Ban on M-Rated games to minors and you.
polycounter lvl 18
I was wondering what you all thought about the legislation in various states (my state of Washington, as well as California are the ones I know of atm) making it illegal to sell M-rated games to minors. In my morals and ethics class in college, two of the games argued against the bans, saying it is giving games a bad stigma in the eyes of the ignorant and it is causing kids to jump to warez sites rather than educating parents. I don't know how much I agree with what they said, and I wanted to know what you all think about the bans on M-rated games to minors.
Replies
I mean, seriously, is it that big of a deal if you can't play a game for a couple years? By the time you can I'm sure there will still be plenty of M rated games out to corrupt your minds (thats' a joke, I don't have a problem with mature games). Man, I'm starting to sound like a parent already.
Anyways its like you cant drink or smoke or drive before certain age so i dont really see why entertainment should be any different. Or why its ok to kill ppl but its so damageing for underage people to see naked boobs.
Teenagers don't need to be playing that mindrot without adult supervision. I'm sorry that 17-year-olds are almost 18, and yet not. That's what adolescence is about. If you want to get the adult stuff as a minor, I say get your parent or guardian in on it. I saw tons of R-rated movies with my dad back in the day. He took me to 'Road Warrior'. Three times. That's some quality family time, there.
What gets me mad is when I hear stories about how Target and Wal-Mart will lay down the law on adult-rated games, but not movies. There was one Polycounter on the old boards who told of how he was instructed by his supervisor that he's be canned for selling M-ratings to minors, but when he asked about selling them R-rated DVDs, he was told that they weren't enforcing that one. WHAT?!?!?
Allow and ban what you want, within reason. I demand consistency, above all else.
The foundation of the problem is, games are such a new form of media that the general public hasn't acclimated to them yet, so they are still scary. Back in the 1950s it was comic books -- there was a Congressional investigation, really. See? Could anyone nowadays make a legitimate claim that comics made them into a juvenile delinqu-- uh, I mean gangsta? No, they would not. Unless they wanted to get the judge to rule them incompetent for trial.
Movies are old enough that they have stopped being the cultural boogeyman, too. Nobody will blame someone's irrational actions on too many movies anymore. John Hinckley was the last one to claim that, I think, and his claim didn't go over all that well, as I remember.
But games, ooooooooh....
Give it another decade or two. This too shall pass.
<font color="red">(can someone expain why my BBCode doesn't work?)</font>
/jzero
Either way I think it's silly and counterproductive to try to keep those games away from kids (especially teenagers). I may not want my kids to play games like GTA, but the fact is that if they want to play them, they'll find a way to. And with proper parental guidance, these games aren't a real threat to the kids' well-being. I'd rather they didn't get in the habit of running off to a friend's house and playing them there, without any supervision or parental input. If they start that kind of pattern at a young age with something as relatively harmless as a video game, it'll only be a matter of time before they start doing it with things that really can hurt them, like drugs and alcohol, sex, or real weapons. That's the problem I see with a lot of parents: It's not that they don't care about what their kids are doing, it's that they only care about keeping them from doing it, rather than making sure they do it safely. Telling a kid "No" is the same as telling them, "Yes, but you'd better not tell me about it".
I don't see the store policies as really having a great deal of influence on parental involvement either way. On one hand, the parents theoretically have to buy it instead of the kids. On the other, it doesn't have to be the parents that buys it for them, and there's really no guarantee that it'll be enforced anyway, regardless of the law. And placing the "bad" label on the games by making them illegal for kids to buy just makes the kids that much less likely to inform their parents of what they're up to. It also weakens the "bad" label on things like cigarettes. There starts to become a preteen logic that goes something like, "Video games were illegal for me to buy because they'd supposedly be bad for me, but I played them and they weren't. Cigarettes are illegal for me to buy because they'll supposedly give me lung cancer and make me get addicted. But if the video games were harmless, these probably are too". Which can then, if it continues unchecked, continue to be applied to everything else we don't want kids to mess with.
If there's any sort of government program that will help to reduce the supposed negative effects of M-rated games, it's not going to come from limiting the games themselves. It's going to come from educating parents on exactly what's in those games, and helping them to best control how their kids see them, when they do inevitably see them.
Then there's some incentive for them to do it, but it's still their own choice what they want to sell to whom. If they think they'd make more money selling to minors, or if they think it's more responsible not to and the tax break would cover the lost sales, they can do whatever they want.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's just it, I don't want store owners deciding what to sell and to who. If there weren't restrictions, companies would sell whatever they could to whoever they could.
MATURE
Titles rated M - Mature have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain mature sexual themes, more intense violence and/or strong language.
if you can't get into an R rated movie why should you be allowed to buy a M rated game? from what i know, the game industry is a self regulating industry, they decided on their own to add these lables. and the ESRB ratings are the most comprehensive ratings, look on the back of the game box and you see exactly what is in the game.
if youre just going to have someone older buy the game for you, well to me that's pretty much the same as going to the movies and having them accompany you into an R rated movie. but why your 17 year old friend and not your parents? they have the right to know what youre playing
GTA games are all rated 18, which makes it illegal for stores to sell them to minors.
The good thing about this was when Vice City came out one of the morning TV shows aired a piece on it along the usual lines of "OMG, it'll corrupt all our children, BAN THIS SICK FILTH" or something, which was fine until they interviewed someone from the games industry who just held up a box, pointed out it was BBFC 18 certificated and that was pretty much the end of the argument.
:P
Frank the Avenger
In most games the violence isn't a problem for me, the only thing that bugs me is when they needlessly throw in profanity. I have younger siblings and I don't enjoy turning down the volume while playing a game (Prince of Persia 2).
In the end, it's probably better that they are doing this. Hopefully the blame will shift from the developers to where it belongs, the parents and the kid.
These kind of laws make it easier for parents, actually, and even if the parents are absolutely shoddy... at the very least you can hope they'll take a hint when they box says "NOT for children under 18"
[/ QUOTE ]
Well I think that is kind of the problem, as I see it. Making it "easier" for parents. We already live in a society of latchkey kids with self-centered parents who can't be "bothered" raising their own children.
Well I think that is kind of the problem, as I see it. Making it "easier" for parents. We already live in a society of latchkey kids with self-centered parents who can't be "bothered" raising their own children.
[/ QUOTE ]
I find that people who make this argument usually don't have kids of their own, or at a point in their life where they're ready to have them. All the parents I know care deeply for their children and DON'T want other people making decisions for them about what their kids can and can't purchase. But if there's no regulation about what the kid can buy, then that leaves the decision about what the kid can have up to the kid himself, not the parent. Because we all know that a kid will find a way to get what he wants if there aren't enough roadblocks in the way.
The idea that parents are lazy and that kids are raising themselves does have some truth, but I also think it an exagerated stereotype presented by media organizations trying to up their ratings.
Umm...why not just make it like cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, and R-rated movies...that unless you are obviously over 17/18, you will be required to present ID before purchasing an M rated game. Should make it harder for minors to purchase the game without an adult consenting to buy it for them...
[/ QUOTE ]
well for one, i completely diagree with the theatres barring certain people from seeing r rated movies unless they are with a parent. cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling are dangerous. videogames and cinema are art forms, they should be open for all who want to see them.
Some videogames and cinema are art, the rest is just entertainment, and there are some forms of entertainment which are strictly adult only
[/ QUOTE ]
yes, like porno you mean. well, porno is kind of different. porno is all the same with different people doing the activities, so it's not art. there's no creativity or imagination. almost all games or movies other then porno have some creativity and imagination, games especially since all games have an art department (unless they're text based) and movies have plot (generally), characters, costume design, set design, writers etc. porn is people going "hey, i have no way to pay for this pizza big boy, how can i get that hot sausage in my mouth?" then they proceed to fornicate.
porn is people going "hey, i have no way to pay for this pizza big boy, how can i get that hot sausage in my mouth?" then they proceed to fornicate.
[/ QUOTE ]
And Paperboy is a guy going "Hey, I have no way to pay for stuff, how can I get this paper in your slot?" then he proceeds to toss papers...
But why the fuck do i argue with some stubborn minor anyways ?
Mishra dont hide behind the art, there are adult comics aswell and some of them are really well drawn and you must be 18+ to buy them now unless you say they are not art...
But why the fuck do i argue with some stubborn minor anyways ?
[/ QUOTE ]
ouch.
yes, i know there are adult comics aswell. sex is a part of life, without it there cannot be life. i don't think they should be censored. video games are essentially moving drawings and pictures, you just control where they move and what you do.
To me, it would make more sense to sell sex toys to all ages, who knows, some teens might rather just play with themselves than with others if they can.
The thing that just doesn't make sense though, is that they're basically saying "Go out and fuck each other like rabbits, just as long as you DON'T PLAY WITH YOURSELF!"
[ QUOTE ]
Well I think that is kind of the problem, as I see it. Making it "easier" for parents. We already live in a society of latchkey kids with self-centered parents who can't be "bothered" raising their own children.
[/ QUOTE ]
I find that people who make this argument usually don't have kids of their own, or at a point in their life where they're ready to have them. All the parents I know care deeply for their children and DON'T want other people making decisions for them about what their kids can and can't purchase. But if there's no regulation about what the kid can buy, then that leaves the decision about what the kid can have up to the kid himself, not the parent. Because we all know that a kid will find a way to get what he wants if there aren't enough roadblocks in the way.
The idea that parents are lazy and that kids are raising themselves does have some truth, but I also think it an exagerated stereotype presented by media organizations trying to up their ratings.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't want other people making decisions for your kids? Take them out of school, trash the TVs, trash the radios, lock your kids in the cellar, etc. Because unless you do this, other people will "makes decisions" for your kids anyway.
My point is that there's a time when you just need to LET GO of some concerns. You can try and protect your child from every single worry you have, but in the end, there are just far too many in the world. Besides that, locking them away from it probably won't make them much better either.
who decides if a game is art and therefore shouldn't be rated? do games like Lesiure Suit Larry and The Guy Game, which are all about T'n'A, have the same artistic merit as Final Fantasy and Metal Gear, which are games that tell stories/play out like novels? lots of porn in the 80's had story lines that were on par with B movies of the time. the only difference was people had actual sex in them and not pretend sex. aren't those pornos as artistic as the B movies with the pretend sex?
the point is about the enforcement of a self imposed (by the game industry) ratings system. if the ESRB isnt being enforced then what is the point of it? would you rather it continue to be uneforced and have the government impose a ratings system like they were going to do if the game industry didn't regulate itself? ask any of the creators of many games like Mortal Kombat, Metal Gear, GTA ect and they will most likely tell you that their games aren't for kids. allow me to put many of your cynical responses to that statement here for you "They are just saying that so they don't get in trouble." whatever. you know there really are people who make games and movies and say "this game/movie is not for kids." try thinking outside of yourself for a moment and put yourself in someone else's place. it's called transference and is a good thing to understand. let's you see other points of view.
the system is for parents to know what their child is playing. they are supposed abjucate the responsibility of knowing what their child is spending their free time doing just because there are too many worries in life?
i say let there be fines for selling M rated games to minors so that the US government doesn't step in and say "This game has too much blood/sexuallity/gore/religious themes/in general is too contraversial. Production must be halted and it will not be released and further more all games in the future must restrict themselves to PG13, PG or G rated material. Anyone making games above these ratings must cease doing so immediately or face heavy fines and or jail time."
in closing:
the games are rated Mature. that means 17 years old and up. you can't play it. it's not meant for you. go play something else. if you really want to play it, you will be 17 in a few years. you can play it then. that's how it is. get over it.
realistically, i think the ESRB system should be supported and, as Asherr says, enforced; otherwise there's no point in having it.
i think some of the most interesting anti-censorship sentiment i've ever read belonged to Frank Miller, in his letter column for the original run for Sin City. he argues that to submit to a rating system is the beginning of the end of for allowing artistic expression--while many people point to the MPAA for films as being a successful example, Miller points out that the current movie rating system does anything but support artistic endeavour. in the initial pitch for a film, producers will say 'now are we looking at an R or a PG-13?" which as we all know, can make all the difference in sales. the number of movies edited or severely hacked up in order to get a (widely arbitrary) PG-13 rating these days in order to sell more tickets is staggering. and the standards are wildly varying--not only from historical ratings (some older R ratings would barely merit a PG-13 these days) but a wide variance of what a given rating might entail.
anyway, Miller's point is that when you submit to a rating system, ostensibly to protect your artistic freedoms by letting people know what they're buying, you're actually slaving to a different set of standards--namely becoming a complete slave to saleability that the rating system damns you to.
thankfully, i don't think games have it nearly as bad as movies, or in some cases, music (the explicit lyrics sticker business). the ESRB system is fairly concise about doing exactly what it is intended to do, and has no where near the vice-like grip the MPAA holds over the film industry. and with some small exceptions (like WWII shooters taking out blood splatters to get a Teen rating), ESRB ratings tend not to overly affect the artistic choices being made in games, which is how it should be. But if game production becomes as subjugated to the saleability of a particular rating like the film industry has, then it's time to reconsider.
not that i think it'd really work realistically, but ideally i'd say that a game's packaging should be able to tell everyone exactly what the game is about. as it is, most games do tend to--i mean, one look at the way 'Manhunt' or one of the Silent Hill games are packaged and you'd get a pretty clear idea of the content and it's age-appropriateness. but that's assuming that all game companies continue to package their games honestly and that people aren't too thickheaded to read the writing on the wall... an assumption that is a luxury we can't afford
so yes. let's let the Mature ESRB sticker mean something. virtually without exception, M-rated games are that way for a reason, and it should be enforced and protected.
Won't work. One small store not caring brings down the whole system. And there are major incentives to ignore the ratings, namely the business of all the children who were turned down at other stores.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I said
"If a store sells to minors.. well then let parenting groups start boycotting it."
I.E. The parent groups will may it work when the small business gets bad press and lost sales from parents.
"If a store sells to minors.. well then let parenting groups start boycotting it."
I.E. The parent groups will may it work when the small business gets bad press and lost sales from parents.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would only create niche market for stores that sell anything to minors. The more people boycot them the more press they get, which in turn can turn the store into a fucking tourist attraction.
The idea that parents are lazy and that kids are raising themselves does have some truth, but I also think it an exagerated stereotype presented by media organizations trying to up their ratings.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of like the idea that video game violence is evil and wrong and children need to be protected from it.
Oh, and nice "You're not a parent, you can't understand" cop-out too. Very deep.
Frank the Avenger
Besides, arguing that ratings influence marketability and therefore hurt your artistic freedom is pointless. We're already seeing way too many products made for marketability instead of quality (coughwindowscough). Would that guy complain if his publisher told him to add more T&A/Bullet Time Gunfights/whatever because of marketability? Ratings are just one facet of marketability.
So far, we have the MPAA, the Comics Code, and the TV ratings system that have been instituted, because no matter how strict the ratings people might be, the LAST THING the media people want is the Government up in their business. The deal is always for them to police themselves in order to avoid that.
Okay, yeah, ESRB. They're supposed to do the same thing, only if the retailers aren't going to enforce the system, they need to get thumped. Use money, the retail guys respond to that. Penalize the retailers, and outcry crap like this will cease for videogames as well.
/jzero
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that parents are lazy and that kids are raising themselves does have some truth, but I also think it an exagerated stereotype presented by media organizations trying to up their ratings.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of like the idea that video game violence is evil and wrong and children need to be protected from it.
Oh, and nice "You're not a parent, you can't understand" cop-out too. Very deep.
Frank the Avenger
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe a little too deep. My exact quote was, "I find that people who make this argument usually don't have kids of their own, or at a point in their life where they're ready to have them." It's an observation, not a judgement. Prove me wrong.
And you're exactly right about the media also overemphasizing the damage done to kids due to video game violence. They're always going to exagerate an issue to sell the story.
So bottom line, I don't think video game violence is corrupting our children, and also I don't think that the decision of what kids can buy should be left to store owners. I don't think these things are mutually exclusive.
I've think we've gotten to the point in this discussion where everyone's stated their case and I doubt anyone's mind is going to be changed on the subject. People are just repeating the same arguments over and over. Probably time to move on.