Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (
More info?)
"Hartmut Schmider" <hs7@post.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:86fyybpziu.fsf@post.queensu.ca...
> >>>>> "js" == JoeSmooth <f@ke.70053> writes:
>
> js> Part of the problem is that video games have historically been
> js> things that "children" play with and the perception is still
widely
> js> held that video games are synonomous with children's toys. I
don't
> js> think most people get it that video games are for adults too. As
a
> js> result, you have a lot of parents assuming that video games, by
> js> their very nature, are all made for children.
>
> It appears to me that this is not only a perception but an economical
> reality. I believe that this is one of the reasons that a rating system
has
> until now not gone pass the "voluntary labeling" stage. Although a game is
> rated "M for mature" and the recommended age is 17+ or something, a
> majority of the de facto buyers and users are kids of a younger age. You
> can argue all you want that the rating system is there, it just needs to
be
> enforced; there is an overwhelming economical pressure against it. Game
> publishers stand to lose substantial portions of their sales and they
can't
> agree to that.
True, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right path to take. I don't know
the specific politics but I would assume that with the game companies
getting richer and richer their lobbiests are getting stronger too, and so
that means you can buy a few politicians. But, the publishers aren't
selling the games, it's the retailers and those are the ones who
tradtionally bear the burden of the regulations. If a gas station clerk
sells a pack of Marlboros to a 14 year old, the cops don't fine Phillip
Morris. There are plenty of laws that restrict minors but give adults
freedom. They are as good as they are enforced. The crackdown on
cigarettes is much harser now that it was 20 year ago because society moved
in that direction. I don't see why a they can't make it work for video
games too.
>
> js> If there's an extremely violent movie about.. say... a man getting
> js> nailed to a cross... people don't start shouting that we should
ban
> js> violence in movies in order to protect children. Now, if Woody
> js> from toy story goes Hannibal on his fellow toys, that's going to
> js> get a reaction. The point is, some games are made for adult and
> js> some are for children. Same is true for games. Once that sinks
> js> into the minds of the public and our politicians, I doubt you'll
> js> hear as much about this issue.
>
> Fair enough. But if 70% of the audience for the Nailing Movie (tm) are
> kids, then you will have a hell of a time to enforce a rating system if it
> isn't already there.
But I thought we agreed there is a rating system there and you correctly
assumed I'm in favor of better enforcement of it while keeping censorship
out of the games so we adults can enjoy them.
> What you say above, that games have started as kid's
> toys and are still perceived as such, holds for the industry as much as
for
> the consumer.
I'm not so sure about that. We are talking about a million if not billion
dollar industry. They know the demographics of their customer base and they
know which demographics have the cash to make the purchases. Although I
don't have a lot of studies to site, it's my understanding that many if not
most gamers playing M rated games are older. Even so, you don't see Joe
Camel around anymore. The public cracked down on it and the marketing to
children was largely eliminated (at least in the US). Take away the
consumer (children) by regulating the product (violent games) and you will
take away the motivation (profits on said games) for the game industry to
market towards children.
> If film would have developped from kiddie cartoons, I believe
> we might have had a much harder time to introduce and enforce a system as
> we have it now. As it stands, films were historically considered to be for
> adults, and back in the 30s many parents did not want their kids to watch
a
> western.
True, and I think the idea of graphic novels or "adult annimation" has been
hard for the US public to absorb for the same reasons.
>
> Anyhow, there is a resistance from the side of the industry to enforcable
> labeling, and that increases the pressure on the other side, from social
> liberals (let's not spoil the kids for the sake of profit) and
> conservatives (is this what we call family values these days?) alike, to
> force a regulation.
True. But as social liberal myself, if it turns out there is a real link
between violence seen (or played) and violence commited, then I think
violent games should be banned from children... and well, that's why we have
the rating system we do however weakly enforced it might be. But again, as
a social liberal, I think adult should be free to do what the want as much
as possible even if that means playing violent video games which I
personally enjoy doing. Does that mean that the gaming industry will decide
to product less violent games in hopes of reaching a broader audience? Very
possibly, but that's capitalism. Hollywood is still making it's fair share
of violent films... more than enough for me personally (and I'm totally okay
with that, BTW... 1st ammendment).
>
> Regards, Hartmut "how about porn then?" Schmider
>
> --
> Hartmut Schmider, Queen's University
>
> We are capable of sacrificing ourselves for sentiment.
> Sentimentality exacts the sacrifice of others.
> Yoritomo-Tashi
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram