The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
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.
Even if you do view this as censorship, our concept of free speech has always accepted certain contextual limits. John Stuart Mill wrote, to paraphrase, that one should always be free to criticise somebody in the press, but that one shouldn't be able to make a defamatory speech to a rowdy mob outside that person's house.
Of course, children aren't a rowdy pitchfork-wielding mob - mostly - but the principle that there are certain contexts in which absolute freedom of expression is inappropriate remains.
Even if you do view this as censorship, our concept of free speech has always accepted certain contextual limits. John Stuart Mill wrote, to paraphrase, that one should always be free to criticise somebody in the press, but that one shouldn't be able to make a defamatory speech to a rowdy mob outside that person's house.
Of course, children aren't a rowdy pitchfork-wielding mob - mostly - but the principle that there are certain contexts in which absolute freedom of expression is inappropriate remains.
Until children playing video games is a public health issue then I can't see a justification for governmental suppression of distribution.
I mean, yeah, if games were like alcohol, cigarettes, or porn, then sure, legally restrict them.
But really? Is that what we're seeing games as? They cause as much psychological damage as porn? Or as much physical damage as alcohol/cigarettes? They cause mass confusion/terror that could result in injury like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater? Maybe I've been playing a different set of games, but I don't think that we're really there with games.
I'm not saying that games should be distributed freely to children of any ages regardless of the games content, I'm saying that the government should not step in and stop distribution of the item to certain audiences, and that it should be a voluntary choice on the part of the retailers, such as is the case with movies, and for that matter any other multimedia, mixed media, or single media.
Khavall on
0
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
I can't believe (retarded) parents find it complicated to understand a game that has 16+ written on the frond AND back of it. What do you think their reactions are, "I wonder what this 16+ means?!"
The current PEGI ratings looks very similar to the kinds of age ratings you get on toys and boardgames.
Unlike video games, which are a rating based on content, board games and kids toys are rated on suitability, ie danger to health eg small objects, difficulty, concepts etc.
Even if you do view this as censorship, our concept of free speech has always accepted certain contextual limits. John Stuart Mill wrote, to paraphrase, that one should always be free to criticise somebody in the press, but that one shouldn't be able to make a defamatory speech to a rowdy mob outside that person's house.
Of course, children aren't a rowdy pitchfork-wielding mob - mostly - but the principle that there are certain contexts in which absolute freedom of expression is inappropriate remains.
Until children playing video games is a public health issue then I can't see a justification for governmental suppression of distribution.
I mean, yeah, if games were like alcohol, cigarettes, or porn, then sure, legally restrict them.
But really? Is that what we're seeing games as? They cause as much psychological damage as porn? Or as much physical damage as alcohol/cigarettes? Maybe I've been playing a different set of games, but I don't think that we're really there with games.
I'm not saying that games should be distributed freely to children of any ages regardless of the games content, I'm saying that the government should not step in and stop distribution of the item to certain audiences.
Yes, but to continue the analogy, the pitchfork wielding mob may have a low probability of attacking the man's house, but any actions that raise that probability ought to be prevented. So it is with videogames - the average joe has a low probability of acting out the scenes of violence, but a kid already displaying various risk factors is more likely to be influenced - both subtly and directly. I certainly don't think that games should be singled out compared to movies, video etc, but nevertheless, some sort of safeguard is needed.
And besides, parents can always ignore the government warnings anyway.; it isn't as if families are being forced to avoid certain games.
Even if you do view this as censorship, our concept of free speech has always accepted certain contextual limits. John Stuart Mill wrote, to paraphrase, that one should always be free to criticise somebody in the press, but that one shouldn't be able to make a defamatory speech to a rowdy mob outside that person's house.
Of course, children aren't a rowdy pitchfork-wielding mob - mostly - but the principle that there are certain contexts in which absolute freedom of expression is inappropriate remains.
Until children playing video games is a public health issue then I can't see a justification for governmental suppression of distribution.
I mean, yeah, if games were like alcohol, cigarettes, or porn, then sure, legally restrict them.
But really? Is that what we're seeing games as? They cause as much psychological damage as porn? Or as much physical damage as alcohol/cigarettes? Maybe I've been playing a different set of games, but I don't think that we're really there with games.
I'm not saying that games should be distributed freely to children of any ages regardless of the games content, I'm saying that the government should not step in and stop distribution of the item to certain audiences.
Yes, but to continue the analogy, the pitchfork wielding mob may have a low probability of attacking the man's house, but any actions that raise that probability ought to be prevented. So it is with videogames - the average joe has a low probability of acting out the scenes of violence, but a kid already displaying various risk factors is more likely to be influenced - both subtly and directly. I certainly don't think that games should be singled out compared to movies, video etc, but nevertheless, some sort of safeguard is needed.
And besides, parents can always ignore the government warnings anyway.; it isn't as if families are being forced to avoid certain games.
See though it's two ways of approaching the same end. I'm advocating the stores make the decisions and inform the parents, in order to keep the distribution free and open, based on the judgment of those who are involved with the games(Realtors and the ESRB), and the child(Parents), instead of having the Government, who are involved with neither the games nor the children on an individual level, thus trusting the third party of the ESRB/PEGI/BBFC, which is not a government body(Or is the BBFC? Either way), restricting the sale on a larger basis, and leaving those close to the games and child to make the decision to lift the restriction on the sale.
One provides free distribution save in cases where inappropriate, in a perfect world, the other restricts and suppresses distribution save in cases where deemed appropriate, in a perfect world.
By leaving the material completely uncensored(And yes, suppressing the sale to large groups of people is censorship) by a governmental and/or third party institution, the medium can continue to grow and stretch as an artistic medium, similar to other forms of non-censored media, where leaving it censored would do nothing to help the medium, and would be more likely to harm the medium.
The last 5-6 times I've bought M-rated games I've been informed of the rating, and had it explained to me.
I am 20. I often get confused for 25-ish. The retailers still inform me that, just in case I'm buying for someone else, or don't know what I'm buying, the game is inappropriate for those under 17.
I'm fairly sure that most game store cashiers aren't working on commission, so I really doubt they're too concerned about how much money they make the company.
And it's not because of the "honor" system, it's because they want to avoid stupid moron parents who bitch because they're stupid moron parents and blame the company, that's why even if it's not 100% of the time followed through on, most companies that sell games have company policy against selling M rated games to those under 17.
:x
I can only fear what the Express will have in it.
Diana.
Funny story, I went to their site to see if they had any mention of it. Brought up the search page, and the example search it came up with?
Princess Diana.
:x
I've just had a long discussion with LewieP about this, and have decided to add my twopennorthworth.
Being a parent is a difficult, never-ending, hard job, IF you take it seriously. I do. Its also the most amazing, rewarding, exciting, challenging thing I've ever done in my life.
I am responsible for the emotional, intellectual, moral, social, spiritual and physical well-being of my children. OK, they are both adults now, so technically they are responsible for themselves, but 1) hey, I'm a mummy, that'll never stop and 2) I currently foster 4 children part time, aged 7, 8, 14 and 16, and am responsible for them when they're with me. I think I'm doing a good job as a parent/foster carer - I look at my children/foster children for the evidence.
Good kids don't happen by accident, they happen through good parenting, good, positive adult role models, consistency, walking the talk. When my children were younger, I knew what they watched, played, who they played with, what they were up to. Not in a Big Brother way, but because I was responsible for what they experienced, it was my job to teach them right from wrong, good from bad, so that they'd know how to make the best decisions for themselves as they grew older.
That included internet access, video games, books, TV programmes. I learnt about stuff so I could talk sense with them, I learnt to be interested in what they were interested in, so they felt valued and appreciated, that their views mattered. I explained why I thought things were good/not good for them, so that they could make reasoned judgements themselves when I wasn't there. All this took time, but was sooo worth it.
It makes me so cross when I hear parents giving in to their children, cos its "easier". One of my previous foster children was allowed/forced to watch Child's Play (violent, scary 18 film with a character called Chucky in it) when only 4. Another had Spiderman the film bought for them when age 6 - it was a 12! Their parent tried to make me take it with me when their child came for the weekend. I explained it was unsuitable and I wouldn't allow the child to watch it in my house. They remonstrated 4 times before they gave up. Its the same with the games he has access to - I've confiscated his DS because of the games he's brought with him.
Films have certificates for a reason, so do games. it is so frustrating when parents either ignore the rating or don't care. I have disagreements with my 16 year old over what films/TV I will allow her to watch, no doubt if she played video games, we would have the same disagreements. We disagree because I care about her and what goes into her head.
One of my friends teaches primary school, the stuff her class talk about watching is dreadful, 6 year olds should not be watching violent, scary programmes, but their parents let them.
My bottom line is I care deeply about what children are exposed to. It doesn't actually matter what certificate something is given, if the parent either ignores/doesn't know/doesn't care/can't be bothered about it. What matters is that parents (and grandparents and aunties/uncles and big sisters and brothers) care about what goes into their children, are involved in what their children do/are interested in, know about what they play/watch, and know that its good for them. Parents need educating about being parents.
LewieP's Mummy on
For all the top UK Gaming Bargains, check out SavyGamer
Ive worked in environments where I had to sell videogames and even with things like GTA, which has a BBFC logo on it, parents would buy it, and promptly hand it to their children. The best thing to come out of this is the acknowledgment that parents must do a bigger part in controlling what their children see.
Interesting side note, possibly for another thread. Would rating games on the same system as films grant them the same artistic status?
Edit: Also lewies mum is bang on. The woman is a saint.
My parents didn't really go by age ratings as such, those were more guidelines (although anything 18 rated was pretty much out right off the bat). In general they knew what I played and whether they thought it was suitable for me to play. And if they didn't, I didn't play it. That's about it. In general if I wanted a game they'd look it over and ask me to describe what the contents were like, and I'd try to respond as best I could.
In response to that and talking with me they knew I was mature enough to handle some things rated over my age range (can you believe it? Dark Forces was rated a 15 when it was released. Come on the Star Wars movies had more violence in them. IIRC TIE Fighter was rated a 12, and all that happened in there was polygon ships falling apart). I figure playing Monkey Island 2 probably taught me a lot more than watching daytime TV anyway. I think that's another thing, they liked some of the games I played and my dad even used to help me play adventure games. Dune II and Sim City were all about Strategy. Prince of Persia was puzzle solving. Heck Another World was absolutely devious in its puzzles, I used to keep him updated on how far I'd gotten and what I'd figured out.
I think it helps that my father is a bit of a technophile, so he knew plenty enough about computers as it is.
the main reason I have a problem with the rating systems pretty much everywhere is that when I was young my parents let me watch and play pretty much everything. As an example they bought me Doom for my 8th birthday the year it came out. That trend continued on through the years until I was an adult. They knew the content the games had, but they also knew I knew it was just a game, and that they had instilled sensible values into me. Long story short I turned out just fine, no history of violence or anything like that despite having played violent games and watched violent movies from a very young age.
I always giggle at the desensitization argument. Which would you prefer, that your child freezes and curls into a little ball when he's faced with violence, or that he can think clearly and come away with a new wallet and a sack of someone else's teeth?*
*Teeth harvesting not guaranteed.
Funny how video games have so little bearing on the fight or flight response in actual encounters, the effect is negligible at best. I do think that a good, honest horror flick can help a kid get over silly shocked reactions at uncommon situations and images, at least. I'd argue that violent games are a helpful learning tool and a real help in education. The more varied and brutally practical knowledge a child learns, the better their chances at survival and success. Who knows? Basic understanding of the use of cover and the dangers of explosives might serve them well one day. And just maybe, maybe, they'll have more fun playing with knives on computer screens than at school.
It is not a crime to know how to operate a firearm or dig a trench from a young age, nor is it entirely a bad thing to be familiar with the interior of the human organism. From media to literature, it's all a matter of knowledge. If you can't plan a hostile takeover or build a house, you've still got a way to go.
See though it's two ways of approaching the same end. I'm advocating the stores make the decisions and inform the parents
Good luck with that. The parents are the problem, remember? At least if there are legal reasons, then perhaps they might understand the importance.
By leaving the material completely uncensored(And yes, suppressing the sale to large groups of people is censorship) by a governmental and/or third party institution, the medium can continue to grow and stretch as an artistic medium, similar to other forms of non-censored media, where leaving it censored would do nothing to help the medium, and would be more likely to harm the medium.
You're American. Only Americans come up with this argument in relation to the British system. British people don't have a problem with restriction of sales of violent or disturbing materials to minors, whether it be a movie or a game. We never have. Americans are inherently mistrustful of any government body, and would wish they went away. The British aren't so scared, and we trust people like the BBFC to do their job effectively, and when they don't, we complain until it changes.
For me, the BBFC have shown themselves to be as capable as any job of opinion can be. Games are not censored. They are just not sold to people who the ratings body say shouldn't see them. And I, as well as many other British people, am fine with that. I actually don't think I've ever actually disagreed with a rating that the BBFC has given to a game. I didn't agree with Carmageddon's ban, but I have to say I can see why Manhunt 2 got the banstick. Those are the only two games that were ever banned for release, and both have been overturned in court.
Just because America manages to get by with a system of voluntary opt-in ratings, doesn't mean other systems that the world uses are "censorship". If you want to talk about censorship, talk about the poor Germans, who have utterly draconian restrictions on their games.
the main reason I have a problem with the rating systems pretty much everywhere is that when I was young my parents let me watch and play pretty much everything. As an example they bought me Doom for my 8th birthday the year it came out. That trend continued on through the years until I was an adult. They knew the content the games had, but they also knew I knew it was just a game, and that they had instilled sensible values into me. Long story short I turned out just fine, no history of violence or anything like that despite having played violent games and watched violent movies from a very young age.
Never had a problem with me either. Doesn't mean I don't think that I probably shouldn't have been playing Mortal Kombat when I was 10 years old, performing Sub Zero's spinal cord fatality.
I'd argue that violent games are a helpful learning tool and a real help in education. The more varied and brutally practical knowledge a child learns, the better their chances at survival and success. Who knows? Basic understanding of the use of cover and the dangers of explosives might serve them well one day.
Please don't ever talk to the media as a gaming representative..
I can't believe (retarded) parents find it complicated to understand a game that has 16+ written on the frond AND back of it. What do you think their reactions are, "I wonder what this 16+ means?!"
Answer: They think it's a difficulty rating...
My Mum thought that. She asked me if a Disney game I bought she bought for my little brother would be too easy, as all the allowable age ranges had a tick next to them. It's not that she wasn't reading the packaging, she was actually being very diligent, it's just that she saw BBFC ratings on some games, and knew what that meant, so made the conclusion that the PEGI iconography meant something else.
PEGI should be removed from games sold in Britain, it only serves to confuse.
My Parents always knew the content of what i bought/got bought as a child. The one game they were caught out on was killer instinct, with its 'heaps' of blood, but after having a look they let me play it (i was seven at the time).
As long as they thought it wasn't violent for the sake of being that, most games were fine.
After around age 14 i bought my own games as they thought i had the maturity to decide for myself, which was fine with me.
Parents should know the content of a game their children play, to me it seems like common sense.
The report seems sensible to be honest, but im sure all of the tabloids will go nuts as per usual.
Hang on their Lewisham, I certainly don't think that the BBFC are infallible and certainly would not trust them unquestioningly. I disagree with how they acted about Manhunt 2.
Edit: and I think they are very inconsistent about which games are rated 18 and which aren't
I'd argue that violent games are a helpful learning tool and a real help in education. The more varied and brutally practical knowledge a child learns, the better their chances at survival and success. Who knows? Basic understanding of the use of cover and the dangers of explosives might serve them well one day.
Please don't ever talk to the media as a gaming representative..
To be fair, my home country has a higher daily death toll than modern warzones. I was raised practical.
My Parents always knew the content of what i bought/got bought as a child. The one game they were caught out on was killer instinct, with its 'heaps' of blood, but after having a look they let me play it (i was seven at the time).
As long as they thought it wasn't violent for the sake of being that, most games were fine.
After around age 14 i bought my own games as they thought i had the maturity to decide for myself, which was fine with me.
Parents should know the content of a game their children play, to me it seems like common sense.
The report seems sensible to be honest, but im sure all of the tabloids will go nuts as per usual.
Agreed. My parents generally understood the content of the games, but never really played them. The difference is games like Killer Instinct could very much have the entirety of the content described on the box. We now have games like GTA which might appear to be a driving game to the uninformed. Or the parents might be OK with running people over by accident, but not shooting people. Or they might be OK with shooting people, but only if they're bad. Or they might be OK with shooting everyone, but then be horrified by killing a hooker for the money you just gave her.
Parents are in a very difficult spot at this point, which is why we need ratings more than ever.
Hang on their Lewisham, I certainly don't think that the BBFC are infallible and certainly would not trust them unquestioningly. I disagree with how they acted about Manhunt 2.
Edit: and I think they are very inconsistent about which games are rated 18 and which aren't
Fair point, I do not believe they are infallible either. But would you rather they went away for an entirely voluntary non-legally enforced system? Because that would make you rather unique, at least from the people I know. That was the point I was trying (ham-fistedly) to make.
My Mum thought that. She asked me if a Disney game I bought she bought for my little brother would be too easy, as all the allowable age ranges had a tick next to them. It's not that she wasn't reading the packaging, she was actually being very diligent, it's just that she saw BBFC ratings on some games, and knew what that meant, so made the conclusion that the PEGI iconography meant something else.
PEGI should be removed from games sold in Britain, it only serves to confuse.
At least your Mum asked you, many parents don't bother, or don't have someone sensible to ask (sorry for calling you sensible, Lewisham, its a good thing!). We're supposed to be diligent, sometimes its hard - eg. I went into HMV to buy a CD for a friend's son a few years ago (Papa Roach), the sales assistant pointed out it wasn't the radio mix, and that it had explicit lyrics - I'd only heard the radio version, didn't realise there was a different version on the CD, and I try to be as careful as I can. I didn't buy the CD. Parents need help to be vigilant, but ultimately, its our responsibility.
LewieP's Mummy on
For all the top UK Gaming Bargains, check out SavyGamer
BBFC director David Cooke said the body was well placed to deal with task of rating all games for ages 12 plus (Dr Tanya Byron has said the BBFC logos are more familiar to parents and consumers.)
"I don't have a resourcing problem. We're used to a world in which we have seen DVD intake jump from 7,000 in 2000 to 16,000 now. We can certainly do that without a detriment to the service we provide. We don't believe this jump will be as big." Mr Cooke said the BBFC would be launching a public consultation to find out what their concerns were about games and whether attitudes were changing.
He said there was a discrepancy between people's understanding of how ratings worked for films and DVD and how they worked for games. "It's pretty clear games have a big catch up job to do. It's clear that we have symbols that are recognised and trusted.There is evidence that the Pegi pictograms are not liked and not understood." He said the BBFC would working to deal with the changing nature of games and that impact on ratings. "Ours is a system that can take context and tone into account, unlike Pegi. That extends to modes of gameplay."
Keith Ramsdale, Electronic Arts' vice president for the UK, Ireland and the Nordic countries, said the review could have gone further with its recommendations.
"In our evidence to the review we were very clear, unanimously clear as an industry, that we want a single system and that single system should be Pegi. That would be much clearer to the consumer."
"Pegi is a European system geared up totally for video games. The BBFC clearly is as movie classification board. Last year Pegi gave 42 games an 18 plus rating, while 19 of those titles were given a 15 rating and two a 12 rating by BBFC. Pegi are proving to be tougher than the BBFC, which benefits the consumer."
"Games should be given higher ratings than they are at the moment."
Neil Thompson, head of Xbox in the UK, said Microsoft also favoured a single system.
"There are concerns of a gulf between online and offline ratings. Her recommendations seem sensible. But we've been very open about the fact we preferred Pegi as the single system. We felt Pegi was scalable. Dealing with the volumes of titles involved, and the growing range of online and offline components, means that the rating system needs to be joined up and consistent. We believe Pegi offers that. We're going to have to work with the BBFC to help them deal with the scale and volume issue they are going to have to step up to. It will be a significant increase.
Richard Wilson, head of Tiga, which represents developers, said the body applauded the recommended awareness campaign for parents but said industry should not be required to fund it alone.
"Games developers already face intense competition from government-subsidised Canadian games developers. The last thing the games industry needs is for the UK Government to impose additional costs on it."
"Our key concern is that we really want a future proofed system," said Paul Jackson, director general of the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association.
"As our industry is going online so rapidly, it's critical for us that the system works for on the shelf and online.
In general, the industry want to use PEGI as the sole rating system. This is obviously because it's self-regulatory, not because it's better - they don't play the games and no-one understands their symbols.
The Manhunt shamble did make the BBFC seem foolish. Seemed to me 'Oh look its rockstar again...' kind of attitude. But yeah they are most definitely needed.
Its a shame, if parents only saw the '18' on a game box and thought the same thing as if they saw it on a movie, 'Is this sutible? ill check first'.
My Mum thought that. She asked me if a Disney game I bought she bought for my little brother would be too easy, as all the allowable age ranges had a tick next to them. It's not that she wasn't reading the packaging, she was actually being very diligent, it's just that she saw BBFC ratings on some games, and knew what that meant, so made the conclusion that the PEGI iconography meant something else.
PEGI should be removed from games sold in Britain, it only serves to confuse.
At least your Mum asked you, many parents don't bother, or don't have someone sensible to ask (sorry for calling you sensible, Lewisham, its a good thing!). We're supposed to be diligent, sometimes its hard - eg. I went into HMV to buy a CD for a friend's son a few years ago (Papa Roach), the sales assistant pointed out it wasn't the radio mix, and that it had explicit lyrics - I'd only heard the radio version, didn't realise there was a different version on the CD, and I try to be as careful as I can. I didn't buy the CD. Parents need help to be vigilant, but ultimately, its our responsibility.
You're cool LewieP's Mum.
Just to add to the discussion, I have only ever been carded for one game in my gaming history. That was Half Life for the PS2. When I was 20 years old. I had a beard.
The game was rated 15.
Oh and another thing - I hate this sensationalist bullshit about Games in the media. I remember my mother being utterly appauled at me for owning manhunt and GTA3 after reading things like the Daily Mail.
"This is a missed opportunity and one that risks leading to greater confusion for parents and industry." He said Pegi had proved to be more stringent than the BBFC.
He's right with the bolded, but wrong to think that more strigent = more accurate rating.
Hang on their Lewisham, I certainly don't think that the BBFC are infallible and certainly would not trust them unquestioningly. I disagree with how they acted about Manhunt 2.
Edit: and I think they are very inconsistent about which games are rated 18 and which aren't
Fair point, but many people I know don't. I do not believe they are infallible either. But would you rather they went away for an entirely voluntary non-legally enforced system? Because that would make you rather unique, at least from the people I know.
They are inconsistent about 18s, that's true.
The changes I would like to see in the BBFC -
They should have less ability to refuse to give an 18 rating. Unless the content within a game is itself illegal I think anything should be able to be rated as an 18 with clear rating. So stuff like snuff films or incitement of racial hatred, which are in and of themselves illegal should be allowed in games (but I would argue that games involving characters breaking said laws should be allowed)
The should give greater detail, explain why something is a given rating. It's not always obvious what causes something to be it's rating. There should be (on the back of the case) detailed explanation of the nature of the content in the game.
They should be given greater legislative power to enforce their ratings, and retailers who consistently break the rules should be fined.
Aside from these issues, an objective site which details explains the nature of the content in games, and more importantly the thematic nature and subtext of a game should be outlined.
I would be far more inclined to let a child play a game which contained violence than one which glorified violence, their is a big and subtle difference. Beyond Good and Evil is a great example of a game which contains (cartoon) violence, torture, imprisonment, fear and even Evil, but I would strongly encourage a younger child to play it, because I think it is a great story of good over evil, and has a great role model as the protagonist. The current BBFC system is incapable of distinguishing between Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 and BG&E, and I would certainly want to make a distinction between them, and not let a child play Vegas 2 (but probably enjoy it myself)
Oh and another thing - I hate this sensationalist bullshit about Games in the media. I remember my mother being utterly appauled at me for owning manhunt and GTA3 after reading things like the Daily Mail.
I do honestly wonder sometimes who actually trusts the Daily Mail. I mean, it's just so sensationalist but people take it seriously, it baffles the mind.
I think the BBFC should definitely have to explain itself in detail when a game is denied even an 18 certificate, but I doubt they have the resources to go through in detail and explain each and every game's rating. That's much more the province of volunteer parenting sites, of which a few have sprung up recently. Also, you're kinda descrbing the PEGI system..
You have to admire Japan's consistent dedication to obsfucation. Here's their rating stickers:
Guess what they stand for? Nothing leaps to mind, does it?
A: Suitable for all ages
B : Must be at least 12 years of age
C : Must be at least 15 years of age
D : Must be at least 17 years of age
Z : Must be at least 18 years of age
I broke my Tv remote today, incidentally, because I saw the ad on TV for this laxative, who's slogan was 'pass it on'. threw that fucker at my tv, missed thank god, hit a wicker basket on the far side of the room and shattered that and the remote.
who the fuck thought 'pass it on' would be an appropriate slogan for laxative. the ad itself was also incredibly infuriating.
sometimes i just wish i could pay money to punch some of these ad men and face no consequences.
addendum: that show on bbc4 - madmen, is currently my favourite show on tv. which makes the above scenario even more apt
Id also like to see someone finally get some hard evidence on games. Like, not just sales but widespread gaming habits, gameplay time, times of playing etc. And not just a control group, but something huge. maybe valve could implement an opt in feature on steam to record that stuff. i wouldnt mind.
Posts
They're reaching their rated audience, which is not necessarily their target audience, first of all, since companies don't rate their own games.
Also suppression of speech in any way from the government is no good.
90% of opera contains more objectionable material than your average video game. Why should one be suppressed in any way, while the other is not?
Even if you do view this as censorship, our concept of free speech has always accepted certain contextual limits. John Stuart Mill wrote, to paraphrase, that one should always be free to criticise somebody in the press, but that one shouldn't be able to make a defamatory speech to a rowdy mob outside that person's house.
Of course, children aren't a rowdy pitchfork-wielding mob - mostly - but the principle that there are certain contexts in which absolute freedom of expression is inappropriate remains.
Until children playing video games is a public health issue then I can't see a justification for governmental suppression of distribution.
I mean, yeah, if games were like alcohol, cigarettes, or porn, then sure, legally restrict them.
But really? Is that what we're seeing games as? They cause as much psychological damage as porn? Or as much physical damage as alcohol/cigarettes? They cause mass confusion/terror that could result in injury like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater? Maybe I've been playing a different set of games, but I don't think that we're really there with games.
I'm not saying that games should be distributed freely to children of any ages regardless of the games content, I'm saying that the government should not step in and stop distribution of the item to certain audiences, and that it should be a voluntary choice on the part of the retailers, such as is the case with movies, and for that matter any other multimedia, mixed media, or single media.
The current PEGI ratings looks very similar to the kinds of age ratings you get on toys and boardgames.
Unlike video games, which are a rating based on content, board games and kids toys are rated on suitability, ie danger to health eg small objects, difficulty, concepts etc.
Yes, but to continue the analogy, the pitchfork wielding mob may have a low probability of attacking the man's house, but any actions that raise that probability ought to be prevented. So it is with videogames - the average joe has a low probability of acting out the scenes of violence, but a kid already displaying various risk factors is more likely to be influenced - both subtly and directly. I certainly don't think that games should be singled out compared to movies, video etc, but nevertheless, some sort of safeguard is needed.
And besides, parents can always ignore the government warnings anyway.; it isn't as if families are being forced to avoid certain games.
See though it's two ways of approaching the same end. I'm advocating the stores make the decisions and inform the parents, in order to keep the distribution free and open, based on the judgment of those who are involved with the games(Realtors and the ESRB), and the child(Parents), instead of having the Government, who are involved with neither the games nor the children on an individual level, thus trusting the third party of the ESRB/PEGI/BBFC, which is not a government body(Or is the BBFC? Either way), restricting the sale on a larger basis, and leaving those close to the games and child to make the decision to lift the restriction on the sale.
One provides free distribution save in cases where inappropriate, in a perfect world, the other restricts and suppresses distribution save in cases where deemed appropriate, in a perfect world.
By leaving the material completely uncensored(And yes, suppressing the sale to large groups of people is censorship) by a governmental and/or third party institution, the medium can continue to grow and stretch as an artistic medium, similar to other forms of non-censored media, where leaving it censored would do nothing to help the medium, and would be more likely to harm the medium.
Because looky here, Im going to sell everything I can because it gets me money.
The government should enforce their own regulations and not in any shape or form rely on retailers to do so by some kind of 'honour' system.
I am 20. I often get confused for 25-ish. The retailers still inform me that, just in case I'm buying for someone else, or don't know what I'm buying, the game is inappropriate for those under 17.
I'm fairly sure that most game store cashiers aren't working on commission, so I really doubt they're too concerned about how much money they make the company.
And it's not because of the "honor" system, it's because they want to avoid stupid moron parents who bitch because they're stupid moron parents and blame the company, that's why even if it's not 100% of the time followed through on, most companies that sell games have company policy against selling M rated games to those under 17.
Diana.
Funny story, I went to their site to see if they had any mention of it. Brought up the search page, and the example search it came up with?
Princess Diana.
:x
Being a parent is a difficult, never-ending, hard job, IF you take it seriously. I do. Its also the most amazing, rewarding, exciting, challenging thing I've ever done in my life.
I am responsible for the emotional, intellectual, moral, social, spiritual and physical well-being of my children. OK, they are both adults now, so technically they are responsible for themselves, but 1) hey, I'm a mummy, that'll never stop and 2) I currently foster 4 children part time, aged 7, 8, 14 and 16, and am responsible for them when they're with me. I think I'm doing a good job as a parent/foster carer - I look at my children/foster children for the evidence.
Good kids don't happen by accident, they happen through good parenting, good, positive adult role models, consistency, walking the talk. When my children were younger, I knew what they watched, played, who they played with, what they were up to. Not in a Big Brother way, but because I was responsible for what they experienced, it was my job to teach them right from wrong, good from bad, so that they'd know how to make the best decisions for themselves as they grew older.
That included internet access, video games, books, TV programmes. I learnt about stuff so I could talk sense with them, I learnt to be interested in what they were interested in, so they felt valued and appreciated, that their views mattered. I explained why I thought things were good/not good for them, so that they could make reasoned judgements themselves when I wasn't there. All this took time, but was sooo worth it.
It makes me so cross when I hear parents giving in to their children, cos its "easier". One of my previous foster children was allowed/forced to watch Child's Play (violent, scary 18 film with a character called Chucky in it) when only 4. Another had Spiderman the film bought for them when age 6 - it was a 12! Their parent tried to make me take it with me when their child came for the weekend. I explained it was unsuitable and I wouldn't allow the child to watch it in my house. They remonstrated 4 times before they gave up. Its the same with the games he has access to - I've confiscated his DS because of the games he's brought with him.
Films have certificates for a reason, so do games. it is so frustrating when parents either ignore the rating or don't care. I have disagreements with my 16 year old over what films/TV I will allow her to watch, no doubt if she played video games, we would have the same disagreements. We disagree because I care about her and what goes into her head.
One of my friends teaches primary school, the stuff her class talk about watching is dreadful, 6 year olds should not be watching violent, scary programmes, but their parents let them.
My bottom line is I care deeply about what children are exposed to. It doesn't actually matter what certificate something is given, if the parent either ignores/doesn't know/doesn't care/can't be bothered about it. What matters is that parents (and grandparents and aunties/uncles and big sisters and brothers) care about what goes into their children, are involved in what their children do/are interested in, know about what they play/watch, and know that its good for them. Parents need educating about being parents.
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
Interesting side note, possibly for another thread. Would rating games on the same system as films grant them the same artistic status?
Edit: Also lewies mum is bang on. The woman is a saint.
In response to that and talking with me they knew I was mature enough to handle some things rated over my age range (can you believe it? Dark Forces was rated a 15 when it was released. Come on the Star Wars movies had more violence in them. IIRC TIE Fighter was rated a 12, and all that happened in there was polygon ships falling apart). I figure playing Monkey Island 2 probably taught me a lot more than watching daytime TV anyway. I think that's another thing, they liked some of the games I played and my dad even used to help me play adventure games. Dune II and Sim City were all about Strategy. Prince of Persia was puzzle solving. Heck Another World was absolutely devious in its puzzles, I used to keep him updated on how far I'd gotten and what I'd figured out.
I think it helps that my father is a bit of a technophile, so he knew plenty enough about computers as it is.
*Teeth harvesting not guaranteed.
Funny how video games have so little bearing on the fight or flight response in actual encounters, the effect is negligible at best. I do think that a good, honest horror flick can help a kid get over silly shocked reactions at uncommon situations and images, at least. I'd argue that violent games are a helpful learning tool and a real help in education. The more varied and brutally practical knowledge a child learns, the better their chances at survival and success. Who knows? Basic understanding of the use of cover and the dangers of explosives might serve them well one day. And just maybe, maybe, they'll have more fun playing with knives on computer screens than at school.
It is not a crime to know how to operate a firearm or dig a trench from a young age, nor is it entirely a bad thing to be familiar with the interior of the human organism. From media to literature, it's all a matter of knowledge. If you can't plan a hostile takeover or build a house, you've still got a way to go.
Good luck with that. The parents are the problem, remember? At least if there are legal reasons, then perhaps they might understand the importance.
You're American. Only Americans come up with this argument in relation to the British system. British people don't have a problem with restriction of sales of violent or disturbing materials to minors, whether it be a movie or a game. We never have. Americans are inherently mistrustful of any government body, and would wish they went away. The British aren't so scared, and we trust people like the BBFC to do their job effectively, and when they don't, we complain until it changes.
For me, the BBFC have shown themselves to be as capable as any job of opinion can be. Games are not censored. They are just not sold to people who the ratings body say shouldn't see them. And I, as well as many other British people, am fine with that. I actually don't think I've ever actually disagreed with a rating that the BBFC has given to a game. I didn't agree with Carmageddon's ban, but I have to say I can see why Manhunt 2 got the banstick. Those are the only two games that were ever banned for release, and both have been overturned in court.
Just because America manages to get by with a system of voluntary opt-in ratings, doesn't mean other systems that the world uses are "censorship". If you want to talk about censorship, talk about the poor Germans, who have utterly draconian restrictions on their games.
Never had a problem with me either. Doesn't mean I don't think that I probably shouldn't have been playing Mortal Kombat when I was 10 years old, performing Sub Zero's spinal cord fatality.
Please don't ever talk to the media as a gaming representative..
My Mum thought that. She asked me if a Disney game I bought she bought for my little brother would be too easy, as all the allowable age ranges had a tick next to them. It's not that she wasn't reading the packaging, she was actually being very diligent, it's just that she saw BBFC ratings on some games, and knew what that meant, so made the conclusion that the PEGI iconography meant something else.
PEGI should be removed from games sold in Britain, it only serves to confuse.
As long as they thought it wasn't violent for the sake of being that, most games were fine.
After around age 14 i bought my own games as they thought i had the maturity to decide for myself, which was fine with me.
Parents should know the content of a game their children play, to me it seems like common sense.
The report seems sensible to be honest, but im sure all of the tabloids will go nuts as per usual.
Youtube Channel!
Edit: and I think they are very inconsistent about which games are rated 18 and which aren't
To be fair, my home country has a higher daily death toll than modern warzones. I was raised practical.
Agreed. My parents generally understood the content of the games, but never really played them. The difference is games like Killer Instinct could very much have the entirety of the content described on the box. We now have games like GTA which might appear to be a driving game to the uninformed. Or the parents might be OK with running people over by accident, but not shooting people. Or they might be OK with shooting people, but only if they're bad. Or they might be OK with shooting everyone, but then be horrified by killing a hooker for the money you just gave her.
Parents are in a very difficult spot at this point, which is why we need ratings more than ever.
Fair point, I do not believe they are infallible either. But would you rather they went away for an entirely voluntary non-legally enforced system? Because that would make you rather unique, at least from the people I know. That was the point I was trying (ham-fistedly) to make.
They are inconsistent about 18s, that's true.
At least your Mum asked you, many parents don't bother, or don't have someone sensible to ask (sorry for calling you sensible, Lewisham, its a good thing!). We're supposed to be diligent, sometimes its hard - eg. I went into HMV to buy a CD for a friend's son a few years ago (Papa Roach), the sales assistant pointed out it wasn't the radio mix, and that it had explicit lyrics - I'd only heard the radio version, didn't realise there was a different version on the CD, and I try to be as careful as I can. I didn't buy the CD. Parents need help to be vigilant, but ultimately, its our responsibility.
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
"We're better than PEGI - it can fuck off."
"Games should be given higher ratings than they are at the moment."
"Godamn socialists."
In general, the industry want to use PEGI as the sole rating system. This is obviously because it's self-regulatory, not because it's better - they don't play the games and no-one understands their symbols.
Its a shame, if parents only saw the '18' on a game box and thought the same thing as if they saw it on a movie, 'Is this sutible? ill check first'.
Youtube Channel!
You're cool LewieP's Mum.
Just to add to the discussion, I have only ever been carded for one game in my gaming history. That was Half Life for the PS2. When I was 20 years old. I had a beard.
The game was rated 15.
Oh and another thing - I hate this sensationalist bullshit about Games in the media. I remember my mother being utterly appauled at me for owning manhunt and GTA3 after reading things like the Daily Mail.
I mean Appauled at me, and I was in my 20s.
He's right with the bolded, but wrong to think that more strigent = more accurate rating.
The changes I would like to see in the BBFC -
They should have less ability to refuse to give an 18 rating. Unless the content within a game is itself illegal I think anything should be able to be rated as an 18 with clear rating. So stuff like snuff films or incitement of racial hatred, which are in and of themselves illegal should be allowed in games (but I would argue that games involving characters breaking said laws should be allowed)
The should give greater detail, explain why something is a given rating. It's not always obvious what causes something to be it's rating. There should be (on the back of the case) detailed explanation of the nature of the content in the game.
They should be given greater legislative power to enforce their ratings, and retailers who consistently break the rules should be fined.
Aside from these issues, an objective site which details explains the nature of the content in games, and more importantly the thematic nature and subtext of a game should be outlined.
I would be far more inclined to let a child play a game which contained violence than one which glorified violence, their is a big and subtle difference. Beyond Good and Evil is a great example of a game which contains (cartoon) violence, torture, imprisonment, fear and even Evil, but I would strongly encourage a younger child to play it, because I think it is a great story of good over evil, and has a great role model as the protagonist. The current BBFC system is incapable of distinguishing between Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 and BG&E, and I would certainly want to make a distinction between them, and not let a child play Vegas 2 (but probably enjoy it myself)
:whistle: Suffocation. No breathing. :whistle:
I HATE the Daily Mail, it should be banned. Not that I'm in favour of mass censorship, but really, its a waste of trees, even recycled trees.
My Mum reads it.D:
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
I do honestly wonder sometimes who actually trusts the Daily Mail. I mean, it's just so sensationalist but people take it seriously, it baffles the mind.
Sometimes I Stream Games: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/italax-plays-video-games
Boo!
This game contains gratuitous Spider-Man action!
Guess what they stand for? Nothing leaps to mind, does it?
B : Must be at least 12 years of age
C : Must be at least 15 years of age
D : Must be at least 17 years of age
Z : Must be at least 18 years of age
It's obvious when you think about it.
I broke my Tv remote today, incidentally, because I saw the ad on TV for this laxative, who's slogan was 'pass it on'. threw that fucker at my tv, missed thank god, hit a wicker basket on the far side of the room and shattered that and the remote.
who the fuck thought 'pass it on' would be an appropriate slogan for laxative. the ad itself was also incredibly infuriating.
sometimes i just wish i could pay money to punch some of these ad men and face no consequences.
Id also like to see someone finally get some hard evidence on games. Like, not just sales but widespread gaming habits, gameplay time, times of playing etc. And not just a control group, but something huge. maybe valve could implement an opt in feature on steam to record that stuff. i wouldnt mind.