 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| drjayphd Posts: 976/1170 |
Originally posted by ThexareOriginally posted by JDavis See also: "Lieberman, Joseph." For reals, there's one campaign ad that he's running. I forget the exact words, but he was going on about cracking down on games, and what's he holding? GTA: SA (or maybe VC). I believe (as I can't watch YouTube videos at work... old version of Flash, can't upgrade) it's this one. But hey, I'm Team Lamont, my girlfriend's Team Leeb, no one knows who the fuck Alan Schlesinger is, and I think it's close enough people have made up their minds. |
| Young Guru Posts: 194/279 |
Originally posted by HyperHacker I agree mostly with what you have to say, the system is doing a lot to attempt to inform people about what is in games but there are probably some changes that can be made to improve the rating system. I think the issues with the description of content in games is more related to parents not understanding games. What exactly is more vague between descriptors of "mature themes" and "thematic eleements". Both of those are arbitrarily vague, but parents are used to seeing thematic elements as a description of movies and understand the basics of what it means, but they don't necessarily have anything to relate to mature themes for video games. This is why the system might need to find ways to relate their ratings toward film ratings so that parents won't be so perplexed by it. I do feel though that the rating system for games isn't that confusing, it's more that parents just haven't taken the time to look into it. I have heard parents at rental places tell their kids that they can pick up any game, as long as it isn't rated M. And then I see some letting their kids get any game but check out the rating and if the descriptors of the M rated game aren't ones that they disapprove of then they let the kid get the game. But the majority of what I see is parents allowing their kids to get any game and then being shocked when there is content in the game that they didn't expect, even though the content is described on the box. |
| HyperHacker Posts: 3794/5072 |
My opinion on this has always been fairly simple: The current system almost has it right, but it doesn't describe the issues in enough detail ("violence" and "mature themes" don't explain anything) and it tries to do the parenting itself. The real problem is parents. Store owners shouldn't have to tell little Billy he can't buy GTA3, because Billy's parents should be there with him to tell him that or should at least see he has a new game and read the warning labels and/or play it a bit themselves to see if they think he should be playing it.
Really, there are two problems: One, parents are too dumb/don't care enough to make sure their children aren't buying or playing games they shouldn't be. Two, rather than trying to remedy this, the ESRB and other such organizations are trying to take the parents' place themselves by censoring and placing age restrictions on games. Parents who don't know/care enough to be a parent are the basis of a number of problems in the world. |
| Thexare Posts: 938/1104 |
Originally posted by JDavis It's official, lawmakers are idiots. |
| JDavis Posts: 484/648 |
I meant simply that they wouldn't have to make a list like Rom Maniac was saying, because the descriptors are on the box.  I think the first step to getting parents to pay attention to the ratings would be to make them more prominent on the box. Presently they're only about 1 cm wide by 2 cm tall, and shoved down in the lower left corner. They need to be so visible that a parent can't help but notice them.
Originally posted by Thexare The problem is that, since the ESRB is not a government organization, and is fact run by people within the videogame industry, the lawmakers intentionally avoid mentioning it or its rating system, instead relying on terms such as "inappropriate content" and "violent content" without specifying what constitutes "inappropriate" content and/or "violence" |
| Thexare Posts: 937/1104 |
The parents don't always look at the packaging, though. And while I normally would want to go with the "you did it to yourself, you fucking imbecile" approach to dealing with those parents, these are games that definitely should not end up with little kids. That would at least help to remove some of the ignorance. Plus, the content descriptors aren't very specific, they don't tell you what the violence consists of, or any possibly circumstances surrounding it - if a situation could be seen as particularly objectionable, like shooting a police officer or blowing up an ambulance, the game's package won't tell you. I'm definitely against censorship, since there are people that are mature enough to play these games, but people need to pay more attention and know more about the games, and parents aren't usually doing any research themselves.
How difficult is it to come up with a specific, clear wording? I mean, seriously, what the fuck? |
| JDavis Posts: 483/648 |
Originally posted by Rom Manic You're kidding, right? 
The ESRB has been putting out advertising about the rating system practically since its inception in 1994. In-store advertising, magazine and print advertising, television advertising, billboards... One of the most recent ad campaigns even uses art by Mike Krahulik ("Gabe" of Penny Arcade). And let's not forget it was the ESRB themselves who, in 1999, started the campaign to encourage stores to enact policies to check for ID on M Rated games. The MPAA didn't have to advertise the existence of its film rating system this heavily back when it was new (you know, 1968). Surely that doesn't have anything to do with parents being more responsible back then and less expecting the government and society to raise their kids for them
And, of course, I'm going to point out that the MPAA started their ratings system because their earlier policies of censoring movies ultimately failed. Movie studios simply started releasing films without the MPAA's approval, and most theaters went ahead and showed them, because the almighty dollar outweighed the potential moralistic issues. Same thing with comic books and their Comics Code Authority, whose downfall was accelerated by the underground comics scene and shops that specialized in comic books and thus (unlike the grocery stores and drug stores and the like) didn't care if the comics had the CCA seal of approval or not. If the ESA tried ditching the ESRB in favor of censorship (ESCB?), it would fail even faster. Not only are there stores like Gamestop that specialize in video games, we live in an age of electronic distribution. You can already purchase a large number of games for (legal) download over the internet. Not just PC games, but console games as well (XBox Live Arcade, Nintendo Virtual Console.... Whatever the hell the PS3's XBLA knock off will be called). But enough of my anti-censorship rant, that's not really where I intended for this post to go. I find it hard to believe there's anyone left in America who isn't at least vaguely aware of the content in the Grand Theft Auto series, what with how the news tends to focus on it over other such games. Originally posted by Thexare Plenty of states have attempt to pass legislation to that effect, but they tend to get thrown out for being so badly worded that they clash with the First Amendment or they leave too much room for interpretation... Or fairly often both. Originally posted by Rom Manic You do know there are content descriptors on the back of all game packaging, don't you?  Sure, they don't get extremely specific, but they tell enough to give a general idea of what's in it. |
| Ailure Posts: 2008/2602 |
Originally posted by ColinHe apparently hadn't read the bible, becuse there is killing of innocent people in that too and justifies it. Death angels anyone? None of the Abrahamic religions really justifies killing between human people as far I know though. :/ |
| Rom Manic Posts: 404/557 |
Originally posted by Thexare Well it's not really so much as people actually paying attention to the advertisements (Not many people do, anyway), but something is at least better than nothing. That way, one person sees it, they might possibly go so far as to bring it up at the dinner table, or when company is over. From there, the whole idea of mature rated games becomes more introduced into society. Originally posted by Thexare I like the idea of the store clerk informing the adult about the game content when there's a minor present. It might be hard to keep on top of all the games in stock, so maybe a list would have to be compiled for the games they have in stock. |
| Thexare Posts: 934/1104 |
Originally posted by Rom ManicOriginally posted by ThexareOriginally posted by Rom Manic How many would pay attention to the ads, though? Nevermind actually getting them run somewhere - I can only recall three video game advertisements in this area in my entire time living here (actually, I can only recall there being three, I only remember one of them - FFX2 - because it kept playing all the fucking time), and I'm honestly not sure the ESRB would do much more, especially considering that it could wind up working as essentially free advertising for the games... The best thing I could see happening is a legal requirement that M rated games not be sold to anyone under 17 (some stores already have that as their policy, I even ended up getting carded at Gamestop, and this may be law in some places), and that any people buying an M rated game with minors accompanying them be informed of the game's content. There may still be the issue of the older brother, sister, cousin, or whatever else buying the game, but at least it'd cut down on the number of ignorant parents. Hopefully. |
| Rom Manic Posts: 403/557 |
Heh, good thing it wasn't Doom 3. He thought that was bad...Couldn't be much worse, to say the least |
| Jomb Posts: 364/448 |
Heh, on a side note, now that Silent Hill has been brought up.. I have a little nephew, about 6 years old who loves PS2. He kept insisting I let him play Silent Hill, saying he was old enough and was'nt scared of anything. I finally let him play it for alittle while while I was watching him. He got to the part at the beginning where you first get the radio and the monster comes after you. He started crying in terror and ran away. He's never asked to play one of my games again  |
| Rom Manic Posts: 402/557 |
Originally posted by ThexareOriginally posted by Rom Manic Well, the least they could do is set up advertising campaigns to inform the citizens of yours and my country about what is contained in games like GTA and Halo and Silent Hill. It would be a start, anyway...Other than that, they really have no power to do much of anything. |
| Jomb Posts: 362/448 |
The older generation is always going to be fearful and distrustful of the new media they did'nt grow up with. They don't "get it" usually, and so many will assume it is worthless and/or harmful. But the content of the games should'nt be shocking, it's really nothing new, we've seen it all before. Tell the kids not to play video-games, have them go read books instead. Maybe they'll choose Shakespeare and read about murders, adultery, whoring, etc. But somehow if they get it from Shakespeare instead of GTA that is applauded and they get patted on the back |
| Thexare Posts: 932/1104 |
Originally posted by Rom Manic what do they have the power to do, though? they aren't the distributors or the lawmakers, all they can do is rate the games as far as i know. sorry about capitalization, my left hand is dealing with a large bump on my face and the shift key isn't easily reached. |
| Cynthia Posts: 4898/5814 |
I'm sorry, but...
How the HELL did he get away with that one? Aside from being totally insulting to Islam (you know, trying to get AWAY from that image of the religion), there's just so much wrong with that paragraph... *head explodes* This is why I hate the man. |
| JDavis Posts: 473/648 |
1) In the (slightly altered) words of SomerZ, "Capital D, damnit!"
2) The only bullshit I posted was things Thompson said. Everything else is fact. |
| Nebetsu Posts: 332/356 |
Oops. Sorry I zoned out and thought you were calling Jdavis bad things. |
| Rom Manic Posts: 395/557 |
The term bitchslap may a little excessive, but I used it as an example, not really to be vulgar. |
| Nebetsu Posts: 331/356 |
Careful Rom Manic. This is a fun thread and I wouldn't want it to be closed... >> |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
