By John Walker on March 9th, 2009 at 12:30 pm.
The New Zealand government’s Chief Censor, Bill Hastings, has suggested that parents who buy games for under-age children should be prosecuted. Describing the policy as “shock value”, he told New Zealand’s The Dominion Post (reported by Stuff.co.nz), “It would send out a message that the enforcement agency means business.”
Any time government officials start trying to get involved in videogaming matters, the response is quick and angry. “Get off our lawn!” cry out the gaming community, afraid of the vote winning moves in response to rumours and ignorance. But here’s a thought. Maybe Hastings is right.
While the job title “Chief Censor” may be a sinister one, and while my understanding of the New Zealand government comes from Flight of the Conchords’ recent NZ prime ministerial visit, it’s important to realise that Hastings is not calling for either the censoring of games, nor for a ban on their sales. He’s suggesting that the laws already in place be enforced.
As reported by Stuff.co.nz, Hastings explained that people do not take gaming age certificates seriously. “They might think the offence is silly, but it ain’t”. He suggests up to three months in prison, or a $NZ10,000 (£3,500) fine.
“That’s what the law says, but . . . you’re not going to have police officers in every bedroom… There would certainly be some shock value to prosecuting a parent who gives their under-18 child access to a restricted game.”
Of course there remains an enormous gap in people’s knowledge as to what adverse effects playing adult videogames has on children. The NZ politician makes some spurious claims of unmentioned studies that prove the damage caused, but still focuses his argument on enforcing the restrictions already in place, rather than imprisoning developers. Perhaps this is somewhat spoiled by the country’s banning Manhunt, but maybe this new angle could be progress. (Hastings is also suggesting that all games, not just those with objectionable content, be required to receive certification from classification boards, as with films.)
I’d argue that enforcing age ratings on games is perhaps essential, and not because I’m worried about seven year olds playing GTA IV. I’m worried about 31 year olds not being able to play GTA IV.
Obviously the effect on the young shouldn’t be crassly dismissed. The suggestion that graphic violence will do permanent harm to children is one I want to see some evidence for. (Although I realise this is deeply problematic, as deliberately showing potentially harmful footage to children might run into a small problem of ethics.) But my common sense says that kids get scared, and scary stuff doesn’t need to be a part of kids’ lives. I’m not concerned that your child getting hold of Manhunt is going to turn him into a serial killer. It isn’t. But I would be worried that he’d have horrible nightmares, or a generally unhappy time. And that seems worth caring about.
But the selfish motivation to enforce ratings is to protect my gaming. And more importantly, respecting adults and choice. Some games are designed for only adults to play, and in a society where those games are accessible to all ages, it makes it massively more likely that adult gaming will be increasingly censored. In fact, in a world where all games can be played by all children, they probably should be censored. I don’t want that world. I want to be able to play games with violence and swearing if I choose to. (And as it happens, I generally don’t choose to. But I want to be able to choose.)
Parents are not informed about games, and this is primarily because most attempts to inform them come from hellraising ignoramuses trying to score a headline. Hastings told the Dominion Post, “For the first time in history, kids are more savvy with technology than parents … parents need to get up to speed on the digital divide. They need to look at what their kids are playing and doing.” But I’d suggest that even awareness isn’t enough. I remember working in EB when I was 19, when parents – with their young children – would bring the latest 18 certificate game to the counter. I’d say to them, “Is this for your kid?” They’d say it was. I’d point out the 18 on the box, and they’d tell me they didn’t care. They’re an adult, and the only thing I wasn’t allowed to do was sell the game to someone under the age on the box.
So why are people reacting with shock to the story? Well, perhaps it’s a matter of balance. Obviously any suggestions of restrictions or censorship are going to anger many. But perhaps the big mistake Hastings is making is the proposition of jail time. This is enormously counter-intuitive. If he believes a parent is being neglectful when buying such games, then how putting them in prison is supposed to improve this is not clear. Clearly the threat of it might have an impact, but I cannot see how enforcing it could ever help anyone. And taking all of a family’s money isn’t likely to help anyone either. I’d argue for more imaginative penalties, proportional to the individual. Consequence is fine, debilitation perhaps not.
Or is this an invasion by the state into how people raise their families? Should parents be free to let their children play whichever games they choose? Are age ratings unenforceable without ghastly phrases like “nanny state” rearing their heads? Indeed, how could the law be enforced if it were in place? Short of the police raiding homes and checking for copies of Saints Row 2, it’s hard to imagine what could be done. Is the threat of a penalty, even if it’s unenforceable, enough to protect children from adult games, or indeed protect adult games from children? Let us know what you think.
09/03/2009 at 12:34 TooNu says:
Why debate over common sense?
If the certificate says 18, don’t buy it for a child. Who really needs that pointed out to them? The only people that do it don’t care in the first place. “I didn’t relise…” is not an excuse that washes. End.
09/03/2009 at 12:35 Red says:
Why can’t they enforce the labels on video games as those on movies? They’re issued by the same agency, why should they be treated any differently?
09/03/2009 at 12:38 Simon says:
If they would enforce all age ratings, not just on games but on movies too. So that parents can’t bring kids into movies they’re too young for and annoy everyone else .. that sounds like a good thing.
I mean, no reason to single out one medium, there’s plenty of literature about describing the evils of movies, tv, radio, music and indeed literature itself.
09/03/2009 at 12:42 piphil says:
If they’re not going to enforce the ratings, why even bother? I think that we do need to see more parents prosecuted for buying or allowing their child to access games they’re not meant to be playing.
There needs to be a sea change in the mindset of the general population. No decent parent would buy an 18 rated DVD and allow their children to watch it. Games are still considered as toys to many however. Even giving games the same ratings system as movies doesn’t seem to have put the message across that computer games are capable of being as “adult” as any other media.
Maybe once the current generation of teenagers, who have lived with gaming as a mainstream entertainment option, have grown up, the problem will start to melt away as knowledge of the medium becomes more widespread?
09/03/2009 at 12:43 Gap Gen says:
I think this is possibly a good idea. Obviously there are lawmaking experts who understand the consequences better than I do, but I think this kind of legislation is a good foil to parents who blame games for their own negligence.
That said, parents will have to be more careful – I know someone aged 8 who played Zelda (rating 12, I think) and responsibly handled, I don’t think it’s too much of a problem. Of course, this will have to be handled intelligently but the police and courts. I suspect it will only be used in rare, severe cases.
That said, access to media is very leaky, although again it’s a parent’s responsibility (however difficult in the internet age) to monitor their child’s access to media.
09/03/2009 at 12:45 qrter says:
This seems baffling to me too. The police would not only have to find copies of SR2 but then force the parents to play the game and then hope those parents don’t know how to play or something? Or find people who want to grass up other people buying games for their underage children?
By then we’ll have long ago crossed into the realm of the completely ridiculous, ofcourse.
09/03/2009 at 12:49 Tworak says:
100 smacks in the planet with a wiimote sounds like a more fitting punishment
09/03/2009 at 12:52 BooleanBob says:
Well… if the govt. wants kids to stay away from mature content, they shouldn’t just pay lip service to a ratings system. There should be legal framework to back that up – as with booze, ciggies, porn, etc.
At the same time, I think a parent’s failing in this scenario isn’t letting the kid play a Manhunt or watch a City of God or Basic Instinct, but failing to keep track of the things they’re seeing and sitting down with them to explain the difference between fantasy and reality; the appropriate wider social contexts for sex and violence.
But as someone who struggles to keep a nine year-old sister in tow, let alone kids I might one day have actual responsibility for and am not just screwing up as a courtesy, I have to accept that once again my rather lengthy opinion on such matters is somewhat triflingly worthy.
09/03/2009 at 12:53 Acosta says:
My position for this is quite clear: any “protective” law to enforce ratings in videogame must be applied to any other medum, that includes TV, films, books, magazines and any other. If you think that as government you need to “protect” your citizen, do it with every type of media and go see if that fly.
What can’t be tolerated is letting the government treat videogame as it was a case apart, because that will condemn it to the ghetto, a juvenile entertainment that will never be allowed to develop as it should. That’s not acceptable.
09/03/2009 at 12:53 TooNu says:
Or is this an invasion by the state into how people raise their families?
Yes it is, but frankly many parents in crappy areas around the UK specifically need to be walked through parenting because having a child and raising a child are not the same thing. Any teenage slapper can get knocked up and have a brat, but not raise it.
Should parents be free to let their children play whichever games they choose?
No. Many games with free choice for example give you multiple ways of ending an ingame life or acting out a scenario that comes from or is directly inspired from real life scenarios. Rape, mutilation, abuse in all it’s horrific forms. The only way this could be condoned was if the child playing said game was coached during, after or beforehand in that said “activities” are generally frowned upon and should not be taken as a performance guide for life.
Sadly they do not do this, and while it may not be abundant now, judging by the amount of moronic horrible children you get screaming down Xbox live or over teamspeak I would suggest that parents don’t have an active role in their gameplay.
Are age ratings unenforceable without ghastly phrases like “nanny state” rearing their heads?
Does it matter what it is called? The point being that the sensible people who know it is wrong to buy an adult game intended for children are therefore under scrutiny jsut as much as the idiots doing it, kind of makes the sensible people a tad miffed at being watched or questioned.
I couldn’t care less about them. If parents can’t enforce a simple rule as that, then somebody needs to and needs to crack down on it hard.
Indeed, how could the law be enforced if it were in place?
How is any other law enforced? fines, jail term etc. Get caught then get into trouble and pay for it. You won’t do it again, your friends will think twice about doing it. That’s how it works, you learn from mistakes and you learn that if something hurts you don’t go doing it again because it hurts….
Short of the police raiding homes and checking for copies of Saints Row 2, it’s hard to imagine what could be done. Is the threat of a penalty, even if it’s unenforceable, enough to protect children from adult games, or indeed protect adult games from children?
I can not answer this with a straight yes or no. Children don’t need protecting from games, they need better more guiding parents who are active and interested at least in what their children are doing. If you are the sort of parent that thinks “artistic integrety” before you think about how your child may be affected by a game then I think you need to take a step back and think long and hard. Games, like books and movies and paintings and music have a profound affect on a person no matter their age. So let’s start thinking that way and then stupid pointless arguements like this do not need to be discussed because the core of the problem has allready been dealt with.
Raise your children correctly and stfu.
09/03/2009 at 12:55 Gap Gen says:
I think that severe violence is an issue beyond just contextualising it. I was talking to my sister on MSN and she said that most gamers she’s spoken to actually enjoy the violence in games for its own sake, which is problematic.
I think that sitting down and explaining violence can be important, but I don’t think that doing that justifies letting a 9-year-old play Manhunt.
09/03/2009 at 12:56 Ed says:
To me it seems that the industry must want to sell games to under-age players – there’s no real reason to not make it illegal otherwise.
I’m not suggesting I’m in favour of that though.
My experience of GTA players is that a substantial proportion are under 18.
09/03/2009 at 12:57 Dreamhacker says:
I may or may not have gotten my hands on Fallout at the age of 9. Best deal I ever did in my life.
09/03/2009 at 12:58 Ian says:
I’m with the enforce-the-existing-rules/regs crowd. If there was any confidence that it’s more difficult for kids to get their hands on an 18-rated game then I suspect the furore over Manhunt 2 (and the like) might not have happened.
09/03/2009 at 12:58 mrmud says:
Parents should decide for themselfs when games are suitable for their children.
I played Doom at age 11 and isnt worse for wear.
09/03/2009 at 13:00 FunkyB says:
Agreed that all ratings should be enforceable, but only if the ratings are awarded in a transparent and fair manner. Noone wants the American system where masses of bloody decapitations yields a 15 certificate, whereas a brief nipple-slip is 18+ and two gay people kissing is banned by all the red states.
09/03/2009 at 13:03 StalinsGhost says:
Enforced? No.
Educated? Yes.
09/03/2009 at 13:03 Meat Circus says:
No, John, he’s not right. He’s a censorious fucking idiot proposing an unenforcable measure to try to squeeze votes out of New Zealand’s own equivalent of the Daily Mail moron class.
I hope you’re just playing devil’s advocate here, rather than moving firmly into enemy territory.
Since we’re not the Soviet Union, I think it’s okay to allow parents to decide what’s best for their children. Just a thought.
09/03/2009 at 13:06 Nelson says:
I’m for extending the movie ratings across all media. We all understand G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17. Why not just make it easy on consumers? No kids can rent or buy R games, movies, comics, etc. There will always be idiot parents who let their kids watch SAW movies. At least the law did its part to dissuade them.
09/03/2009 at 13:12 BooleanBob says:
@Gap Gen: Yes, I agree with you. I was more thinking if I were to discover my whelp had played Manhunt, the most appropriate and beneficial course of action would be to explain to him the consequences of violence in real life, how they differ from that in a video game, why and how a game like Manhunt can come to be so awash in violence in the first place, and why he isn’t going to be playing anything more depraved than Harvest Moon for the next two weeks, and anything resembling Manhunt for the next x years.
As opposed to, y’know, turning myself over to the police and spending 3 months with all the other white-collar crims in Strangeways while my kid grows up without a dad, or in care.
Similarly a simple one-on-one chat about the exploitation of porn stars and the hollowness of sex without love would not be a sufficient response to finding your 12-year old scrote on redtube. That’s something my dad should have learned from experience…
09/03/2009 at 13:15 H says:
I think it’s definitely straightforward: enforce age restrictions on games or, as JW says, we won’t get to play the GTAs, etc, because they’ll get banned. When Politician A says “this minor was corrupted by Game B because it contained vast amounts of swearing, sex and violence” we’ll reply with “but it clearly had an 18 rating and therefore the parents are at fault”. Without this in place, the politicians can do or say what the hell they like.
With little or no evidence to back up the results of playing games on gamers, there’s also no defence to the accusations. At least this gives us ammunition and sandbags to hide behind. And as JW says, the age restriction is emblazed on the game anyway, so now let’s enforce it.
09/03/2009 at 13:15 Radiant says:
YES.
The same way drinking and cigarette laws are enforced.
Sell to a minor and be prepared to have your shop shut and fined.
Games do influence children, there have been a grip of studies to show this [that I'll have to dig up] and to say that games have no influence on youth culture or behaviour isn’t right; I’m 30 odd and games had a ridiculous influence on me growing up.
As a casual games developer I worry about the games we make [aimed directly at children]. They’re not innovative or educational in the slightest; all they are there for is to get people to look at adverts.
But I am more worried about our other targeted demographic: mothers.
The length of time these two demos are playing our games is staggering; I’m not talking 20-30 minutes but hours.
And the times they play.
3-4 pm our usage goes through the roof.
How do we restrict that?
Flash a message “LOOK AFTER YOUR FUCKING CHILDREN”?
I don’t know… it’s not like I’m cry wanking whilst looking at my bank statements but I worry you know?
09/03/2009 at 13:16 jsutcliffe says:
I may be horribly wrong here, but to my mind the advantage of having BBFC ratings on UK games over PEGI ratings is that they are legally enforceable, just like for movies. I like that.
I’m not some horrible stick-in-the-mud type who thinks the kiddies should be protected (e.g. I was little when Doom came out, and I loved it much to my parents’ chagrin), but I do feel like these are some games that are simply unsuitable for many children.
Additionally, having ratings legally enforced will shut the “Grand Theft Auto turned my little Timmy into a sociopath” lobby up, or at least give us some ammunition to lob back at them.
—
Aside: I’ve only ever been asked for proof of age when buying a game once, for Fallout I and II, when I was almost ten years older than the recommended age on the packaging, on a trip to the USA where they don’t enforce game ratings. I did not have ID. :(
09/03/2009 at 13:18 Heliocentric says:
I’m a parent, I know games. A law that could criminalise me because i dont agree with the judgement of a censor? Thats a police state.
09/03/2009 at 13:19 TeeJay says:
In the Soviet Union parents don’t decide what’s best for their children… children decide what’s best for you…
…erm, that didn’t work did it? :s
09/03/2009 at 13:21 Mawich says:
You can’t make it illegal for a parent to let a child play an 18-rated game without making it illegal for a parent to let a child watch an 18-rated movie. Really, we should be able to trust parents to make responsible decisions about content.
To accomplish that, we need to educate non-gaming parents about the content of games intended for adult audiences, and then we need to go and upgrade the brains of a large chunk of the parent population, who seem to think their involvement in raising their children ends around the time the children learn to walk.
09/03/2009 at 13:22 Jon says:
A nice crack at guilt by association, MeatCircus, why not chuck in a Nazi equivocation for good measure.
In any case, talk of enforcing existing legislation is all hot air unless someone can come up with a workable way of doing the enforcing.
09/03/2009 at 13:23 MrFake says:
Ratings defeat censorship? That needs a little more thought. Consider Live Free or Die Hard.
It’s simply a matter of target markets, and at the moment kids under the age of mature adult (around 18 in many places) are the target market for video games. Until that changes, there will be no answer that doesn’t involve some form of censorship. As consolation, you could say that mature games fill a niche market, and as such there’s a higher probability of quality releases.
My issue with kids and video games is the parents’ relationship with the video games. Though, it’s not just games. I’ve seen my nephew go from active sports enthusiast to introverted texting geek and he’s hardly an awkward teen yet. It’s kind of a shame. I get that I’m getting old and it’s likely I just don’t understand these young’uns nowadays, but it’s not the behavior that bothers me but the parents’ acceptance of it; acceptance without encouragement.
I can’t judge what is or isn’t wholesome for a kid, but the stories of parents that just buy whatever for their kids irks me to no end, and games make up just a small piece of that irksome pie. To me, letting a kid spend every waking hour in front of a computer screen is little different from letting them sit in front of a TV all day, or driving them to the fast food playground every other afternoon or sitting them in a movie theater and ignoring them for a few hours. In short, video games should not act as surrogate parents.
The NZ debacle could actually assuage that problem, with ripple effects on the target markets as well. It could also put everyone on the defensive, and further divorce the two sides of the issue that need the most reconciliation: video game players and video game buyers. So, I figure any legislation either way is too risky; information and education is the real answer, for kids and parents alike.
09/03/2009 at 13:24 Muzman says:
It’s legal (here in Aus anyway) for parents to give minors alcohol (within reason) in their own home under supervision. Seems like it’d be a bit weird to make games worse than that.
I don’t know what the law on that is in NZ though.
09/03/2009 at 13:26 TeeJay says:
Sexual Offences Act 2003
section 12: Causing a child to watch a sexual act
(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he intentionally causes another person (B) to watch a third person engaging in an activity, or to look at an image of any person engaging in an activity,
(b) the activity is sexual, and
(c) either—
(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii) B is under 13.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
09/03/2009 at 13:27 Matt Kemp says:
I (occasionally) work in our student union and we are constantly on the look out for underage people trying to buy alcohol. Obviously, it’s an offence to sell it to anyone under the age of 18. At the same time, it’s an offence to sell alcohol to anyone over the age of 18 who you suspect is buying it for someone underage.
Why shouldn’t this be the same for games and film? It is for cigarettes and alcohol, and we’re talking about something that is physically damaging.
(As a sidenote, the only thing that annoys me more is people who say ‘I played [insert 18-rated game here] when I was 9 and I’m normal’. I didn’t play my first GTA until I was 19. I’m normal too.)
09/03/2009 at 13:30 Super Bladesman says:
Enforce age limits – are you mad? Who would the Daily Mail blame then?
You can’t expect them to blame the parents for allowing their little Johnny to play some 18+ game when it’s clearly the developers’ fault for developing it in the first place!
Oh wait…
09/03/2009 at 13:33 CdrJameson says:
“For the first time in history, kids are more savvy with technology than parents …”
Um… I think kids probably grasped the significance of the wheel and fire long before their parents.
And the argument is moving from ‘parents don’t know about games’ to ‘grandparents don’t know about games’. Politicians, being old, are in the latter generation.
Age ratings could be enforced as they are with Video/DVDs, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t be. Ratings should not, however, be compulsory in all circumstances. Ratings have to be paid for, and that costs money that publishers can easily afford and indie developers can’t.
09/03/2009 at 13:35 Flappybat says:
Games are held to a higher standard than movies or TV, there was as much sexual content in the first episode of Breaking Bad as the Hot Coffee mod, Manhunt gets banned whilst whichever SAW sequel they are up to is openly advertised.
09/03/2009 at 13:38 Zaphid says:
No, this idea is really really retarded. I would be ok with some minor fine, but three months in prison ?! I can imagine some kids getting their parents jailed simply by getting the games themselves and calling the police …
What happens at people’s homes shouldn’t be under the scope of the state, unless it’s obviously causing someone discomfort (drugs, violence, terror, abuse …)
09/03/2009 at 13:40 Akirasfriend says:
You can, of course, take this to the extreme. Several times in recent years have I been denied purchase of games because I have no ID on me. Indeed, I was denied my fix of Ninja Gaiden: Sigma by an over-vigilant Gamestation employee. I could show her my years-old college card, but nothing with my age on.
I’m sure I look older than 15. Daft.
In saying that, I bought GTA IV on launch. I took ID with me and everything, and they even asked as I was queueing if I had ID, yet when I came to the counter I wasn’t asked to show it. Bizarre. I suppose some companies enforce the ratings more dilligently than others.
I’ve always thought it was a bit pants anyway. I think it’s fair enough if the parents buy it for their kids. It should be their call. There’s no way you could call them on it once they’d bought it anyway, short of pulling a Walker and asking if they’re buying it for their kid.
SILLY POLITIX.
09/03/2009 at 13:41 Iain says:
I think everyone underestimates the intelligence of kids in all this. I’d say that the vast majority of kids are able to distinguish between what’s real and what’s not. So while I don’t approve of 12 year olds playing GTA IV, I don’t think that a huge amount of harm is done by it.
Certainly, there are a few people out there who aren’t going to be mature enough to cope with that kind of content at that age and may be damaged by it, but the key is to avoid huge knee-jerk reactions that deprive everyone for the sake of a tiny minority.
As for John’s point about “scary stuff doesn’t need to be a part of kids’ lives”, I disagree entirely. Most kids LOVE that stuff. More than that, I think that everyone needs to be scared or challenged by what they see once in a while – because if you try to wrap everyone up in cotton wool and hide all the “bad” stuff, all you end up with is a populace who are unable to form their own opinion on what is or isn’t bad or harmful, because they’ve been “protected”, and you lose the ability to even hold an informed debate.
I’d also take issue with Hastings’ statement that “For the first time in history, kids are more savvy with technology than parents” – come on, kids have ALWAYS been ahead of the curve compared to their parents, because kids are much more open to new ideas and concepts, and pick up these things far more quickly. Hell, when I was 8 years old and my parents bought a ZX Spectrum, I could set it up in half the time my parents could.
I suspect what this is really about is that you’ve got politicians and adults over 40 who are desperately trying to be seen as still being relevant and not being left behind as technology changes the way society interacts. It’s a little bit like the Queen posting videos on a YouTube channel… a little bit pathetic, really.
That said, I think that if you’re going to have a system for rating/censoring videogames (or films, for that matter), you might as well go through with it the whole way, or not bother at all. Educate people, certainly, so that people know what they’re buying, but when that fails, you better enforce the law properly and not give people loopholes (such as adults clearly buying 18-rated games for their kids), or just get rid of the concept of censorship entirely.
09/03/2009 at 13:48 Colthor says:
When I were a lad (and all this were fields), my parents would rent videos. If they watched a 15 or 18-rated film and thought was suitable for me and my younger sister, we were allowed to watch it afterwards. If they didn’t, we weren’t.
Nobody was threatened with arrest or fines.
Is this too complicated?
09/03/2009 at 13:49 Jay says:
I totally agree with the intent of this proposition (though not the threat of jail time, natch). I too did a stint at EB in my youth; I’d have loved some support when trying to convince uninformed customers that the latest GTA really isn’t suitable for their twelve year olds. Interestingly, parents who take offense to some spotty oik saying “This is a game where, if you want, you can stab prostitutes to death with a screwdriver.” don’t necessarily mind their tweens having access to said virtual hooker killer.
I’m absolutely not against violent games (SH2 is my favourite thing ever). What I do feel though, is that kids need to know that the 18 rated games they’ll invariably get their hands on are not meant for them.
09/03/2009 at 13:49 Dormouse says:
“in a society where those games are accessible to all ages, it makes it massively more likely that adult gaming will be increasingly censored… I don’t want that world. I want to be able to play games with violence and swearing if I choose to.”
We need censorship to prevent censorship! Sounds like the reasoning that lead to the Hays Code. Which wasn’t really such a good thing for movie audiences. On the other hand, it was great for manufacturers of twin beds.
09/03/2009 at 13:49 Alan says:
The argument that we should allow some government censorship just to prevent worse government censorship is absurd and evil. You either have free speech in a country or you don’t, and if your government gets to decide who gets to view what speech, then you don’t have free speech.
Do we really want to give up free speech so easily, just so we can point to our concession when Jack Thompson rolls around? Especially when voluntary enforcement works pretty damned well. I mean, look at the movie industry in America. You can’t find a theater that will let someone who is under 17 into an R-rated movie, anywhere really. Yet there is no law enforcing this.
09/03/2009 at 13:50 Matt Kemp says:
Akirasfriend: If you don’t have ID and it’s a BBFC-rated game, it’s an offence to sell it to you. Do you not have a driving license or anything? (As someone who has to check
ID on a regular basis, I don’t see why people don’t carry valid ID. [your college card doesn't count])
Re GTA: Why would they need to check your ID at the counter if they’ve already had someone check it in the queue? Time saving.
09/03/2009 at 13:55 Jay says:
“When I were a lad (and all this were fields), my parents would rent videos. If they watched a 15 or 18-rated film and thought was suitable for me and my younger sister, we were allowed to watch it afterwards. If they didn’t, we weren’t.
Nobody was threatened with arrest or fines.
Is this too complicated?”
Can be.
Games aren’t linear, and they can last for hundreds of hours. Also, whilst most parents are capable of watching a film, not all have got it in them to play through a video game.
09/03/2009 at 13:55 Dave Gates says:
Yes, if only to shut the bloody Daily Mail up. If people by games not suitable for their children then its parents at fault not the games industry.
09/03/2009 at 13:58 Matt Kemp says:
Alan: You either have free speech in a country or you don’t, and if your government gets to decide who gets to view what speech, then you don’t have free speech.
I’d argue no-one has free speech. There is always some restriction on what you can do.
One thing I’d like to bring up I heard on a podcast from the Australian Gamer guys – If someone brought out a game where you could molest children under the legal age, would that be an okay game? Should we allow the free market to decide whether it should be bought or not? I understand this is an extreme case, but where, as a detractor from censorship, do you draw the line?
09/03/2009 at 13:59 Alaric says:
“Maybe Hastings is right.”
Are you people really that insane? Imprisoning parents for making a judgment on what is appropriate for their children. That’ll teach them! How dare they infringe on the state’s right to parent.
What’s next though? A state approved list of lullaby songs? Sing your kid a wrong one and end up in concentration camp. Reminds me of the Soviet Union. Those of you who haven’t lived there, it was NOT a happy place.
I’ve never been to New Zeland and don’t know much about it, but it sounds like they are following in the footsteps of the “1984-Recreation-Society” aka Great Britain.
How sad. How most unbelievably sad.
09/03/2009 at 13:59 Meat Circus says:
Goodness, we seem to have quite a few Daily Mail readers in today. Welcome.
WARNING: There may be gays and immigrants here.
09/03/2009 at 14:02 Optimaximal says:
The good thing about Fallout was that, whilst it existed in a morally grey area (apart from the Bloody Mess perk, which was isometric violence porn for the sake of it) nearly every action had a consequence, be it being attacked by everyone in the area because you stole a Jet hypo or being branded a child-killer/slaver/other negative title and subsequently penalised with everyone treating you like shit.
On the other hand, Games like Gears of War positively encourage you to kerb-stomp human(oid)s…
I know that if my kid got hold of either, I’d prefer it be Fallout (and not just for the violence/morality angle – it’s a better game that requires thought, rather than just drilling through hoards of bad guys)
09/03/2009 at 14:02 Kommissar Nicko says:
I believe that children should be allowed to buy any game they like, without enforcement of age restrictions. Likewise, I think that children should be allowed to buy porn. It is both inconsistent and silly to think that in a world where any child can go to the library and check out a book of poetry by Ginsberg (smut!) or buy any dime-store romance they feel like (smut x 2!) but then may NOT under ANY circumstances go and rent a porn flick is silly.
Violence, on the other hand, is cheap. I would argue that most hyper-violent films cater primarily to people who are not technically old enough to see the movie anyway, since the plotlines are typically far from cerebral. In addition to this, books can contain far more disturbing and chilling acts of violence and debasement than most movies–they can even have the more haunting side effect of more thoroughly justifying these things.
So, it’s just nonsense to censor things for the protection of children. I don’t disagree with age guidelines, to give KIDS a better idea of what they’re getting into, but I believe that if a child is old enough to express a desire to see/hear/read/do something and make that possible, they should be prepared to deal with what they’re going to see. Kids don’t just grope around in a vast vacuum of influence until they stumble into their first murder simulator.
09/03/2009 at 14:04 Optimaximal says:
oh, and as Alaric has pretty much proved, the US really should get over their constitution…
09/03/2009 at 14:05 Dolphan says:
Umm, what? You’re worried it’ll scare children? Are we talking about a 14 year-old playing an 18 here, or a 5 year-old?
Surely, unless a child wants to be scared, it’s not going to play a game that scares it. We’re not talking about parents forcing their children to play games here.
Seriously, I’m just flabbergasted by this. “Scary stuff doesn’t need to be a part of kids lives.” WTF? Of course it does! Children enjoy scary things the same way the rest of us do. The ‘hiding behind the sofa during Doctor Who’ cliche exists for a reason. Good children’s books can be scary (Roald Dahl springs to mind). As can good kid’s films, for that matter.
I appreciate that you may be talking about some other kind of ‘scary’, since Manhunt isn’t really frightening in that way, but still, saying we need to keep children from scary things just seems utterly bizzare.
09/03/2009 at 14:09 Alaric says:
“oh, and as Alaric has pretty much proved, the US really should get over their constitution…”
I proved that? o.O
09/03/2009 at 14:09 M_the_C says:
I agree that more needs to be done to make parents realise the importance of a rating.
On the point of identification, I don’t have any and it’s been a real pain. I don’t drive, I have never left the country and yet I find it really hard to do some things (banking).
On a side note, I was once prevented from buying Bloodmoon (Morrowind expansion) because it had a 16+ rating, I was 18 at the time…
09/03/2009 at 14:09 John Walker says:
I believe the major flaw with my piece is not pointing out that Hastings is being deeply lazy. The problem he identifies – parents not raising children responsibly – is not going to be fixed by preventing their getting hold of GTA. It’s a hell of a lot more hard work than that.
My approach above was to try to find an angle where it’s advantageous to the adult gamer to see such restrictions enforced. I fear that if children are able to access all games, then all games will be created for children. If these censorious and vote-grabbing people are going to try and score points using videogames, may as well bend it to some advantage.
This is why I don’t see this as a matter of protecting children. Protecting children is about terrifying amounts of hard work and education. Hell, if Hastings put the effort he’s used for this into raising awareness for more immediate dangers to children, or toward improving funding for education, then perhaps some real difference would be made.
In the meantime, I want to see 18 certificates making a difference, so I can enjoy my 18 certificate games. I entirely agree that children can cope with encountering scary stuff. As a friend points out to me this afternoon, the completely mundane can terrify a child more than a fantastical horror. I also believe that there’s no cause for frightening children unnecessarily, and if I had kids, I wouldn’t want them to see certain games. Not because I believe it would permanently damage them – I don’t for one moment. But because I think it would be unpleasant for them at that moment.
09/03/2009 at 14:09 Dan Harris says:
Unenforcable. Who buys games from GAME these days, anyway? That’s what the internet’s for.
Seriously though, I think the rules should be enforced in exactly the same way as for films. That’ll allow the negligent parents to be negligent consistently, the decent parents to make their own minds up given the relative maturity of their particular children, and the smart little shits who know where their father’s credit card is to buy their own stuff.
09/03/2009 at 14:10 Optimaximal says:
This is part of the ‘next-generation’ thing – my dad had no interest in computer games past Hang On on my Master System, whereas I will almost surely be able to reasonably advise my kids on such matters.
Likewise, his dad (R.I.P.) had no interest in movies yet my dad keenly & actively directed me towards such motion picture classics as Star Wars, The Blues Brothers, Das Boot and Apocalypse Now – yes, I may have been underage when watching them but he was quite clear in explaining what significance the films had (well, maybe not SW – that was just a family romp!).
09/03/2009 at 14:10 Kommissar Nicko says:
As an aside, I’ll note that when my sister was about 10, she and I bought a game called Parasite Eve. For anyone unfamiliar, within the first ten minutes, a rat explodes in a gooey mess as it transforms into a gigantic hideous monster. This proceeded to scare her shitless, and was a lesson in children self-censoring.
09/03/2009 at 14:11 cliffski says:
I don’t give a fuck how people bring up their own kids, or what they do with/for them. Except hang on… I have to live in the same world as their offspring. If kids playing uber-violent games without any moral context turn out as hyper-violent happy-slapping street corner thugs that are going to make my life hell, then YES send the cops round their house and fine the fuck out of their parents for knowingly buying them inappropriate games.
And any store that sells 18+ games to kids should be fined to oblivion.
Yes this *is* censorship. We censor stuff all the time. Unless you somehow think selling cocaine and machine-guns to 6 year olds is fine, then we accept that society limits what people can do for the greater good.
GTA will still exist when today’s 12 year olds reach 18, its not like we are banning them from the whole computer games experience.
Grrr
09/03/2009 at 14:12 Matt Kemp says:
Meat Circus, you’re constructing a straw man big enough to burn Woodward.
09/03/2009 at 14:14 Dolphan says:
To respond to the actual point about enforcing age ratings – I was always under the impression that they were there to allow parental control over what kids have access to, not to prevent kids getting hold of the stuff at all, as if it were alcohol or something. To say that the law should try and prevent anyone watching violent/sexual content in films or games until they’re 18 years old is ridiculous.
It ignores children’s curiousity for one thing, let alone the staged complexity of growing up and learning to interact with the adult world. It also, bizzarely, penalises and prevents the best possible situation for children to be seeing this stuff in – with their parents knowing what they’re consuming and being able to talk to them about it and help them understand it and how it relates to reality. Instead, it would make it far more likely that they’ll get this stuff from friends or older teenagers and consume it in secret, which is going to be far more detrimental to their development.
09/03/2009 at 14:15 Alan says:
It’s not as extreme an example as you think. There are games for sale right now where you can do this (see: the RapeLay controversy from a few weeks ago). No, it would not be an “okay game.” Yes, the free market should be allowed to decide how it’s sold.
Do you really think we need a law to keep such a game from being sold all over the place? Would Wal-Mart put a game like that on their shelves? Would GameStop? Of course they wouldn’t. They have a public image to maintain that precludes getting themselves involved with anything like that.
Hell, if I did find a store selling that game I would boycott them. I would make it publicly known that they’re selling that game and do everything I could to get them to stop selling it and make it very painful for them until they did. However, I would not want them thrown in jail or even fined, just for doing something I don’t like.
09/03/2009 at 14:16 Alaric says:
“If kids playing uber-violent games without any moral context turn out as hyper-violent happy-slapping street corner thugs that are going to make my life hell, then YES send the cops round their house and fine the fuck out of their parents for knowingly buying them inappropriate games.”
IF is the key word there. IF kids who play these games then transform into giant, evil monkeys with lasers in their eyes, then yes, I agree with you, let’s stomp out their parents before it’s too late.
Unfortunately I have no proof that this is going to happen.
Neither do you.
09/03/2009 at 14:16 Jon says:
I can remember WHSmiths not selling me PC GAMER when I was in college because it had an 18 label on the front, I was astounded. I’d been buying it for years and never had any trouble.
Much like the same I’ve never been challenged over an 18 rated game but am asked constantly for my ID to show I am over 18 when buying alcohol. I find it strange that one age rating is enforced to such a higher degree than the other.
09/03/2009 at 14:18 Kommissar Nicko says:
Ah, Walker. To address your purpose, I do agree that putting fangs on ratings has the potential to make 18-plus games more 18-plussy, and therefore might be sensible. I’d like to be able to bonk hookers and run over children in my Bentley in GTA (or at least shoot the little brats in Fallout 3). However, I’d say that doing away with ratings is a similar means to an end. After all, if every writer, painter, sculptor or film-maker directed every film with the fear that *gasp* a child might see, then the world would be a very bland place. Such people depend on parents (or good god, children) to take the initiative to shield the unwitting.
09/03/2009 at 14:18 Telke says:
I’m living in New Zealand, and I can tell you that the entire ratings system for games needs to be overhauled.
The way it works, if a game has been rated in Australia, it does not require a re-rating here in NZ (most games do get re-rated, but it’s sometimes used to sneak stuff past). The problem, however, is that Australia currently has no R18 rating for games, only an R15 rating.
So, a game (GTA4 was a good example, or Fallout 3′s drug names) gets classified in Australia – fails classification – gets “toned down” by ridiculous double-standard moderation – fallout 3 only had to rename their drugs, while GTA had to tone down their blood. – and then, the “toned down” version is shipped to NZ as well, since it’s more cost-effective to ship only one version. Once on NZ shores, it sometimes even gets a rating bump UP – leading to my 16-year old nephew buying GTA4 while holidaying in Australia, getting around the R18 rating in NZ.
Frankly the entire system needs a cleanup. Also of note, the politician’s statement is the typical post-new-government-elected statements. National has just won the election for the first time in ~12 years, beating Labor soundly.
09/03/2009 at 14:19 matte_k says:
A friend of mine works in the local Gamestation, and he says it’s supposedly customer policy to query the customer buying an age rated game if it is intended for them or someone else, and if the customer or intended recipient is/looks underage, then they can’t make the sale.
Now here, one of a few things happens. Either they’re upfront and honest, and agree that the purchase is denied to them because of the restricted content, or they lie and say the recipient is the correct age to get the game, thus breaking the legisation, or (and apparently this is the most frequent reaction) get very angry about being questioned and possibly being refused the sale, causing a scene in the shop.
I’m not sure if that’s indicative of something across the country, but it suggests that it’s pretty hard to enforce such age restrictions if the people you’re applying it to refuse to abide by it, even going so far as deception.
09/03/2009 at 14:20 Alaric says:
Ah, the post-election chest-beating explains it. Thanks Telke!
09/03/2009 at 14:21 Dolphan says:
Cliffski, you don’t ‘censor’ drugs or guns. There’s a difference between restriction and censorship, which only applies to things that function at the level of ideas. There’s nothing inconsistent with being against censorship and not being a complete anarchist.
That said, most people are ok with a certain amount of censorship when it comes to children, since they’re more vulnerable than adults. But even that should be justified with actual evidence that they’re doing them some harm.
John – there’s a massive difference between “if I had kids, I wouldn’t want them to see certain games,” and “I think the law should prevent any parent from allowing their children to see certain games.”
09/03/2009 at 14:22 Ginger Yellow says:
I do think certificates need to be legally binding, as they are in the UK, but for multiple reasons the onus should be on the retailer, there should be room for parental discretion and the law should be consistent across media. As a matter of practicality, it’s far easier and less intrusive to enforce retailer-side laws using tools like undercover shoppers, as they do for alcohol.
Incidentally there was an FTC study a year or two back which found that retailer compliance with games ratings was far higher (at 80% or so) than for DVDs. Of course the situation may be different in NZ.
09/03/2009 at 14:22 MonkeyMonster says:
If we sit back and let the parents control what their kids see/do – what happens when they don’t and we and our children have to deal with the mess they turn into. As a society we try to take care of those who cannot do it themselves, this surely includes those children with parents who don’t look after them? There will always be a carrot instead of a stick argument but is it not becoming more obvious in these days that the poor carrot is being ignored…
09/03/2009 at 14:22 Meat Circus says:
@Matt Kemp:
I’m not constructing anything. I’m just sneering at people and being generally insulting. Sometimes it’s best to call stupidity by its name and not engage it directly.
The good thing about opinions like Bill Hastings’s is that they’re very easy to ignore.
09/03/2009 at 14:22 Matt Kemp says:
Hell, if I did find a store selling that game I would boycott them. I would make it publicly known that they’re selling that game and do everything I could to get them to stop selling it and make it very painful for them until they did. However, I would not want them thrown in jail or even fined, just for doing something I don’t like.
So, grassroots censorship rather than government-based? How is this different from the practices of a Mr. Thompson?
I’d just like to clarify – I don’t really think that people should be banned from seeing everything. I just think that, if parents refuse to take responsibility (which seems to be the situation we find ourselves in) and insist on blaming authorities for allowing this, then their ability to take responsibility should be taken away as they’re obviously incapable of using it. People who actually care will still break the rules, but they won’t be the ones complaining if their child turns into a mini-Bellic.
09/03/2009 at 14:22 Optimaximal says:
Well, not directly, but by calling the UK the ’1984 Recreation Society’ you’re insinuating that we are a lesser society because we can’t hide behind a piece of paper that gives us free reign to shoot people (accidentally ofc – they shouldn’t be breaking into my house) or complain loudly when an official board has to step in because you don’t seem to be able to raise kids properly.
The UK may have the same problem, but at least the law can legally blame the parents or the seller – it’s not the industries fault.
09/03/2009 at 14:29 The Sombrero Kid says:
@Jon
this is because people don’t enforce laws just because, thankfully they use their brain and come to the conclusion that laws on limiting alcohol abuse are sensible and laws limiting the use of games are largely ridiculous, children are generally pretty good at steering clear of things that will scare them witless more so than a lot of adult i know so i’d argue that children should be allowed to self censor just as adults are.
09/03/2009 at 14:29 Matt Kemp says:
Meat Circus: I’m just sneering at you and being generally insulting.
Sometimes it’s best to call stupidity by its name and not engage it directly.
I’m presenting an opinion different to yours, and I like to think that I’m presenting it relatively politely. So far you’ve accused me of reading the daily mail and insinuated that my hackles will be suitably risen by the possibility of gays and immigrants, and making an ad-hominem attack disregarding my opinion because of a choice in reading material (which, FYI, I don’t read).
I’d argue you’re the one being insulting.
09/03/2009 at 14:31 Dolphan says:
MonkeyMonster – Nobody other than parents has a cat in hell’s chance of exerting any kind of control over what kids see. Trying to prevent kids from seeing 18-rated stuff is a) Not possible and b) Probably not good for them. Imagine we could prevent them seeing anything like that. Would that mean they would turn up at age 18 magically prepared to deal with all this stuff that’s been kept from them until now?
Some people will be bad parents. They’ll let their kids see and do whatever without giving them any kind of context to it, without helping them learn about what it means and how it relates to reality – without helping them grow up. This is a problem. It’s not a problem you solve by trying to restrict games and films (and thereby restricting good parents).
09/03/2009 at 14:32 Meat Circus says:
@Matt Kemp:
I changed that comment because I wanted to point at that I wasn’t specifically sneering at you, just the manifest stupidity of Hastings and the entire Daily Mail set.
As has been pointed out upthread, the proposal is unenforceable anyway, making this an amusing yet pointless discussion.
But yes, I was being insulting. As I said, it’s sometimes best to call stupidity by its own name, and not engage it head-on.
09/03/2009 at 14:34 Meat Circus says:
Can I also point out that, once again, Cliffski is being a complete loon?
09/03/2009 at 14:38 Alaric says:
Optimaximal, don’t get me wrong, I am an anglophile and I love your country, its history and its people. However, as I mentioned before, I was born in the USSR, which I was fortunate enough to have been able to escape. My problem with the modern day UK is that it is approaching that evil place uncomfortably close.
Right now I live in the US, which I also greatly admire. I think its Constitution is in fact a great document. I think the right to own weapons, which you made fun of, is a distinguishing characteristic between a slave and a free man. However, with that said, I still see a lot of problems here.
So… the US is not better than UK. Still, having seen both I find that it grants an individual more freedom and more ability to maintain his or her dignity.
Fear not though, the way things are going right now, we’ll catch up in no time and then I’ll have to run again. Sadly, I’m running out of places to run to. =(
09/03/2009 at 14:40 Matt Kemp says:
Meat Circus: As I said, it’s sometimes best to call stupidity by its own name, and not engage it head-on.
Because that’s the way to solve problems, ignore them? I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with discussion.
Like you say, it’s practically unenforceable. I’d rather see a sales-based policy, where if you sell a game to a minor or to someone with intent to supply to a minor, you can be punished. Still, I’d rather see someone taking a semi-proactive response than taking the easy way out and purely blaming games or calling for outright bans.
09/03/2009 at 14:40 The Sombrero Kid says:
the fact remains that the sickest stuff anyone has ever/will ever see in the modern age is 1 click away for everyone and completely uncensored/uncersorable censoring games is an impotent attempt at controlling a generation who are becoming more and more adept at circumventing your controls this was true when predator was my favourite movie at age 8 and it will be even more so when my 8 year old son of the future watches 1 man 1 jar 3000 on the super future internet of the future without my permission, the censorship debate is a shiny stick politicians use to distract your gaze from their culpability in things that actually matter.
09/03/2009 at 14:42 meeper says:
Am I the only one who isn’t so caught-up in ensuring that their hobby survives unmolested that I see this as a further attempt to marginalize the role of parents? The issue at hand isn’t whether teeth should be given to ratings agencies, it’s that the rights of parents in how they raise their young are being grossly violated.
Regardless of any legitimacy to the theory that exposure to violent games produces violent children, how far are we going to let government go in dictating how we’re allowed to raise our children?
09/03/2009 at 14:44 Dolphan says:
With all respect to your life story Alaric, the right to own weapons is a pretty poor way to characterise freedom.
09/03/2009 at 14:46 Alan says:
The difference is that government censorship is practiced through coercion and threats of jail time/fines, with the authority of violence. Not buying from a business because you don’t agree with their practices is simply how the free market works. Everyone does it all the time, and selling kiddie porn would certainly be a practice I don’t agree with.
09/03/2009 at 14:47 Dolphan says:
In light of meepers comments, I should point out that my comments above about not limiting parents ability to manage what their children consume is NOT based on any ‘rights of parents’ – I don’t believe parents have any rights of this kind. I’m arguing from what I think the best situation is for the children.
09/03/2009 at 14:48 Thought Police says:
“We don’t intend to let this place succumb to the same mess of abuse and hostility the internet’s reknowned for, so think carefully before you post. Don’t insult. Don’t be a troll. Be a decent human being.”
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/can-i-say-anything-i-like-in-comments/
“I’m not constructing anything. I’m just sneering at people and being generally insulting.”
John? We totally saw that cheeky post you just buhleted. The one in which you blithely admitted that Meat was “just being insulting”.
And Meat, if you want to engage in petty name-calling and needless ad-hominem, the Eurogamer forums are third on the left.
09/03/2009 at 14:51 Alaric says:
I don’t insist on forcing anyone to own weapons. =) I’m a pretty cool guy like that. =) Still, I don’t see how it’s anyone’s business to tell me what I should or should not own. As a sane, adult citizen I am perfectly capable to deciding what’s good for me.
Now, if suddenly decide to become a criminal, then (and only then) should I be deprived of my freedom, including the freedom to own potentially dangerous items.
So far neither myself nor any of my weapon-owning friends have done anything antisocial. Criminalizing us would be… wrong.
09/03/2009 at 14:53 Mister Adequate says:
The only way parents are going to end up informed about games is when gamers start having kids.
What goes on in someone’s own home is not the business of the government unless real harm is done. If a parent judges that their kid can handle something, then nobody can stop them.
Aside, of course, from the ridiculous practical problems here. What, are staff going to be required to inquisit all purchasers of games to make sure they know what they’re on about and thus not buying it for someone else? And if they’ve obviously never played a game in their life, how do you prove it’s for their kid, and not their brother-in-law?
09/03/2009 at 14:55 Ian says:
“Still, I don’t see how it’s anyone’s business to tell me what I should or should not own. As a sane, adult citizen I am perfectly capable to deciding what’s good for me.”
Where does that line get drawn?
09/03/2009 at 15:03 Spludge says:
Permit me to put a different slant on this via my experiences.
I’m well above the age to be caught up in all this nonsense, without being advanced enough in time to be called “old” by the majority of people (I’ve just entered my second Chinese zodiac). I’m also Australian (Don’t get me started on the 18+ thing).
Every school holidays for the last couple of years, I’ve been involved as a leader in the Salvation Army in Western Australia’s School holiday camps. The campers are 7-12 years old, and almost all clients of the Department for Child Protection (DCP hereafter). They’re often violent, frequently make inappropriate sexual comments, swear their mouths off, and are generally racist (not helped by the fact that we usually have a disproportionately large population of indigenous Australians on camp)
I am convinced that letting these kids play GTA4 is amongst the worst ideas ever postulated. Heck, I wouldn’t risk any of the Halo series on these guys, and that stuff is super-tame.
But these kids ended up as they are because adults let them down. Abused them. Neglected them. Never put any thought into raising them. (Granted, some are also there because their folks died, but those guys I’m not so worried about). And I have no doubt that they wouldn’t even consider the appropriateness of a game if they bought it for their kids.
If parents won’t protect their kids, the the government must, if only because it will give these kids a better shot at a normal (and not crime-ridden life), and that’s all that enforcing that law would do. Because, let’s face it, it’s not the responsible, caring parents that will be affect by this, is it?
09/03/2009 at 15:03 Meat Circus says:
@Ian:
In libertarian jurisprudence, when you start threatening the liberty or health of others.
09/03/2009 at 15:04 Gap Gen says:
I don’t see the hostility towards enforcing age restrictions on games. If you’re going to put age ratings on things at all, you might as well enforce them, otherwise ratings are a waste of time and money. Like I said, it entirely depends on how it’s implemented – it might be that a night in the cells is enough to shock some errant parents into being responsible, like the mother who was imprisoned for letting her kids play truant.
I’m not sure what the extent of research into the effects of violence on children is. I know that one study found that children copy violence (they showed children a video of a man being nice to / punching a doll and the children mimicked the man’s actions when in a similar situation).
As for games becoming more adult, it’s possible, but it also depends on other factors. Many games are still in the Hollywood-action-film stage – although some games are very good at doing that, like CoD4. The distinction between “adult = sexy & violent” and “adult = intelligent and mature” often falls in favour of the former as far as popular media go.
09/03/2009 at 15:04 Tyshalle says:
I don’t understand what business it is of government what games parents choose to buy for their kids.
I get that many parents just can’t be bothered to raise their kids, but I’m sick to death of “laws of morality” like this that cater to the dumbest and laziest amongst us, at the expense of good parents who raise a mature kid and deem it to be perfectly acceptable for him to play a game like GTA IV. This idea that innocence equates to ignorance is a ridiculous one, invented by small minded politicians and mothers alike.
Laws like this simply should not exist. I’m fine with the rating system, and I’m even fine with not allowing kids to buy M-rated games and tickets to R-rated movies. But if a parent brings them, I don’t see what the big deal is. It ought to be up to the parent to decide how to raise their kids. It’s nobody else’s business, period.
09/03/2009 at 15:08 John Walker says:
I deleted it because Meat had already said the same by the time I posted it.
I have not seen Meat directly insult anyone. If he does, as ever, I will censor him. Until then, I think people are going to cope.
09/03/2009 at 15:08 Zaij says:
I dunno, the thing about these age ratings is that they are more of a guideline than an enforceable rule. I know a lot of 14 year olds that are probably smarter and more mature than people my age(21), but because they don’t hit some age limit which is based on assuming all people that age are equal, they’re not allowed to play?
If there weren’t so many terrible parents around, I’d say it’d be up to them to decide if their kid is mature enough to play. As it is, they’d do it anyway and probably make the wrong choice.
09/03/2009 at 15:11 Meat Circus says:
John Walker smells of [flowers - Ed].
09/03/2009 at 15:14 Thought Police says:
Why, my name is John Walker, and I take great personal offence at your totally fallacious comment!
09/03/2009 at 15:17 Matt Kemp says:
Tyshalle: Laws like this simply should not exist. I’m fine with the rating system, and I’m even fine with not allowing kids to buy M-rated games and tickets to R-rated movies. But if a parent brings them, I don’t see what the big deal is. It ought to be up to the parent to decide how to raise their kids. It’s nobody else’s business, period.
The problem occurs not when the parent replies ‘I know is is M rated, I am allowing my child to play it’, but more ‘I don’t care, just put it through the till’.
09/03/2009 at 15:20 Dolphan says:
Tyshalle, it is somebody else’s business how a parent raises their kid. Namely, the child’s. In fact, it’s far more the child’s ‘business’ than the parent’s. And children have no protection whatsoever, in themselves, against the ideas or actions of their parents.
09/03/2009 at 15:21 Alaric says:
Instead of screwing with good parents and other innocent people, the government should just prevent the undesirables from having children. And from voting.
o.O
I’m not actually sure if I mean that. I need to think.
09/03/2009 at 15:27 Dolphan says:
That would be tyranny.
09/03/2009 at 15:31 Matt Kemp says:
Not to mention less enforceable than censorship.
09/03/2009 at 15:33 The Sombrero Kid says:
in empire there’s a quote from ben franklin which i agree with quite a bit, it says ‘democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what to have for dinner’ it’s appropriate here.
09/03/2009 at 15:34 Gap Gen says:
“But if a parent brings them, I don’t see what the big deal is. It ought to be up to the parent to decide how to raise their kids. It’s nobody else’s business.”
I disagree. Parents have a responsibility to their children to raise them well, and if it is determined that exposure to violence harms children and that parents are willingly doing this, then they should be appropriately punished. As a reductio-ad-absurdum, if parents are entirely responsible for their children, then it follows that the state should not provide compulsory schooling, since these provide competing influences on the child.
09/03/2009 at 15:35 The Sombrero Kid says:
ohh and a tyrannical equivalent would be 1 wolf telling 100 sheep and 10 rhinos what they’re all having for dinner
09/03/2009 at 15:37 phil says:
Nice to see everyone engaged, my two cents;
1.) The law is unenforceable and an easy cop out from proactively promoting responsible parenting through targeted community based support (which is proven to work); irresponsible parents will continue to allow their offspring to play 18 games, if through omission rather than commission, and the stiffer penalties will just produce some imprisoned scapegoats, and let’s face it, custodial sentence seriously mess with a person’s life chances, possible further ‘damaging’ the child.
2.) What’s considered harmful content to minors is about as subjective as who should win the Eurovision song contest, in America (and the UK + English speaking world in general) comic violence is generally fine, sexual material is not, promoting democracy fine, jihad, not so much. In Germany, Japan and Iran, standards are a little different, stricter in places, looser in others. Where as most everyone would agree Fallout 3 and Manhunt should be an 18, what about Dreamfall, Left Behind or the frankly astonishing array of Japan’s girlfriend sims?
09/03/2009 at 15:38 Theory says:
I seem to remember everyone getting quite upset at the idea in America that games be treated differently from films. How quickly opinions change!
09/03/2009 at 15:42 The Sombrero Kid says:
@Theory
when was the last time you heard of someone getting a custodial sentence for selling a DVD to a minor?
09/03/2009 at 15:44 JonFitt says:
I think it’s a lovely idea that parents should be able to decide what’s right for their kids, but sadly there is nothing magically enhancing about getting knocked up, and some people are crap at parenting just like people are crap at everything else.
When going to see Watchmen on Friday, I sat in front of a 20-something chap who thought it was a good night out for his 4 and 9-year-old girls. Being an R-rated film here it only requires a parent’s permission. Yay for parent’s choice.
09/03/2009 at 15:45 Alaric says:
Thank you! Tyranny was the word I was looking for.
As to those who are saying that parents have a responsibility to their children to raise them well, yes it is true. Now define well, will you?
No two people can agree on what is right. Your standards and morals may (and probably will) seem utterly ridiculous to me. Obviously the opposite is true as well. So who gets to decide what the proper way of raising children is?
09/03/2009 at 15:48 qrter says:
Gordon Freeman?
09/03/2009 at 15:49 phil says:
@Alaric
No two people can agree, but a country can have a decent stab at it – then fix what it get wrong later, like always.
09/03/2009 at 15:50 The Sombrero Kid says:
the upbringing debate is really about ‘brainwashing’, the question isn’t one of rights it’s one of preference, would you prefer a uniform level of brainwashing across the population or a more dynamic interesting but inevitably unfair level of obedience for people.
09/03/2009 at 15:54 Larington says:
I’m not convinced it’ll make any difference though. If you drive the parents away from buying the higher ratings games for youngsters, it’ll probably drive the children to the torrent networks and other filesharing methods, where the risks will be far harder to track by the parents as much as the enforcers.
The forbidden cookie jar principle at work… Except that on filesharing networks you don’t have a finite number of cookies that causes a child to get easily caught.
09/03/2009 at 15:54 Matt Kemp says:
The Sombrero Kid: the upbringing debate is really about ‘brainwashing’, the question isn’t one of rights it’s one of preference, would you prefer a uniform level of brainwashing across the population or a more dynamic interesting but inevitably unfair level of obedience for people.
Wait, what? Can you explain this differently?
09/03/2009 at 15:54 Okami says:
In early 20th century germany, the rise of youth crime and the detoriation of morals were blamed on novels and other works of fiction. It was argued that young men who read not-true stories would somehow think that these stories were real and..
I think you can imagine the arguments. German writer Kurt Tucholsky argued, that it were not novels or other forms of entertainment that led to a rise of crime and violence and a degration of morals among the young men of the working classes, but lack of education and perspective.
It’s funny how things haven’t changed in a hundred years. Then, as now, the lower classes suffer from lack of education and lack of perspective and this is the main reason for kids that turn to crime and violence. And while it may be convenient to blame parents, parents these days often just don’t have the time to look after their kids.
We need free day care for kids, free health care, jobs that actually pay the rent, so that parents don’t have to take on 2 jobs to support their family, we need schools and universities that actually raise children to be critical thinkers and educated human beeings instead of just churning out more stupid workforce to work for a small elite that does nothing but get the world into ever greater deals of trouble.
Stop blaming video games and start blaming the whole fucking system!
09/03/2009 at 15:54 Dolphan says:
Or, y’know, giving kids as much awareness of possible of the fact that people disagree and that they can make up their own minds, while giving them access to different viewpoints and as much information as necessary when they get to the age where they need to decide who they are for themselves. Minimising the brainwashing.
09/03/2009 at 15:56 Xercies says:
I’m going to say this, whats the difference between someone who is 17 or someone who is 18. The 17 person can’t play an 18 game because politicians like the one in this one won’t let them too. What really happens in that year that lets them play an 18 game and you see how stupid the government forcing parents to not buy there kids a game.
My parents looked after me, they let me watch a 15 when I was 13 because they thought i could handle it. Yes I watched some things i wasn’t meant to(I watched the Matrix when I was 9 oh god that face bit) but they were there to speak to me about it. Also I watched a horror film when I was 13 it was rather tame one but i couldn’t handle it, guess what? I rarely watch horror films now because I have learned from the experience.
The parents should decide whether there kid can play GTA4 or not, the same as they decide whether children are able to watch movies or not. Yes its good that underage people are not allowed to buy them. But jailing parents because of something they did that might have been actually thought of is stupid.
09/03/2009 at 15:57 phil says:
Nurturing a child shouldn’t be about brainwashing – conditioning certainly, but brainwashing is more an Ipcress file/Camp X-ray style exercise in changing a person’s operating system, rather than helping write that operating system.
09/03/2009 at 15:57 Tei says:
I suppose chosing videogames for your pre-teen childrens is part of parenting. I doubt the governement will make a better job at parenting than yourself. And of course, the governement can do a better job than some people, but thats are rare cases.
So my reply is: No, sould not be enforced.
09/03/2009 at 15:59 Alaric says:
Phil, I respectfully disagree with that claim. Increasing the number of incompetent people required to reach a decision does not automatically translate into a better quality decision.
09/03/2009 at 16:02 Gap Gen says:
I’m actually surprised at the level of vitriol towards the idea of enforcing age ratings. Last time I remember this being debated, a lot of people liked the idea of parents being made responsible for their children, rather than allowing them to blame videogames for screwing up their kids in the tabloid press.
09/03/2009 at 16:04 Alaric says:
Okami, that’s a great historical parallel!
I completely agree with you, except for the part where you want free things to be handed out to people. Free is not really free, it’s just me paying for some guy’s stuff, which I find disagreeable.
In principle though, yes it would be very nice if everyone had an awesome job and lots of money.
09/03/2009 at 16:06 Hypocee says:
Any enforcement measures need to stay on the retail side, period. The ratings boards’ jobs are so impossible that there are always going to be massive grey areas in any singular linear rating. This game or movie or book (imagine!) is Teen rated because there’s an alcoholic character in it, but you let your 11-year-old touch it so off to jail? That’s not justice. If a parent’s consistently exposing underage kids to disturbing media, that may be child neglect or child endangerment or whatever it’s called by your local government, but it has nothing to do with the purchase or sale of the media themselves. Ratings by themselves are a tool to give parents (back) some control over their kids’ access to media. Enforce the hell out of that, please, but not one step farther.
09/03/2009 at 16:13 Matthew says:
To people making R-rated movie analogies: You realize there are no laws against kids buying R-rated movie tickets, right? Theaters can legally do it; they’ll get backlash from the MPAA, though, who lean on distributors to pull theaters that don’t obey their rules. And it works.
That’s the point, though–they’re industry rules, not laws. Until you get into actual porn age limits are all industry self-discipline.
09/03/2009 at 16:20 Hypocee says:
In the UK there are laws against selling DVDs outside their classification. Therefore, at least there, the analogy holds.
09/03/2009 at 16:22 Nick says:
It would be somewhat hypocritical for me to be in favour of this having played and watched many game and films well below the age ratings in my time.
So.. eh.. I’ll just agree with Meat Circus as usual.
09/03/2009 at 16:26 Not Bernard says:
Kids’ll still get their hands on it. The only way forward is to educate the parents, or as has been mentioned, wait until the current generation has their own children. I don’t believe blanket bans on certain age group work with just about anything.
09/03/2009 at 16:27 The Sombrero Kid says:
@phil
Call it what you like it’s indoctrination it’s the scale and uniformity of indoctrination that people disagree on
09/03/2009 at 16:42 Serenegoose says:
I disagree with the entire concept of age ratings, and think that it’s just another example of patronising young people who, I remember for myself, get nothing more than pissed off at being considered completely incapable of making their own choices, even up to the age of 17. (18 rated films and games ahoy). The infantilisation of children does nothing but coddle and oppress them for no other reason than so some overbearing adults can sleep easy knowing they’re ‘protecting the children’. From what, only they know.
It also affects people who are poor. Real life example time! I wanted to buy Fallout 3, and I’m 22. Without photo ID, I would not have been able to purchase it. I’m not aware of any photo ID, universally available, that is free. Were it not for the fact that I had a railcard, I’d have been a victim of censorship too, and I’m a legal adult.
I’m also unaware of books that have graphic representations of violence being subject to censorship, which is a pretty unlevel playing field. What is it about the specific visual that OBLIGES the young viewer to become ‘corrupted’ and believe that violence is just peachy? and what mysticism is it that 18 exact orbits around the sun will cure you of being affected by any malicious desires caused by these clearly supernatural artifacts? Surely we’d concede that there are plenty of people who have completed this ritual who we consider immature, and plenty of people who have not who we would consider mature, and that how many times you’ve spun around a star would have little impact on this, and a lot more on how you’d been brought up, or how you’d self-developed in the cases of largely absentee parents.
On the other hand, if you accept that censorship helps ANYBODY except the government oppress people, I’ve got a rock that keeps away dragons, if you’re interested.
Is it that important for you to have a fuss free game of GTAIV that you’re perfectly willing to collaborate in the oppression of anybody that’s under 18 to get it?
09/03/2009 at 16:45 Gap Gen says:
Like I said, is there anyone here who knows about child psychology and whether age ratings genuinely are important for child development?
09/03/2009 at 16:49 Alaric says:
Plenty of people claim to know one way or the other. Unfortunately there is no agreement among experts.
09/03/2009 at 16:53 The Sombrero Kid says:
In this case empirical evidence of growing up should be enough to convince you, I’m less responsable now than when I was pre 18 and that’s true for most men at least I know
Middle aged men are notoriously ‘not themselves’ why don’t censors target them because they can vote mostly see my comment about democracy above :)
09/03/2009 at 16:59 Optimaximal says:
What is the difference between a person who buys a lottery ticket before the Saturday night cut off and a person who misses it by mere seconds? Nothing, but that late person still won’t get a ticket.
For laws & rules to even function, there has to be definite right/wrong yes/no situations – a cut-off, if you will…
Once you start playing devils advocate with debates like this, you muddy the waters and it all becomes workable.
09/03/2009 at 17:01 Ian says:
I wish I was as angry and oppressed as Serenegoose.
09/03/2009 at 17:05 Nighthood says:
As a quick observation (someone might have said it already, too many comments), I am 16 but I have the ability to buy games with any rating over the internet, as I own a debit card. There is also a bank account, Halifax I think, that allows you to get a debit card at 12 or something close to that. Most online shops just assume that if they have a card they must be over 18, but that is not always the case.
09/03/2009 at 17:11 Gap Gen says:
Well, it’s not a question of responsibility of the individual but the effect of violent media on developing minds. If exposure to violent media can make children more predisposed to violence, then censorship is a good idea. I don’t know whether the same applies to adults to a great degree (or indeed if it applies to children enough to warrant censorship).
Society is always partly paternalistic, banning some drugs and certain violent media to people of all ages, and the limits are generally set by popular compromise rather than any absolutist rationale (so in the West we generally allow bikinis on billboards despite the wishes of conservative Muslims, but not full nudity). In many ways, the ban on drugs is harmful as it causes crime and doesn’t reduce the incidence of drug use, but removing the ban in favour of strict regulation isn’t an idea many politicians would fully support for fear of being ostracised.
09/03/2009 at 17:12 Hanako says:
If kids playing uber-violent games without any moral context turn out as hyper-violent happy-slapping street corner thugs that are going to make my life hell, then YES send the cops round their house and fine the fuck out of their parents for knowingly buying them inappropriate games.
No, cliff – you send the cops round their house and punish the children for being violent happy-slapping street thugs.
Considering how screwed up the UK is, with our overcrowded prisons and desperate attempts to avoid prosecuting ‘anti-social behavior’, why do some people want to add more offenses for people who haven’t even done anything wrong as opposed to punishing the people who ARE doing something wrong?
Playing a game should not be a crime. Allowing someone else to play a game should not be a crime. Strapping someone down and forcing them to play against their will should be a crime, and if you can find me a parent who’s intentionally Clockwork Orangeing their kids, I’ll be all for prosecuting them.
09/03/2009 at 17:15 phil says:
@Alaric – from up trend a bit – how are you judging whether people are ‘competent’ enough to take part in the decision making process of a society, via voting say? To quote winne “democracy is the very worst form of government, asides from all the others.”
@Sombrero – No, indoctrination and brainwashing is something else, a shutting down of thought, nurturing is more a general process.
Unless you were a wild child raised by a pack of wolves, you were socialised and nurtured by a human social group that imprinted it’s morality and ethics onto you, even if you reject them totally, they’re still there, helping to make you, you, even if it’s by that very act of rejection.
09/03/2009 at 17:15 Tei says:
I have played hiper-violents games as kid. And I am not hyperviolent. Say, I have played at trown rocks at friends, and “cops vs thiefs” and stuff like that.
So, please stop all histeria. All childrens play violent games, If your children don’t play violent games, your childrens is not normal, most probably has a real problem that stop him to doing that.
09/03/2009 at 17:17 Serenegoose says:
I had a big, angry response for you just there Ian, but I’ve managed to slim it down a bit:
‘Someone’s gotta be. :)’
09/03/2009 at 17:22 Hanako says:
If exposure to violent media can make children more predisposed to violence, then censorship is a good idea.
It’s extraordinarily hard to test that in a scientific fashion – approaching impossibility. The best most research can do is correlations, which I would hope that all people bright enough to use a computer are also bright enough to realise DO NOT MEAN ‘CAUSE’.
I can spin a bunch of theories that sound reasonable, but it’s not science. For example: I have a strong suspicion that the regular portrayal of mild, could-happen-in-the-real-world violence is far more damaging to society than over-the-top action-movie/game violence. By that, I mean “dramatic” conflicts in television and movies where someone insults or aggravates someone else, and the insulted party responds by throwing a punch. I don’t think I’ve EVER seen TV/movies show consequences for this sort of behavior. In fact, they usually do their best to imply that you’re “not a real man” if you don’t respond to insults or threats against your wife/child with violence.
I suspect this is far more likely to make viewers think that “my feelings are hurt, so I hit people” is reasonable than a game about beheading people with a magic sword is to make kids think they need to run through their school with a broadsword. But I can’t prove it with real science any more than the “OH NO VIDEO GAMES!” side can.
09/03/2009 at 17:23 Gap Gen says:
Hanako: So crime has no relation to environment or upbringing? Sounds controversial. You cite the wish to reduce prison populations, but if you don’t tackle the root causes of crime, how do you expect to do that?
09/03/2009 at 17:27 Butler` says:
I have a ‘friend’ (who himself is a loon) who let his nephew of 5 watch him play GTA3 regularly.
I don’t know a lot, but I know one thing: that aint right, and shouldn’t be in anyone’s book.
09/03/2009 at 17:29 Nighthood says:
Oh, also, one of the first games I ever played was Soldier of Fortune 1, with the gore on high. I would regard myself as normal.
09/03/2009 at 17:30 Hanako says:
So crime has no relation to environment or upbringing? Sounds controversial. You cite the wish to reduce prison populations, but if you don’t tackle the root causes of crime, how do you expect to do that?
… Since when is a parent letting their kid watch Star Wars at the age of 9 a root cause of crime?
For that matter, since when did tackling the root cause of crime mean “lock up anyone who is/does anything that might someday contribute to an actual crime taking place”? Are you going to arrest everyone below the poverty line? We all know poverty is linked to crime. Hey, if you lock up all parents before they HAVE children, then you’ll prevent any future criminals from being born!
09/03/2009 at 17:30 cliffski says:
“Can I also point out that, once again, Cliffski is being a complete loon?”
Wow meatcircus, your brain REALLY cant cope with people disagreeing with you can it?
Tough.
09/03/2009 at 17:32 cliffski says:
To everyone who thinks violent imagery does not affect you… riddle me this:
Does imagery in adverts affect your behaviour?
if the answer is yes, explain why ads affect you and games don’t. (given that are interactive)
If the answer is no, why is advertising a multi-billion dollar industry, given that you assert it doesn’t work?
09/03/2009 at 17:33 redcoat says:
sounds idiotic. we don’t need more people criminalized and especially not for such trivial things. we don’t need more nanny state and laws. great to see them wasting time with this with all the other troubles going on in the world. adding more stupid laws to the books won’t stop it happening anyway. this goes beyond the basic rule of law and order and into interfering with private life. i think half the people here and those who say “they should make a law” for every problem would be all too happy to sell off the last of our freedoms and then lie down and wait for big brother’s jackboots to begin stamping on their faces.
09/03/2009 at 17:35 Alaric says:
Phil, that is my point exactly! How do you decide who is competent enough to make these calls and who is not? Everyone seems to think they know whats best for everyone else.
I say, anything goes unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it (whatever “it” is) causes harm to others.
09/03/2009 at 17:36 Hanako says:
The “behavior” desired by ads isn’t in the same category and you know it. Very rarely does an ad want you to copy the behavior shown in the ad – what the ad shows is completely unrelated to what the intended effect is.
09/03/2009 at 17:40 Alaric says:
Cliffski, of course violent imagery affects us. However:
affects us != makes us into violent criminalsWe all love watching violent movies, playing violent games and reading books that have violent action in them. Biologically we are hunters, carnivores, and as such violence appeals to us. Make no mistake though, we did not become carnivores after GTA and Manhunt came out.
09/03/2009 at 17:42 Gap Gen says:
Hanako: Like I’ve said in this thread already, all laws can be made absurd by introducing disproportionate punishments for misdemeanours. A good idea can be scuppered by poor implementation. I’m not suggesting police should lock up anyone who buys an 18-rated game for a 17-year-old. And if the judges and police have any sense, they will act proportionately.
You are correct – we should attempt to reduce poverty to combat crime and other problems. Locking up poor people will not prevent them from being poor, though. That said, it is done indirectly, in using aggressive policing to combat drug crime rather than using solutions that target the causes of drug crime, or even admitting that the war on drugs isn’t working.
However, like I said, putting parents in the cells for a night has already been used as a deterrent for things like allowing truancy, so doing the same for allowing a 9-year-old to watch Saw or Hostel, or letting them play Manhunt, might be valid.
09/03/2009 at 17:47 dhex says:
“If the answer is no, why is advertising a multi-billion dollar industry, given that you assert it doesn’t work?”
show me the correlation between outlay and sales success and you’ll be the richest man in the ad biz. you’ll also be able to eat the walls because they’ll be made out of candy!
:)
also, when we’re discussing a government stepping in to make sure people are buying age appropriate video games for their children…i’m not sure “nanny state” the term is ghastly, but more like “sadly prophetic”.
09/03/2009 at 17:48 Weylund says:
I’m a parent, and a gamer, and age ratings would be great tools if they actually meant anything.
Folks who talk about “parents just raising their kids better” really have no idea what they’re talking about. Raising a child is quite probably the hardest job anyone can have, as you will discover when you make the attempt, and claiming that it can be done “better” – without support – just devalues an already devalued task. That would be like someone walking into your work and telling you to “do better” without any feedback or tools with which to do it. Go soak your heads, you idiots.
That said, as I mentioned, a ratings system is a tool for parents to use, but at this time the ratings mean very little. A Teen game may be perfectly appropriate for one of my youngsters – in fact quite a lot of games are rated that way – and I don’t think a store ought to be fined if they don’t suss out the fact that I’m buying it for my 8-year-old (or me fined, for that matter). On the other hand, a largely harmless old NES game like Kirby has my oldest talking about hitting people with swords, something I’m not incredibly comfortable with. Does that mean it needs a T rating, or even an E+? I don’t think so, but I wouldn’t trust a ratings board to make that determination.
tl;dr – ratings should be guidelines and nothing more. A good focused network of information about games in re: kids would be nice, though. I’d love to have access to a unified source for info on games for my kids. There are some great sites, but not enough.
Give. Parents. Tools. Don’t f’ing fine them.
09/03/2009 at 17:51 Xercies says:
@Optimaxal
The problem with regulation is that it is such a grey area, so making a cut off point is very hard to do.
Just look at alcohol apprantly the government wants no one to have a drink before they are 15. but there is anecdotol evidence to suggest having a little bit of a drink won’t harm you and actually make you grow up drinking alcohol responsible.
But according to the governemnt this is not true and they will lock you up if you give your child even a smidgen of drink. Because of these kind of grey areas any censorship is either rubbish or useless.
But I do have to say, playing violent video games, watching vilent movies, listening to violent music can have an affect especially when you are young. Its just so hard to know what that effect may be.
09/03/2009 at 17:53 Hanako says:
However, like I said, putting parents in the cells for a night has already been used as a deterrent for things like allowing truancy
And it was a MASSIVE failure, and truancy rates have gone way up since that policy was implemented, iirc. Responding to the problem with “Let’s just punish people, then!” instead of trying to work out why people were truanting and how to fix that was, IMO, totally the wrong thing to do.
09/03/2009 at 17:55 PheonixK says:
Whether or not mature video games / media cause children to turn out immoral/criminal/just plain bad is a subject of intense debate. But because it is open to debate, let’s consider for the moment that such media DOES turn some of us into criminals.
In this case, the fundamental question that needs to be answered is this: Is it more advantageous to deal with (incarcerate, etc.) criminals as they do criminal things, or to reduce/eliminate the factors that caused them to become criminals?
09/03/2009 at 18:00 Hanako says:
The thing is, I don’t believe that parents are always right about what’s best for their kids. Parents are quite capable of screwing their kids up horribly. So’s the government.
Raising kids is hard, there’s no simple way to do it, and a lot of parents who get demonised for doing it wrong are doing the best they can but lack the time, the skills, or the knowledge to do better (Or just plain got unlucky.) If someone tries and fails, how is punishing them going to help? I think society tends to get too fixated on blame and punishment and not enough on results.
09/03/2009 at 18:01 Gap Gen says:
Hanako: Hmm, I didn’t follow that story up. If it doesn’t work, then yes, we need to find other ways to enforce age ratings. Allowing shops to refuse sales to anyone suspected of buying games for children is fine, I guess, in the same way that alcohol or tobacco sales are restricted. Other than that, I don’t know.
Of course, the issue of whether or not we should enforce ratings and the issue of how to enforce them are separate things (like your poverty example: reducing poverty is good, but just locking up poor people isn’t).
09/03/2009 at 18:05 Hanako says:
*nod* I’m all in favor of stores not selling mature games to minors, questioning parents who seem to be buying games without even knowing what they contain, and even having the right to refuse sales. If they really want the game they’ll find a way to get it, and having to go out of their way for it should make them aware that what they’re doing is ‘questionable’ and should be considered carefully.
09/03/2009 at 18:05 Tunnel says:
Whenever I read this sort of stuff my blood pressure rises. For some reason I have a visceral hatred of most proposals to ban children from media deemed harmful to them. It’s probably a legacy from when TV would cancel my favorite shows for being too violent, or censor the boobs. I always heard that it was due to pressure from PTA and other parent’s lobby groups, so I grew up with a deep hatred for those groups. Perhaps they have a point.
But after thinking about it, I don’t mind so much. Kids are going to watch and play whatever they want. When I was in my early teens, even without the internet, we all eventually got what we wanted. Carmageddon, Soldier of fortune, Battle Royale, the worst of anime, and a deluge of porn. Kids are industrious both in getting what they want and in concealing it from parents. If you have a fourteen year old boy, he probably is at the peak of his porn-watching and manhunt-playing. Once he hits eighteen, he will probably have no interest in crappy games and slightly less interest in porn. Harmful or not, legal or not, most kids are attracted to sex and violence, and they are going to do whatever they want. Most parents won’t realize it, no matter how proactive they try to be. I have fond memories of playing XCom with my dad, but you can be damn sure that he never found out where I kept my carmageddon.
So, I might be ideologically opposed to it, but if it protects the videogame industry from actual government censorship, legislate away.
09/03/2009 at 18:11 Mister Adequate says:
@ Hypocee: In the UK there are laws against selling DVDs outside their classification. Therefore, at least there, the analogy holds.
No it doesn’t. There are no laws which punish parents who buy a DVD for showing it to their children – that is the business of the parents. (Unless it’s porn, but that’s just something the English speaking world has come to terms with.)
09/03/2009 at 18:15 Gap Gen says:
Actually, I wonder how much of an effect the general environment has compared to exposure to violent media. Like people have said, even if there’s a correlation between violence and playing violent games, the study has to show causality – people who like violence or who haven’t been brought up to believe in empathy towards others may be attracted to violent videogames. I have no real desire to blow someone’s head off, but I enjoy the challenge of shooters and the adrenaline of trying to survive. Some people actually enjoy simulating the suffering or death of others, which I think is a bit worrying (although of course they may not be predisposed to do it for real).
09/03/2009 at 18:20 Gorgeras says:
The lowest common denominator population, when forced to deal with the consequences of it’s actions will be the first to demand liberalisation, rights and dignity where they scoffed at them before.
The suggestion is that parents should be prosecuted for willingly supplying unsuitable material(centred on games). I’ve always said unsuitable content in games was largely a problem of parental ignorance/apathy and the ignorance is often quite wilful. Whilst I wouldn’t generally support criminal penalties on this matter, I think it would be a brilliant lesson to all those self-righteous ‘family groups’ when faced with the backlash from real families.
Let the cause roll on if it looks like it might be about to commit harakiri.
09/03/2009 at 18:27 Mike says:
I don’t have the time to read all three miles of comments but from my skimming I have to say that I’m liking peoples reactions. Actually thinking about it!
The way I see it, parents should already know that the ratings are there for a reason, and as mentioned before if they don’t know the best way to teach is through community work and teaching people one on one.
As for this new law. I think it’s horrible and won’t take into account the individual. Parents have a right to choose for their kids. Mine for instance never let me watch films before I was old enough unless they had watched them first and decided they were ok. Which was extremely annoying from my perspective then. But I’m glad they did it! Also I got to watch the Matrix with my dad when I was 13, WOOP!
The problem is that for the few good parents it’s a bad law. But for the much higher percentage of bad(or just ignorant) parents it will be an obvious sign that they need to stop!
hope that made sense.
09/03/2009 at 18:35 JonFitt says:
There are plenty of tools out there for people who are interested:
http://www.whattheyplay.com/
The problem is not with parents who want to be aware, it’s those who don’t care. The parent who just blindly buys GTA4 for their 7 year-old because they want it, is engaged in a form of neglect.
Incidentally they’re also the kind of people who may decide to sue the publishers later.
Prison time is ridiculous, a fine would suffice. But really I doubt the custodial sentence would be used.
09/03/2009 at 18:40 The Sombrero Kid says:
indoctrination and nurturing are both the process of normaising behavoiur and ideals, you call normalising ideals you don’t agree with indoctrination and the process of normalising ideals you do agree with nurturing imo
09/03/2009 at 18:41 undead dolphin hacker says:
If enforcement of age requirements on games allows the creation of more mature content… oh who am I kidding. More intense blood and gore isn’t mature.
Though sometimes I wonder. Talking in USA (ESRB) terms, if games developers expect their games are only going to be played by people of age 18+, maybe they’d feel freer to make more sophisticated storylines. If you’re throwing a product to the hoi polloi, you play to the lowest common denominator.
If you know your product is only going to people of age 18 and up, maybe you develop a stronger sense of shame. Your audience is going to be older, do we really need a scantily clad, big-breasted (female) (…but the alternative is promising) protagonist? Or on the contrary, we want to tell a mature story, do we really need cartoony graphics and saccharine characters?
The noted lack of sex in games — not sex appeal, but capital-letter Sex and the emotional consequences that come from it — is notably absent in game stories. The ones that include sex and handle it in a mature, emotional way tend to be well-regarded: Baldur’s Gate 2, Torment, Mask of the Betrayer, Vampire Bloodlines (though that explored more the psychological/deviant nature of sex).
I dunno, one of the RPG tropes I find just weird is that these men and women can travel together for 40-80 hours of playtime, god only knows how much game time, and nobody has sex. They make eyes at eachother and vaguely flirt, there’s typically at least one slutty chick (or guy) that’s in-your-face about wanting it, but it never goes anywhere. Sometimes I think to be a CRPG hero you have to be spayed or neutered.
09/03/2009 at 18:43 The Sombrero Kid says:
gap gens spot on a mind corrupted by a game is much more likely to be corrupted by reality censor that first
09/03/2009 at 18:43 Alaric says:
“The parent who just blindly buys GTA4 for their 7 year-old because they want it, is engaged in a form of neglect.”
Says YOU.
09/03/2009 at 18:45 kr8 says:
I’ll just leave a comment even though the thread is huge and I didn’t even read the entire thing yet. This has probably already been said but here goes:
- I played carmageddon when I was 14, I think the game was 16+. In hindsight I think the game would be suitable for kids twelve and over. You might not agree with me and you are probably in the majority (a law of averages), but barring any real evidence that allowing a twelve year old to play this game would do him serious harm, the government has no right to impede on my judgement in this matter. The ratings in their current form are meant to be a suggestion to parents, and I think that’s okay. If you allow the government to take a freedom away from you, it should be because of a clear and verifiable danger to society. I don’t see it here.
- There’s a rating you can get in the US movie rating system that absolutely kill your movie commercially because many theaters won’t show it (was it M?) and many video places won’t stock it. Demonization is bad and is also what this might lead to. I think I don’t have to convince anyone here that it’s also had a very negative effect on the quality of romantic scenes in most hollywood movies. You never get to see real sex, only kisses and fade-out with lovey dubby romanticism or hardcore trash porn. There are exceptions of course, but this is the situation as I see it and I believe the rating system is to blame. This directly contradicts the main argument of the post that states that this might improve the quality of games for adults. Of course there are also countries where the ratings systems sorta work and haven’t had such an adverse affect, so it’s not a slam dunk either way.
09/03/2009 at 18:46 Erlam says:
What the fuck happened to reading the damn box? Back when I was a lad, my stepdad would read over whatever game I wanted — If you see a game set in ‘Nam about fighting off hordes of “VC soldiers,” that’s a pretty good clue your 8 year old should not be playing it.
I think ratings are mostly over-rated, but have a point.
I was in a talk at the last PAX where parents (who game) were talking about what their children were playing, what was appropriate, ways to make sure they got games suited to them, etc. I was in line to comment, but it ended before I got to. My question was this:
There is obviously a theory that kids cannot play games above their age group. This is largely seen as gospel. However, I ask them how many of them played games above their age group when they were young. I know I did, and I imagine a lot of others did as well. Then you look at crime rates – particularly violent crime – and (in Canada at least) it’s way down. So even when playing games we shouldn’t have, we didn’t go berserk and shoot up the country.
Basically, what I’m saying is that even if we go through with all of these checks and balances, I’m not sure what the difference will will be. You can blame parents, retailers, or the government, but at some point people need to realise that a lot of this still is just in the child itself (I know, I have 4). That doesn’t mean you should just let them do whatever, but I think the actual games chosen to play arent the problem — it’s the disposition of the person playing them. Play games with your kids. Explain stuff to them.
09/03/2009 at 18:56 dhex says:
Though sometimes I wonder. Talking in USA (ESRB) terms, if games developers expect their games are only going to be played by people of age 18+, maybe they’d feel freer to make more sophisticated storylines.
nice idea, but there’d have to be a large enough market for it. i don’t know that there is outside of the indies.
09/03/2009 at 18:58 Ginger Yellow says:
“But according to the governemnt this is not true and they will lock you up if you give your child even a smidgen of drink. ”
Uh, not in the UK. You can give alcohol to your child under supervision from the age of 5, and as a restaurant you can serve accompanied children alcohol with a meal from the age of 16.
09/03/2009 at 19:02 Ginger Yellow says:
“nice idea, but there’d have to be a large enough market for it. ”
There are plenty of 18+ games in the UK and they sell just fine. GTA is always rated 18 here. The problem is that console manufactures won’t allow AO games on their systems at the moment and many retailers won’t stock them. It’s a bit like the NC-17 stigma for films, but more so. That stigma simply doesn’t exist in the UK, because 18 ratings are much more common.
09/03/2009 at 19:07 Hypocee says:
Not what we were talking about.
This may be true in some or all of the United States – I’ve been unable to casually find any counterexamples – but is, as I linked, untrue in the UK. I’m unable to find counterexamples in NZ, but assume they’re there because this legislator’s talking about enforcing a much more restrictive echelon of laws, and I’d also be surprised if NZ was leading censorious old Australia in the think-of-the-children stakes.
09/03/2009 at 19:23 Gap Gen says:
The Sombrero Kid: “gap gens spot on a mind corrupted by a game is much more likely to be corrupted by reality censor that first”
Actually, I didn’t say that. I said that it’s possible. In fact, it’s possible that better parents will filter what their children can see or play more vigilantly. It’s possible that active monitoring of what children see and do is part of a good upbringing, and that far from ignoring the issue of censorship, we should promote it to parents.
And what do you mean by censor reality? How do you propose to do that? Do you mean enforce good parenting and foster a positive social environment? “Censor” isn’t really the word I’d use there.
09/03/2009 at 19:24 Jocho says:
I tend to watch people in stores when they’re suggesting or thinking about buying a game – sometimes to check the quality of the store, sometimes to see the general attitude to age ratings, and I can easily say one thing: Nobody bothers about them. In fact, a high age rating is a metric of coolness – if you’re seven years old, you’re cooler playing a 18+ game then a 7+ game or 12+ game, because you can brag to your friends that you dare play whatever-it-is.
But, without reading this lengthy discussion, I can easily say that any laws of this kind will be dealt with like the Alcohol Monopoly in Sweden: The older “buy out” for the underage for some extra payment. So even if the child’s parent isn’t buying it, some random guy might do it for a few coins.
09/03/2009 at 19:27 Dolphan says:
Alaric – Parent hits child whenever he’s in a bad mood. Not smacks, full-on thumps them. When challenged, he states that this is perfectly decent parenting, that it builds character, prepares a child for a tough world, his dad did it to him and he turned out fine, etc. That OK by you?
09/03/2009 at 19:54 dhex says:
There are plenty of 18+ games in the UK and they sell just fine.
well that’s the current ratings schema in your neck of the woods, but that’s not what we were talking about, which is more akin to the AO titles you mentioned.
09/03/2009 at 20:09 Hidden_7 says:
Personally I’m not about to support any legislation that would criminalize my parents for the way they raised me.
It is absolutely insane to me that someone could support the government making it a criminal act for parents to decide which media their kids can be exposed to. All it takes is a certain political slant to show up in the ratings process and BOOM, scary business.
Treating games as the same sort of thing as letting your child become a drunkard, smoker, or hitting them just shows a deep lack of critical analysis. I didn’t need protection from Doom, or Duke3d, or hell, Half-Life, Thief, System Shock, Fallout, Daggerfall, Diablo, etc. All games that came out before I was 18. Many providing defining moments for me, which as gamers I think we can all understand. Given the way in which games disappear into the ether so quickly too, it’s very likely that if I had waited till… 2005 to touch any game M rated I would very likely not be playing them. Sure, you can get old games now, GoG and such, but having no nostalgia factor attached to them, I’d be unlikely to hunt them down. As a result I’d probably be one of those people that thinks Halo is the best FPS ever, and most likely the first. I would be uneducated in the medium I so love.
Which is what it all comes down to, education. The logical extension of the legislation, legislation that would make it criminal for even PARENTS to buy higher rated games for their kids, is that it is WRONG for kids to have access to any of these games, full stop. Which means that one should not be exposed to any content like that until they are 18. Which would result in a pretty messed up 18 year old.
I’d actually be curious to meet someone who had been sheltered like that. Since a lot of these ratings tend to have a pretty knee jerk approach to subjects, full stop, rather than execution, there’d be a whole host of issues this person was not even aware existed.
A somewhat related story, a friend who works at a video store was relating a story to me, where a mother came in and asked her about Juno and whether it would be appropriate for her 12-year old. My friend then described what the movie was about, talked about any questionable scenes, and gave her opinion; that it was obviously a matter of individual choice depending on the parent, but in her opinion it would be fine for a 12-year old to watch. The mom then flipped out at her, saying that it was insane to think that a film about teen pregnancy would be appropriate for a 12-year old. I’d love to see how that see no evil approach works out for her…
09/03/2009 at 20:22 sebmojo says:
Just to clarify a misconception several people seem to have, Bill Hastings isn’t a politician – he’s a public servant. The Chief Censor is a position that doesn’t change with the government, so he’s not trying for votes.
Personally I think we’ve got a fairly sensible regime in NZ (I’m a Kiwi). It lacks the anti-Nazi obsessionalism of Germany, the knife hysteria of the UK, the puritanism about sex of the US, and the absurd ‘if kids can’t play it then noone can’ of Australia.
The only game that’s actually been banned is Manhunt, which isn’t too bad a place to draw the line.
09/03/2009 at 20:24 sebmojo says:
Also Hypocee is right – it’s actually illegal for an underage person to see R18 films or games in NZ – it’s not a ‘suggestion’ like in the US.
09/03/2009 at 20:28 Alaric says:
Dolphan, spanking a child as a means of punishment is perfectly legal and acceptable. Sometimes kids do need to be taught that way. On the other hand, beating a child is something else entirely, and should not be allowed.
That is because beating someone (a child or an adult) causes them harm. We frown on harming others in society.
Spanking, however does not cause harm. Instead it causes distress, which is an accepted tactic in any kind of parenting. Agreed, the kind of distress that’s caused by spanking is different from the kind caused by grounding or taking away TV privileges. Still, it is not harm.
So yea, a parent is allowed to discipline his child. That’s what parenting is.
09/03/2009 at 20:32 OJ287 says:
I watched Terminator 2 as a child and I havent grown up to be an Austrian cyborg.
If youre going to have rules for films then they should be applied to games. Saying that, my dad would have been in trouble for buying me Doom.
Generally I think it should be up to the parents to decide, with the police getting involved in extreme cases like giving a game equivalent to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to a nine year old. Though I wouldnt trust the police/government to use discretion when there’s the oppurtunity to rake in funds through fining as many people as possible.
09/03/2009 at 21:02 PJ says:
I could not possibly disagree more without causing myself internal injury. Back when I was a young ‘un my parents regularly bought me games that I was technically not old enough to play. Was this because they were terrible parents? No, it was because they were good parents, who knew me and could judge that I was mature enough to appreciate them without becoming a warped serial killer. And since then I’ve rewarded their faith in me by hardly going on any killing sprees at all.
It is ludicrous to suggest that the very second somebody slips into their eighteenth year since they popped out of a vagina they instantly become capable of dealing with all the ills of the world. Especially if for the past eighteen years everybody has been pretending that none of those ills exist. Everybody matures at different rates, and everybody is ready to deal with those subject matters at different ages. Maybe some people are ready to deal with GTA4 at 12. I can think of some people I know that I don’t think are ready at 23. The government can’t possibly judge that, but parents can and should. If some parents choose to ignore that responsibility then that is an entirely separate issue, and I would say a far more important one than whether little Johnny gets to see a couple of gibs every now and then.
09/03/2009 at 21:26 ACardboardRobot says:
Is it just me or is this thread overwhelmingly in favour of censorship?
I’m still young, too young to be playing a lot of the games talked about. But I still am, I’ve played more games than many of my peers, many more violent games than the people I know robbing cars and getting into fights each day. This is just a parallel to literature in past generations.
Ginsberg for example, when Howl first came out, it was banned. But what is it now? It’s fairly widely respected as a great piece of poetry. It was just censored because it put out in the open for the wider public what the youth of that time were doing and spelled it out in plain terms. Yes a consequence of this is the absolute plethora of arty types nowadays getting high trying to get inspiration like their heroes.
Or Manhunt, I’m going to draw a parallel to Amerika, once again by Ginsberg. Amerika is fairly outspoken, but seeing as it’s a poem, a respected and ESTABLISHED medium, that is seen as something fit to be put on a college course’s recommended reading etc. Manhunt on the other hand, a videogame, was widely criticised. For what? For what I feel is a dark satire on movies. If you look at the game, there are striking similarities to The Running Man, the film more so than the novel. But what are these regarded as? An action film and a sci-fi book respectively.
It is these double standards that are really hurting us. It really should be the parent’s responsibility that their child is interacting with media that they and the child agree is suitable.
I remember I went to see Signs with my parents, I had to be talked into it because it looked scary, but I went with them. Halfway through the film I got beyond scared and had to leave. I still haven’t watched that whole movie and I don’t want to. It’s something that I have decided, maturely and with regard to my own experience, not some middle-aged politician looking to secure more votes or a censor looking to keep his job.
That’s something not often talked about, the censor has to be conservative because they are being paid by the state mostly, and if backlash comes through, where is the blame going to be shunted to? The censor of course.
What exactly is wrong with today’s youth? Are they wilder than their parents? No, they’re a lot calmer if a lot of stuff I’ve read is to be believed. You can say I’m believing the hype but in Roger Moore’s biography he talks about his sort of attempt to lose his virginity when he was 8. Eight. The person I know who lost theirs was 12. Still very young and I wasn’t thinking of it myself at that age but that’s the way it’s been done for millenia. Just now that people are living longer, apparently people don’t mature as early, which is utter bullshit. People are bigger and stronger than ever before.
Same with music, when I was younger I was mostly influenced by what was on the radio, now I’m more into exploring to see what I’m into and most of it is drastically different to my friends. It’s just that the older you get the deeper you get into something. This WILL happen with games, it’s just that gaming is the big thing now, even now it’s losing out to social networking sites etc. Soon it will be accepted as a valid art medium. But if it isn’t. Do we care? The censorship will move to bigger targets and gaming will just get on with it.
09/03/2009 at 21:51 Psychopomp says:
I played Silent Hill when I was 9.
You know what? Ten years later, I’m Buddhist.
09/03/2009 at 22:07 JonFitt says:
It’s not censorship in the real sense, just age restriction. Minors have all sorts of laws applied to them for their own protection which are different to your civil liberties as an adult. A lot of countries make children attend school for instance whether or not their parents think it would be best for them to work in t’pit.
By ensuring age restriction it is arguable, that strict censorship (banning the sale) of games becomes less likely.
09/03/2009 at 22:13 thesombrerokid says:
acardboadrobot: the voice of reason from the silenced minority, the metaphorical sheep to political wolves
09/03/2009 at 22:52 Andrew says:
John, I don’t think you quite understand what the New Zealand law does, how the UK rating system works (this wouldn’t help it, it would hinder it) and how censorship is a bad thing, since giving a reason to prosecute people for buying games for the wrong people will mean if a game is banned, it becomes a jailable offence to even own it from your reasoning (good luck saying Manhunt was imported to the Police…).
It’s a more civil matter. Fines for sellers who sell to underage people perhaps, but why should knowledgeable adults be put in prison if they allow their children to play a game?
In many cases it is fine with the parents as much as taking underage children to films, or buying DVD’s for them – it should be up to the parents to decide if the content is good or bad for their children until their 18, and taking that away from them is utterly insane. Why be a parent at all? why not just let the Government manage their kids for 18 years?
I don’t understand how an otherwise good journalist (who does journalism) can be just so ignorant of this topic. :( I am glad there is a sense of reason in these comments.
09/03/2009 at 23:08 Gap Gen says:
Andrew: Do you believe that a parent should make similar decisions about alcohol and smoking? Or indeed the curriculum that is taught to their children in schools?
09/03/2009 at 23:15 TheSombreroKid says:
Gap Gen alcohol noticably and PROVABLEY affects childrens health although i am not in favor of allowing adults and banning children there are logical and empirical reasons for why thats not a good idea the same can not be said for what media a child or adult for htat matter consumes.
09/03/2009 at 23:25 Toby says:
I feel compelled to contribute, but don’t have an argument that hasn’t been repeated here somewhere or another. So all I can provide is the personal anecdote (to join others here) of my parents vetoing games that they felt were suitable for me. Often these were games rated over my age, sometimes significantly. My parents are intelligent and responsible- some aren’t. But the idea that an equivalent family, that many such equivalent families, could face criminal charges for such an act boggles the mind. As many people have said, ratings exist as a form of guidance. Can you think of any other form of media where such a whisper of litigable threat to reasonable families might exist? Books? Film? Certainly these can only draw so many parallels with games in terms of content and arguable psychological effect, but John’s (self-admittedly) selfish desire for the protection of adult material (sounds dirty..) just doesn’t carry any weight facing a clear violation of what most of us would term as a civil liberty. To make an obvious argument- what next?
The argument also that such laws would be counteractive to the production of mature content (sounds dirty again..) seems sound to me. If games companies know that as a result of this law their products will have a smaller user base if the rating is higher… well. They’re a business, aren’t they? Although that’s going down a different morally dubious road..
10/03/2009 at 00:08 Down Rodeo says:
A selfish way of putting this would be to say that I am over the ages involved in the UK rating system so I don’t really mind. A more sensible comment would suggest that education is the way forward – parents ought to know the content of the games their kids play. I have shown my parents the sort of things I play (mainly the ones on my 360 as when I’m on the PC they’re not around as much) which usually elicits the usual response of, “Another game about shooting people?”. But then, my parents are of an older generation, and while they still work they are not part of the totally-comfortable-with-computers group. But I like to think that I’ve been brought up well enough to be sensible with these types of content (a theme which seems to be running through this thread). In short, more education is key. Greater interaction between parents and children is required. It perhaps says something that I have a greater stomach for violence than my father.
10/03/2009 at 00:17 Gap Gen says:
TheSombreroKid: Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Home Office’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, claimed that the risk of taking ecstasy is no more than the risk of horse riding. And yet we allow children to ride horses. That said, you are right that the risks involved in taking drugs like alcohol are better quantified than the risks of watching or playing violent media.
I feel my point on the national curriculum is more valid, though. If we feel that a parent’s right to raise their children is absolute, should we allow parents to school their children however they like? Should we let parents tell their children that evolution is false, or that the Holocaust didn’t happen (Godwin’s Law, sorry)?
10/03/2009 at 00:36 Hypocee says:
Exactly; they should get older, it just takes time. (Link for humourous summary only; I don’t necessarily agree with Tycho’s position in the strip, and I actually don’t think ‘Tycho’ did either) Less facetiously, it’s not the kids’ ‘right’ to play/see/read awesome stuff I care about, it’s little Timmy’s parents’ right not to (theoretically) Go. To. Jail. for letting him stay up and watch Tommy Boy.
10/03/2009 at 01:09 Hypocee says:
Well, Gap Gen, in the US we do – for good and for lots of ill. Parents are allowed to bypass the public school system either with private school systems or homeschooling, often to their kids’ detriment.
There certainly are shades of grey, but that’s exactly why you don’t have to stand at the absolute end of the spectrum to oppose criminalising parental discretion. I just can’t imagine supporting a law that makes it a criminal act to overrule a committee’s five-notch go-no-go decision matrix for your kid – let alone proposing it actually be enforced.
Incidentally, I’m not blind to the scenario that sparks this kind of thought. I was simply aghast when I went to see Serenity in the theatre; one of the few others in the audience during my showing was this…drone of a woman, with her about ten-year-old boy. Obviously she wanted to see it, or more likely ‘a movie’, but couldn’t be arsed to ditch the little accident. It’s nice to imagine that throwing her in the clink for a bit would suddenly make her realise the awesome responsibility she bears, but I can’t believe it for a second. Even if I could, I still wouldn’t support a law so broadly written that it would condemn her equally with a pair of parents buying their kid an R-rated DVD for her 16th birthday. Another point is that if you’re intent on calling in CPS or equivalent on a fellow citizen, they’re probably doing plenty of stuff worse, more provable, and less likely to be done by responsible parents using common sense, than letting the kid watch naughty movies.
10/03/2009 at 01:37 Muzman says:
While I’m not against the use and enforcement (at retail level) of ratings, it’s hard to support because I know perfectly well it’s based on some old fogey who is worried about impressionable young minds rather than providing parents with the means to be involved in what their kids consume.
The whole problem with the media influence school of thought is it doesn’t know which way it wants it. Parents don’t want their kids to be scared by violence and horror because they kids might be ‘traumatised’ and have nightmares. That was the way of things for the longest time. But then games came along and we find greater horror in the fact that kids are ‘doing’ the bad things themselves and then aren’t reacting to them with trauma and nightmares etc. This is, thanks to a couple of minority papers in the 80s that misappropriated the physiological term “desensitisation”, supposedly a lot worse.
I could go on and on about this, but in short I reckon it’s a load of bollox. Parents and children’s sensitivities are very different and their respective comprehension of media varies wildly because of it. Kids are far less swayed by symbolism; they aren’t all that interested in what an image respresents, but what it means for what they are doing at the time. That’s a mouthful I guess, and the tricky part in combating the ‘media is influential’ argument with respect to games is it requires two additional factors that are contentious to most people (but I find inescapable from my vague investigations).
One is that violence is special in the way humans react to it, and even the most realistic representations give no insight into how people respond to or are influenced by witnessing the real thing. And the second is that kids play games as games and not representations of reality. This is was all summed up by a moment I saw that had two nine year old girls playing Hitman: Codename 47 who thought slitting someone’s throat was the coolest thing in the world, to the screeching horror of their mothers. Later that day they would express genuine distress at scary parts and violence in The Princess Bride (I think it was).
The mothers hated the idea of throat cutting and their daughters carrying it out. That’s what they saw; the idea of behaviour. The kids on the other hand were play acting like they usually do. The movie on the other hand was all enjoyable play acting as far as mum was concerned, but the kids saw the idea of unpleasant things happening to characters they cared about.
Game violence is play violence. No gore or behaviour yet is realistic enough to be considered any other way by kids (a bold assertion perhaps). Characters played by real people are a lot more relatable and what happens to them more impactful. Then what that impact means is another can of worms by itself.
Most people disgree with these conclusions, or the interpretation of that example. So much hinges on those two details above that I mentioned and then things vary from child to child, parent to parent. Invariably someone says that we can’t rule out one crazy kid taking things the wrong way either. Which is true, but the one crazy kid can’t be what sets the terms since who among us can identify them?
Anyway, enough babble; the thing is that while I’m sympathetic to people who are concerned and I’m supportive of informative ratings and mild enforcement, these pushes come from a picture of a child’s mind as infinitely corruptible blank slates. In some ways they are, but in the ways that matter for this debate they’re not.
10/03/2009 at 01:48 dhex says:
“If we feel that a parent’s right to raise their children is absolute, should we allow parents to school their children however they like? Should we let parents tell their children that evolution is false, or that the Holocaust didn’t happen (Godwin’s Law, sorry)?”
everyone loves state enforcement until it starts enforcing states they don’t like.
so, yes to the above.
10/03/2009 at 02:04 Dolphan says:
Alaric – I wasn’t talking about spanking, although that’s a related point. I was talking about beating. Now take a look at what you’ve done. You, personally – not the parent – have made a judgment about what counts as harming a child. The child’s parent disagrees, and you want them to be overruled. Whether you justify that by reference to social agreement or an ad hoc definition of harm, you’re doing exactly what the people you were criticising have been doing. You’re drawing the same line in a different place, and then claiming a difference of principle.
10/03/2009 at 02:13 Dolphan says:
Do people seriously think parents have a right to raise their children how they like? Think about that for a second. That means someone having the right to shape another human being’s development, to exert nearly unparallelled influence over who they are and the ideas and attitudes that they go into adult life with. The idea that anyone can have a moral claim to that kind of power over somebody else seems utterly terrifying to me.
10/03/2009 at 02:30 Vanguard says:
As a gamer and parent of a son who is also a gamer, I believe it is the parent’s right to decide what is and is not suitable for the child.
Every child is unique and should not be given access to the same media based purely on age. Parents may not always do a good job, but you cannot criminalise a parents right to choose.
No, I don’t agree that a nine year old should be given access to GTA, but a responsible 16 or 17 year old? Why not? The same applies to films and alcohol. I’d prefer (and intend) that my son’s first encounter with alcohol be in the family home, sensibly, as part of a meal or party. Not two litres of the cheapest cider down the park. I know which I believe to be the most dangerous.
If the authorities are concerned with young children playing mature rated games, social services can investigate. Is the parent aware of what they are playing? Did they agree to it? Can they justify their decision?
You cannot remove the right of the parent to choose how to raise their child by criminalising it.
10/03/2009 at 02:43 Vanguard says:
Yes. Yes I do. I find the concept that someone else, wholly removed from the individuals in question, can dictate how I raise my child to be far more terrifying.
I also find the concept of every child being raised identically horrifying too. There are many, many parents I would disagree with but I accept their right to choose for their family. That said, as a society we have agreed minimum standards of care for a child and where these are not being met, we have a duty to intervene. A child’s access to GTA is a parental choice, the child’s access to food and water is not.
10/03/2009 at 02:56 Brer says:
Ok, first, full disclosure: I’m an American and so am going to make my points on this issue on general principle. I’m 27, have no children of my own and no plans to have any until such a time as I could be sure of my ability to support them and raise them successfully. I’ve been gaming since I was six or seven, and my first exposure to an explicitly gory video game and a sexually explicit video game was Gabriel Knight when I was 12, though I’d been reading sexually explicit and violent fiction meant for adults (including some horror novels) as early as eight or nine. I won’t be using any of that information in my argument, just laying out any possible personal biases.
On the issue of “is there a correlation between media and/or video games and violent behavior?” The answer is “So far, there is some evidence for a weak correlation between media violence, including video game violence, and “aggression” as a personality measure”. Some media effects studies, particularly those by American researcher Craig Anderson, have claimed otherwise, but even setting aside the systematic flaws in media effects as a field (for a brief article summarizing those flaws, go here: http://www.theory.org.uk/tenthings.htm) video game violence studies produce extremely small effect sizes and have measured “aggression” only in the most abstract of ways (for example, how long a blast of annoying noise would be played for an opponent in a competitive reflex-based game).
For a comparison of effect sizes of various “risk factors” for youth violence (at least here in the US) I refer you to this study on youth violence from our Surgeon General: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/images/Table_4-1.gif . You will note that media exposure’s correlation is weak, far below, say, weak social ties, criminal record, gang membership, violent/abusive parents, anti-social parents, and even “being male”. Effect sizes are measures of correlation, BTW, not causation. Oh, and the #1 strongest predictor of violent criminal behaviour after past offenses or diagnosed ASPD? Low socioeconomic status.
To sum up: There is no substantive evidence for any sort of causal link between violent media consumption (not just video game consumption but any media consumption) and any violent behaviour. The correlation found so far is weak and has only been linked to abstract measures of “aggression” as determined by game-like measures in a clinical environment. This also ignores things like the degree to which a violent or aggressive person may show preference for violent media. Given those facts, I think that making this an area for government intervention is inappropriate at this time.
Now, here’s a question that has not been raised but should be, and here all I can offer is anecdotal evidence (which I have to admit is weak an unreliable and so should not be taken as conclusive): “does violent media, especially video games, DESENSITIZE someone to real-life violence, causing them to have a weaker emotional response to it?”. Again, AFAIK there’s been no study on this subject although I did design an experiment to test it once. For my part, I’m an Iraq veteran who was in Iraq from late 2003 to late 2004. I was playing violent video games and watching gory movies both before and sense. I do not claim that this is true of everyone, but I can say that for my part even extremely gory films did not in any way deaden my emotional response or “Harden” me to seeing the real thing. And before anyone even tries to bring up various displays of seemingly “inappropriate” behaviour, comments, and jokes on the part of any troops, I’d point out that what you’re seeing in most cases are layers of psychological defense, coping mechanisms, and bravado, not a lack of empathy.
Anyway, I could extend this post quite and bit and fill it with links (and I can provide links to studies on both sides of this issue if anyone wants them), but given that this is a fairly long-running thread I don’t know that it’s worth the effort right now.
10/03/2009 at 05:56 TheSombreroKid says:
for the record i never condoned and don’t condone parental dicat, i was saying that there is a scale between state socail conditioning and parental/personal social conditioning as well as one of the magnitude of conditioning and that gives us a choice between stanardised values versus a more varied set, with some people above average on social obediance and some people bellow it, this i feel is a matter of individual/social preverance, however in our society young people having been silenced, do not have the power to contribute to the decision making process, without a vote the state is not interested in thier opinion or needs beyond what thier parents want for them, this produces a havey slant against them, this is true for any percentage of the population who are denied the vote or to a lesser degree any demographic who will never have enough political clout to worry an elected official this is why in a democracy lie ours groups like homosexuals rely on political indiferance from the majority to recive fair and sensible treatment, if the hetrosexual population takes offence where it really shouldn’t you get an oppressed population by mass discrimination, potentially genecide is posible in a democracy to be hysterical about it so in conclusion i don’t think parents should get to decide and i don’t think a democratically elected government where children don’t get a say should either.
10/03/2009 at 05:57 TheSombreroKid says:
appologies for the lexical dioreah i just woke up and am very sleepy
10/03/2009 at 09:04 TheSombreroKid says:
appologies for the lexical dioreah i just woke up and am very sleepy
P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!
10/03/2009 at 11:53 Andrew Armstrong says:
Gap Gen, that’s a ridiculous stance to take. It is legal to allow children to drink in your home. Smoking is different – smoking is really really bloody bad for your health, and a growing child could have all sorts of health problems from it. I’d be up for giving them more choice in the matter, but why Cigarettes are not banned but other drugs are is beyond my area of expertise.
In any case, that point makes no sense. A better comparisons is books, film, TV, music, paintings, sculpture, and other parts of culture, all of which you don’t jail the parent for letting the child experience if the parent thinks it is fine (although as I said, the distributors of those items might need to be told off or fined for selling or allowing access to those materials to the kids themselves since that is without parental oversight).
10/03/2009 at 14:10 Cooper says:
It should be as it is with films, at least in the UK – that the prosecution is directed to those which -sell- the game.
If parents buy a game for a child, that is their choice. Just as if they let them watch DVDs with 18 ratings.
What is needed is better education. Parents who might be inclined to worry about what films their children watch may think less about games.
If this was just a stunt to make it clear to parents that games are not ‘just for kids’ and should be considered alongside other media in regards to age ratings, that’s fine. If it’s a serious attempt to dictate parenting styles, I would be wary.
10/03/2009 at 14:21 SomeOne says:
But what will happen if in a family there are 2 boys, one 14 and one 19, the parents buy a game rated 18+ for the 19 yo, but the 14 yo plays it when the parents are not at home. Should the parents be prosecuted in this case too ? after all, they didn’t buy the game for the younger kid, he just ended up playing when they where not there to check.
Oh, and another thing, punishment is not as effective as education. Even if you prosecute 1000 parents there will always be a lot more to do the same “mistake”, but if you do a lot of advertising that ratings are there for a reason (and that is to protect the kids) then you should have a better outcome.
10/03/2009 at 14:27 Dolphan says:
Vanguard – there’s a massive difference between saying someone else shouldn’t dictate how you raise your child and saying that parents have a right to do it how they like. You can give perfectly reasonable justifications for the former based on the welfare of the child without invoking anything as morally bizarre as the right to power over another person. The only person with relevant rights here is the child – not the parents, and not anybody else.
10/03/2009 at 17:26 perilisk says:
Parents have a pretty strong instinct to do what’s best for their kids (thanks, evolution!) though of course there are always exceptions, and moreover they sometimes try and fail. It’s not a bad thing to have a sanity check there, to prevent abuse. But generally, if you want what’s best for kids in society, your best bet is parental discretion. All kids are different, have different needs, react differently to the same experiences.
Censors have loyalties too — not to kids, though (“think of the children” is a rationalization, not a reason). They’re loyal to authorities, who have a vested interest in seeing the world presented in only one way. They’re loyal to corporate/union media interests, thanks to the marvels of regulatory capture, and are likely to give independent works much harsher scrutiny. They’re loyal to noisy, puritanical minorities — the squeaky wheel gets the grease. They’re loyal to idea of protecting society from undesirable thoughts; open minded people aren’t usually drawn to becoming censors, nor can they usually be successful without a display of loyalty to the other groups above.
Forcing a 5 yr old to play Manhunt is probably abusive. Allowing a 16 yr old to play it is probably not. Fortunately, psychological child abuse is illegal already. Adult gamers with children will be targeted by this law, whether they expose their children to inappropriate content or not. It’s handing a weapon to the Daily Mail crowd to imprison people who disagree with them. It’s fascism.
The idea that keeping kids away will lead to more “mature” media is particularly bizarre. Surely one of the reasons that works of art that would ordinarily be kept away from minors due to their content are instead put forth as required cultural learning is the “maturity” of their content. It distinguishes art from pornography. Keeping minors in happy happy land teaches them nothing. Ultimately, the point of childhood is not to preserve innocence, it’s to strip it away in a psychologically healthy fashion — to turn children into adults. That requires gradual exposure to adult responsibility and adult media, preferably under the watchful eye of an adulthood mentor (“parent”).
10/03/2009 at 17:46 dhex says:
The idea that anyone can have a moral claim to that kind of power over somebody else seems utterly terrifying to me.
the state makes that kind of claim all the time.
and enforces it, too.
10/03/2009 at 22:33 Tyshalle says:
Matt Kemp: “The problem occurs not when the parent replies ‘I know is is M rated, I am allowing my child to play it’, but more ‘I don’t care, just put it through the till’.”
Again, I get it. There are bad parents in the world. We still shouldn’t penalize the good ones by taking away their right to choose what their kids can handle simply because some people are idiots.
Anyone who thinks that a kid being raised by a bad, neglectful parent is going to be saved by the state preventing them from playing Fallout 3 is fooling themselves.
Dolphan: “Tyshalle, it is somebody else’s business how a parent raises their kid. Namely, the child’s. In fact, it’s far more the child’s ‘business’ than the parent’s. And children have no protection whatsoever, in themselves, against the ideas or actions of their parents.”
The masses, if given control over other people’s children might be able to pull-up a few below-average children. However, let the masses get their hands on the above-average children and they’re only going to pull them down.
Alaric: “Instead of screwing with good parents and other innocent people, the government should just prevent the undesirables from having children. And from voting.”
You both should and shouldn’t mean that. In principle it makes sense, however there is no feasible way to apply the principle without it getting way out of hand. The last thing we need is the religious nuts to be in charge of who gets to vote and have children, if you see what I mean.
11/03/2009 at 00:30 Vanguard says:
Dolphan, the issue here is indeed parental rights. The government is saying that parents cannot be trusted to judge what media is suitable for their child and so the government will decide for them and criminalise them if they disagree.
Parents should have the right to raise their children as they see fit, as long as the child’s rights are being respected. If a parent is neglecting or abusing a child by exposing them to harmful and unsuitable media we have laws in place to deal with it.
11/03/2009 at 02:26 Ghostunit says:
I’m from New Zealand and if experience has taught me anything, we will soon see stories where the TV news channels will send children into stores to buy GTA – just to show how ‘bad’ the problem is.
11/03/2009 at 09:10 Hmm-hmm. says:
You
don’tshouldn’t go buying a video for your children if it’s not suitable for them. Nor a book. Nor a game. Nor, say, alcoholic beverages or cigarettes.So it doesn’t seem unreasonable. Especially considering how some people seem to have problems making the right decisions for their children.
11/03/2009 at 23:25 PJ says:
Since somebody mentioned alcohol, I thought I’d just toss this interesting tid-bit into the mix; young children, when their brains are still developing actually have a far higher ability to recover from neurological damage caused by alcohol (and for that matter other drugs too) than do adults. Not that I’m suggesting we give kids Vodka as a substitute for breast milk, but still, interesting.
13/03/2009 at 16:52 Terazeal says:
I absolutely hate people like Hastings, they assume you can’t handle violent content because of how many years you’ve existed. Here’s a thought, let the kids choose their own games so that they can pick stuff that won’t give them nightmares. There are endless variations on an individual no matter what age they are. This individualism extends to the effects of violent media on the person. Restricting someone’s rights based on something so superficial as age is simply wrong.
14/03/2009 at 00:52 Ben C says:
Holy shit, do you people not see the danger in letting the government usurp your responsibility to make decisions and judge for yourselves? Do you really feel the government more capable than you are to decide what’s appropriate for you? Do you actually think the criminal system is going to make poor parents better by taking away time and money from them? Come on! And who are you, anyway, to say that someone must go to jail over a computer game? I don’t suppose you’ve had the pleasure of dealing with the government criminal system – it’s insane, ineffective, and expensive. Get off your damned high horse. Any moron who wants to bring down real, actual violence by those-who-are-allowed-to-have-guns (police) upon those of us who aren’t allowed to defend ourselves are eventually going cause us all to become victims of oppression. I can see freedom flying right out the window, and the worst part is that people don’t seem to see it coming.
-partly sorry for the rant, but damnit some people are so stupid.
18/03/2009 at 02:27 HellTempest says:
If parents can’t keep their children from emulating the things in video games or their children are scared/act immaturely because of them, then the parents should have to make the choice, not the government.
What happened to parents parenting?
18/03/2009 at 03:44 Klaus says:
I thought quite a bit about this. I don’t want anyone dictating to me what I should and shouldn’t teach my (eventual?) kids. Everyone has their own opinion on what’s appropriate for children – obviously.
I don’t actually have a problem with people letting their kids play GTA. That’s the price of freedom. I don’t want anyone encroaching on my ‘rights’, therefore I try very hard not to do it to others. It’s one of my few principles.
I don’t like childrens programming. Others do. I wouldn’t let my children watch too much of that without interference. Others will love the ‘not sharing is evil’ and ‘dissent of the group is evil’ options they offer.
“I’m from New Zealand and if experience has taught me anything, we will soon see stories where the TV news channels will send children into stores to buy GTA – just to show how ‘bad’ the problem is.”
They do this in the United States too. Huzzah!
18/03/2009 at 18:32 Serenegoose says:
I’m 22 years old and was prevented from buying a second hand copy of quake 4 today because I’m not rich enough to afford a passport and not lucky enough to be at university or anywhere else where free ID is given out. This is directly what censorship leads to, and it’s a godsdamn disgrace. Who was being protected here?
21/03/2009 at 21:45 Chris says:
This may in fact be the worst idea ever.
I am 17, you’re telling me that if my parents buy say…GTAIV for me, they can be fined or spend time in jail? That is horrible.
24/03/2009 at 03:28 spacedoubt says:
I’d suggest that punishment should be more in line with a speeding ticket than a major offence. Jailtime is unrealistic, but fining someone with respect for the age of the minor in question is okay. If that R18 game is going to a 17yr-old, it shouldn’t be punished as though it were given to a 5yr-old. Method of enforcement is another question however….
07/06/2009 at 23:05 Some Guy says:
im 16.5 and was prevented from buying call of duty 4 (16, PECGI rating so not legaly anything) because i only had a photocoppy of my pasport nor the real thing and dont want a citizen card so my details get on 4 databases. Age ratings are needed but some are too harsh and not many people have ID till you can drive that you would carry with you.
23/07/2009 at 21:52 bob says:
My son is 12 he plays 15 games like call of duty WaW and i have no problem with him playing these games, he never seems disturbed about them and plays the only on his xbox360 console and just plays them for fun.
I think, if you think your child can handle it let them play it
04/04/2010 at 00:38 Thatonedude0321 says:
I don’t care if an 8 year old is playing Modern Warfare 2, but I DO care when they’re playing online. the age limit should remain where it is for the purchase of games, but I want online gameplay to have age restrictions enforced.
I can’t even begin to express how annoying it is to get home, relax, throw in a game, only to spend the next half hour listening to little kids saying curses they don’t even understand (using them incorrectly) or replying with “your mom” every time you ask them something, or even speak at all. short of muting my entire team -which leads to disaster- there isn’t much I can do about it. is it too hard to ask for an online match in an 17+ game and NOT have someone who is 8 or 9 screaming at you because he didn’t see you shooting him?
Enforcement isn’t even that hard, have it community-enforced (to prevent children asking their parents to register accounts in their name). i don’t know how PS3 or PC games are done, but on an Xbox 360, it should be as easy as selecting their gamertag, filing an underage complaint, and having it looked into by a Microsoft employee if enough complaints are filed in that category.
18/06/2010 at 19:58 Howard Roark says:
Who is to say what is and isn’t appropriate for someone “underage” ? Human beings are free beings, sovereign masters of their own affairs, and to deny someone the right to choose to consume media that they see fit for themselves is a violation of their sacred liberty.
In ALL hunter gatherer societies, adulthood starts at puberty. In hunter gatherer societies, children witness maiming and slaughtering of animals, far more brutal than what occurs in most videogames, and turn out perfectly fine.
When teenagers are already having sex, already commiting violent acts, both things perfectly natural in a hunter-gatherer society, why on Earth would you restrict them from choosing to see these things in media, when they already DO more “extreme things” by censorship standards?