freedom, it's to do with the sale of these items to minors. Jesus christ, an 18 rated game should be treated the same as a pint of beer - a kid can't walk into a pub and buy one until he's 18, but then again if his dad wants to get him a birthday drink at any age, he can.

Reading comprehension, I mean christ - they're not talking about banning the games, they're talking about better ratings and penalizing those who break the rules the ratings set out.

You cannot be comparing Alcoholic beverages with Games.

There is no way you can make that comparison like it's valid seriously.

I agree that M games shouldn't be sold to younger audiences. I do not agree that the government should censor artistic expression in any way.

But nothing's being censored. The games still reach their target audience, after all.

APZonerunner

Khavall wrote: »

APZonerunner wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

davidbarry wrote: »

APZonerunner wrote: »

All ratings should be law, meaning if a stores sells GTA to a child they can get sued.

I'm not really sure why you want the government messing around with mediums of expression, even if it's the sale end of things. I understand the principle of keeping violent, perhaps inappropriate material out of the hands of people who are not ready to play them, I'm just not sure that it needs to be enforced by law. When it comes to kids, the onus should be on the parents to protect them, not the government.

Remember that this report was given in the UK.

Remember that Europeans hate freedom.

By which I mean it's not as unheard of there for the government to step in and censor artistic expression.

It's nothing to do with fucking freedom, it's to do with the sale of these items to minors. Jesus christ, an 18 rated game should be treated the same as a pint of beer - a kid can't walk into a pub and buy one until he's 18, but then again if his dad wants to get him a birthday drink at any age, he can.

Reading comprehension, I mean christ - they're not talking about banning the games, they're talking about better ratings and penalizing those who break the rules the ratings set out.

You cannot be comparing Alcoholic beverages with Games.

There is no way you can make that comparison like it's valid seriously.

I agree that M games shouldn't be sold to younger audiences. I do not agree that the government should censor artistic expression in any way.

Did you read my posts at all? I'm not suggesting the government censor artistic expression, and neither are the recommendations made in this report - they're just suggesting that a kid shouldn't be able to walk into a shop and buy an 18 rated game like Grand Theft Auto - and if they are able to, the store faces major fines and worse as doing so is breaking the law.

I'm not comparing the effects of videogames to alcohol, but I'm saying the system should be handled the same - a child should not be able to go and buy it (or in the case of games, a rated game) from a store. However, if the parent decides they don't mind - as my parents did with booze when I hit my teens, they can go and buy it for them no problem.

Snare

That's pretty advanced english for a 12 year old, doubt I coulda come up with that and I supposedly have an A-Level in English...

The Deliverator

Khavall wrote: »

APZonerunner wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

davidbarry wrote: »

APZonerunner wrote: »

All ratings should be law, meaning if a stores sells GTA to a child they can get sued.

I'm not really sure why you want the government messing around with mediums of expression, even if it's the sale end of things. I understand the principle of keeping violent, perhaps inappropriate material out of the hands of people who are not ready to play them, I'm just not sure that it needs to be enforced by law. When it comes to kids, the onus should be on the parents to protect them, not the government.

Remember that this report was given in the UK.

Remember that Europeans hate freedom.

By which I mean it's not as unheard of there for the government to step in and censor artistic expression.

It's nothing to do with fucking freedom, it's to do with the sale of these items to minors. Jesus christ, an 18 rated game should be treated the same as a pint of beer - a kid can't walk into a pub and buy one until he's 18, but then again if his dad wants to get him a birthday drink at any age, he can.

Reading comprehension, I mean christ - they're not talking about banning the games, they're talking about better ratings and penalizing those who break the rules the ratings set out.

You cannot be comparing Alcoholic beverages with Games.

There is no way you can make that comparison like it's valid seriously.

I agree that M games shouldn't be sold to younger audiences. I do not agree that the government should censor artistic expression in any way.

You're failing at reading comprehension here. No one is asking for censorship. No one is saying these games shouldn't come out. All that is being requested is that they are rated fairly, and that the ratings are enforced when the game is purchased. That's not censorship.