# Video Game Violence:  Holiday Games



## McMurphy (Nov 23, 2004)

I was watching a report on which video games parents should avoid buying their children for the Holiday season due to graphic violence.  I think that is an important consumer/parent topic to address.  

There are certainly some games that absolutely unnerve me in their violence.  I have seen the commericial for the game centered around the Vietnam War.  It is more disturbing that the game makers decided to pump in anti-war songs from that era over the glorification of violence without getting the irony of what they are doing.

That said, the real topic I wish to explore in relation to the report I saw is how the parents and reporters featured in the report quickly moved from helpful guides in gift buying to the subject of outright banning these games.

Do you believe these games should be banned?

Personally, I don't.  I don't like these games, but I believe they have to right to sell them.....to adults, that is.

That is where I feel the parents and the reporters have strayed from the truth of the matter.  Legally, no minor can buy these games anymore than they can purchase or view a rated "R" film.  I believe the laws are already in place and it is now the parents that need to step up to their responsibility.  Don't buy kids these games.  Parents don't even need a sensualized report for guidance.  On each box, a rating system is stamped on all games.  If the game is a rated "M" game, it will quite clearly state that this game should only be played by adults.  Retailers face serious fines if they sell these games to minors.

I realize there are still ways minors can get a hold of these games:  through friends whose parents aren't as responsible, through online retailers such as ebay or amazon.com, and through a parent's poorly guarded library.  I just feel that some parents need to stop pointing the finger elsewhere while demanding a ban on a product and, instead, take a more active role in being aware of what their children are playing and purchasing.

What are your thoughts on the topic?


----------



## aftermath (Nov 24, 2004)

I would have to agree with you Mac. Since the days of Mortal Kombat, video games have had ratings. And with current laws, which I don't know if they are in Canada or not, childern can't get their hands on these games without some form of adult help. 

 I have been playing mature rated games since mortal kombat, and I find the ability to take my anger out in a game instead of doing anything about it in real life very nice. But there are those that take it too far. 

 I thought it funny that they include drugs, sex, crude humor, in the ratings. But the ratings are very good. I was at the game shop and a women was buying games and they told her right there that one of the games was mature and wasn't suitable for children. 

 So, I would have to say that the parents should watch what they are buying their children. But I also think the age to buy mature rated games should be lowered to 16 or 17. At that age, most people can tell teh difference between reality and the game.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 24, 2004)

I agree that parents should take more responsibility for what their kids do and play. 

I am not in favour of a ban as such but I do believe that violence itself will not sell a game(although it may initially). But if the game is utter garbage, that point will soon become apparent and sales will plummet. The company involved in making such nonsense will suffer finacial loss as to its unwise investment. This, I believe, is the best censorship of all.

I cite as an example of trash - Hooligans: Storm Over Europe.....where is it now?


----------



## Leto (Nov 24, 2004)

aftermath said:
			
		

> I would have to agree with you Mac. Since the days of Mortal Kombat, video games have had ratings. And with current laws, which I don't know if they are in Canada or not, childern can't get their hands on these games without some form of adult help.


IIRC, the ratings are standards done by the video games industry so yes they're internationals. Every country enforces them differently.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Nov 24, 2004)

Completely the parent's responsibility. If you buy your kid an 18-rated game, like Getaway or GTA, you have exactly no legs to stand on when you complain about it being too violent.

You can't even get a job in a video game shop that sells 18-rated games over here untill you're 18 yourself, and very few shops will sell to underage customers.


----------



## AmonRa (Nov 24, 2004)

McMurphy said:
			
		

> I was watching a report on which video games parents should avoid buying their children for the Holiday season due to graphic violence. I think that is an important consumer/parent topic to address.
> 
> There are certainly some games that absolutely unnerve me in their violence. I have seen the commericial for the game centered around the Vietnam War. It is more disturbing that the game makers decided to pump in anti-war songs from that era over the glorification of violence without getting the irony of what they are doing.
> 
> ...


 
well as im a 16 year old my view might be abit biased towards accepting gore in games, but i have to disagree with you. 

in my opinion the ratings given to us on the package of a game, or on the cover of a DVD should only be guide lines. the parent will know the child much better than the company that makes these ratings, that is why i think it should be the adult who decides whether or not the game is too gory for their child. i also think that people now adays are alot more stronger towards gore and horror (for example, 60 years ago a man walking round in a costume which is supposed to resemble some sort of slug from mars in a black and white movie was alot more scary than the sort of stuff we have today). 

ontop of that every one knows that what we see on the screen is not real blood, just a few hundred red pixels to make the illusion of blood, so i can honsestly say i find it hard how any one can be 'grossed out' by gore in a game. 

i'd also like to add that i dont think that blood shed on its own can sell a game, there are many aspects that go into the creation of a game, for example, how it plays, graphics, the 'weapons' (if there are any) , and sound effects etc.etc.


----------



## Leto (Nov 24, 2004)

AmonRa said:
			
		

> in my opinion the ratings given to us on the package of a game, or on the cover of a DVD should only be guide lines. the parent will know the child much better than the company that makes these ratings, that is why i think it should be the adult who decides whether or not the game is too gory for their child.


 100% agreed.



			
				AmonRa said:
			
		

> i also think that people now adays are alot more stronger towards gore and horror (for example, 60 years ago a man walking round in a costume which is supposed to resemble some sort of slug from mars in a black and white movie was alot more scary than the sort of stuff we have today).
> 
> ontop of that every one knows that what we see on the screen is not real blood, just a few hundred red pixels to make the illusion of blood, so i can honsestly say i find it hard how any one can be 'grossed out' by gore in a game.


 The problem is not being grossed out, but being so accustomed to it, you don't make the difference between this and real life. It's not usually happening on normal kids or teens, but if you already have a kind of mental disorder, it certainly won't help. But as always, attention and guidance from the parents in front of computer and in everyday life should be enough to take care of this. Unless the kid is already a psychopath. It's exactly the same debate for violence on TV, or 60 years ago in pulps.



			
				AmonRa said:
			
		

> i'd also like to add that i dont think that blood shed on its own can sell a game, there are many aspects that go into the creation of a game, for example, how it plays, graphics, the 'weapons' (if there are any) , and sound effects etc.etc.


 Once again 100 % agreed.


----------



## Hellsheep (Jan 4, 2005)

Leto said:
			
		

> ...
> The problem is not being grossed out, but being so accustomed to it, you don't make the difference between this and real life.
> ...


I really don't like the last part of this sentence. I haven't seen anyone, who wouldn't understand that particular difference, in my entire life, although that's not very long yet.

I do not belive that there is a problem about being accustomed to violence, as far as you know that killing people is not a nice way to solve problems. And you would get used to it anyway, just watch the news.

"_TV doesn't create psychos, TV makes psychos more creative."_ -Scream
And that also applies to PC-games, you won't murder just because you play brutal games, you'll only do so if you decide to.


----------



## Leto (Jan 4, 2005)

Hellsheep said:
			
		

> I really don't like the last part of this sentence. I haven't seen anyone, who wouldn't understand that particular difference, in my entire life, although that's not very long yet.
> 
> I do not belive that there is a problem about being accustomed to violence, as far as you know that killing people is not a nice way to solve problems. And you would get used to it anyway, just watch the news.
> 
> ...



Read again my post before flaming it. 
Normal people won't have problem with violence. People with psychological problems will. People with antisocial disorder for exemple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath) won't make the difference between a socially accepted killing in a game, a TV show or a book and a socially offensive one (getting rid of your neighbour because he's noisy for example).

If video games (specially developed ones) is used in psychiatry, you can suppose it's because this media have an influence on the mind


----------



## aftermath (Jan 4, 2005)

The problem with these violent games is that when you are running through a street and mowing down more than 50 people with my ak-47 and desert eagle, you become accostumed to it. So after playing games like that, what is the death of one person that you watch on a new report? 

 Now imagine if you had a mental problem? It would become increasingly difficult to seperate the game from reality. And what makes games worse than movies is that you are guiding the violence. You push the button that kills all those pixelated people.


----------



## Neon (Jan 4, 2005)

I think it is entirely on the parent to take an active role in their child's life to show them right and wrong.  While some problems stem from inherent gene disorders, I feel most behavior is learned and taught from our environment.  I think most children, such as myself, can easily grow up to enjoy games for what they are (entertainment) while still maintain the respect for humanity and understand that killing is wrong.  In addition, one could easily go crazy and post a ban on any type of "violence."  I suppose we could no longer read most types of fantasy and fiction books, nor study world history (due to wars).  For the most part, I feel many people try to displace blame onto these forms of entertainment as opposed to putting the fault onto themselves.


----------



## McMurphy (Jan 5, 2005)

*Class Action Lawsuit Against Mario*



			
				Leto said:
			
		

> Read again my post before flaming it.
> Normal people won't have problem with violence. People with psychological problems will. People with antisocial disorder for exemple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath) won't make the difference between a socially accepted killing in a game, a TV show or a book and a socially offensive one (getting rid of your neighbour because he's noisy for example).
> 
> If video games (specially developed ones) is used in psychiatry, you can suppose it's because this media have an influence on the mind


Leto, I don't think Hellsheep meant to flame you. It sounded to me like he was merely disagreeing with you. 

It is good that there is no flaming in the gaming forum because, due to our Super Mario Bros twisted brains, we would insist on flattening each other like side-walking giant mushrooms with fangs.


----------



## scalem X (Jan 5, 2005)

I don't know how it is in other countries, but in Belgium we do have guidelines for shop owners, but...
 Well I'm 17, if I want to buy pornography, I can(as long as the stores are open), if I want to buy strong alcoholic beverages, I can(24/24), If I want to buy violent games I can(as long as the stores are open). (and the same for people of 15 years old and higher).
 Do you see extreme violence in Belgium? No, my 10 year old nephew plays GTA vice city, he won't be a killer when he grows up.
 it's a matter of policy of the government and the parents I guess, but I don't think you should pay too much attention. 
 When I learned to read, I freaked out because of a drawing in a book.
 (if you type 'demon' and perform a google search you can find thousands)
 The same way as some of the first people will have been schocked by some invented stories.
 Look to be honest I don't really care and if I ever get kids I will decide some things for them, but I know that they will eventually find their own ways to their needs. And if they are able to get it, they are smart enough to play/watch/drink it.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jan 12, 2005)

Leto said:
			
		

> Read again my post before flaming it.
> Normal people won't have problem with violence. People with psychological problems will. People with antisocial disorder for exemple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath) won't make the difference between a socially accepted killing in a game, a TV show or a book and a socially offensive one (getting rid of your neighbour because he's noisy for example).


Hell, we should ban everything that even hints at violence 

not flaming... butactually a fair point, I think. Why complain about games like GTA, when there are hundreds of books out there about serial killers that no-one bats an eyelid at. Have you _read_ Ben Elton's "Past Mortem"? Truly disturbing, graphically portraying a murderer executing his victims while they are still concious in many and varied, but undeniably cruel ways. And it's on the best-sellers list at the moment, I think. Someone with an "antisocial disorder" could pick this up easily, and have a much clearer idea of what they should do to people who (in this case) bullied them at school. Surely this is much worse than a game where you shoot random people. The game is nowhere near as graphic...

I'm not saying that that kind of book _should_ be banned, far from it, but more people read books than play video games, and yet its the video games that draw all the attention. Is this wise?


----------



## Leto (Jan 12, 2005)

I didn't say thos games or books should be banned. Hey, I need to eat and testing them is one of my way to get money. Simply, at the start of the discussion we were talking about PEGI indications and parental guidance. 
I'm just defending the fact that's a good thing there's guidance rating on game boxes. Some images can be disturbing for some personnalities, and parents may discuss with their kids before buying them games (books and so on) or let them have it. Now, as scalemx said, if the kid is clever enough to escape all controls, he should be clever enough to understand the difference between the game and real life.

However on the stat between readers and videogame players, I wouldn't bet on books as the most popular leisure. But that's a whole new discussion.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jan 12, 2005)

How many 40-year-olds do you know who are big fans of GTA? Books have a much wider audience.

(I know you weren't saying they should be banned. I was just quoting your post as the most apropriate to make my point with. Thought of it a while ago, but I had to find a context)


----------



## Leto (Jan 12, 2005)

caladanbrood said:
			
		

> How many 40-year-olds do you know who are big fans of GTA? Books have a much wider audience.
> 
> (I know you weren't saying they should be banned. I was just quoting your post as the most apropriate to make my point with. Thought of it a while ago, but I had to find a context)


Err, as almost all the 40 years olds I know are in professional context and are boys, I'd say most of them ? Anyway as they work in IT field it's not really representative. 
Among the young and not so young adults (18-35 years old), the ratio between books and videogame is thinning. We all have known videogame since childhood.
On a personal note, I don't like this game - not because of the violence, but simply because I prefer RTS and RPG.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jan 12, 2005)

Yeah, biased sample


Surely there are more people who play video games who read the odd book that people who read lots of books and occasionally "pick up" a video game? For budget reasons if nothing else.

Or maybe i'm too generous in my imagination of the world's level of intellectual activity, but I think you'll find that more people read books than play computer games, even now...


----------



## Leto (Jan 12, 2005)

I'll check the lattest figures tomorrow if I have time. I too still think books are still dominant but I'm not sure. Besides the figures won't take into account the illegal copies of games.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jan 13, 2005)

Or illegal printing of the books


----------



## Leto (Jan 13, 2005)

you mean those books in Vatican inferno ?


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jan 14, 2005)

Not specifically. But illegal downloading of e-books, etc... I believe there are a number of book versions of Kazaa... Don't know for sure though. No one makes a fuss about them because the media are like, "Pfft. Books. Who carse, dude. BorING!"


----------



## Leto (Jan 14, 2005)

Did you pry on my comp' recently ? 

Anyway, as nobody has real figures on downloading (mp3, movies, games, books and whatever) it'll be hard to count them.

Most of the books available on Kazaa, except best-sellers as Da Vinci code and J.K.Rowling, are in the public-domain anyway : Jules Verne, Shakespeare plays, and so on. Could worth a little info digging... Thanks for the idea !


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jan 14, 2005)

Heheh. Yeah, I can read your mind. And your hard-drive. I _am_ the uber-geek


----------



## Space Monkey (Jan 15, 2005)

This is a really interesting thread.

I'm divided here, because I'm a media junkie. Love books, occasionally love games, love films - however, I'm of the majority who can discern between reality and fiction. But the fact remains that not all people can, and you don't get ratings that say *Not for sale to sociopaths* or *Mandatory reality, personality and IQ test required prior to purchase*, and some people are without a doubt swayed into acts of violence by the casual nature of it in popular media.

I'm really puzzled as to the way the classification systems work - for example, how do most of Tarantino's films get the go ahead and yet Ken Russells 'The Devils' get banned for years? (I know this is about games, but games are movies are books in the sense that if you control one fix, you have to control them all. Although this doesn't seem to apply to books...)

In todays climate, I think the age ratings are appropriate, and should be enforced with the same strictness that film ratings are. You can't come up with an absolute solution, because everything is available to anybody who chooses to pursue it. Any teen can get any game if they want it bad enough, no matter what restrictions they place short of banning it outright. It boils down to a combo of parental guidance and law. And in the case of many killers and violent people, they had none of the former and cared little for the latter, probably as a result.


----------



## McMurphy (Jan 15, 2005)

I guess the only additional thoughts I have on this subject is that I wouldn't be against the idea that the purchasing age of "M" games be lowered to 16 or 17 considering, by that age, a normal and rational person has already formed concrete definations of social and anti-social behavior.


----------



## Neon (Jan 16, 2005)

Also there's the issue of mixed "rating systems" among countries.  The US is funny to me because people love creating an uproar about pushing a rating.  Example: Super Bowl halftime and Janet Jackson's partially exposed breast.  We're still feeling the heat from censors for that, yet you see worse things everyday on advertisements for "male erection problems" or two women discussing which tampon is best for them.  Sex is the double standard that keeps this country in a high pitched fervor.  Along those same lines, you can show a male chest nude but not a female's.  Yet in other European countries this is not the case.  So with that rant finished, all I'm saying is that ratings (for good or ill) are also based upon the context of what country you live in.


----------



## WorldRuler (Jan 16, 2005)

Look at Japan, they are more imersed in video fames to begin with, but also they have far more controversial games than those in the US.  However, the total deaths of in Japan in the past year was less than 100.

The point is violence in games does not carry over into the world.  Nonetheless, I believe that video game ratings should be treated more like movie ratings.  On any given day a five year old can walk into a store and buy Halo leagally.  Mature games are more or less the equivilent of an "R" rating in movies.  A person under the age of 17 should have to have an adult to allow them to purchase it.

This is all the jurisdiction needed over video games.  If people want to play games they're gonna get them somehow unless there is a ban of games M and above.  I believe a law like that would come to close to restricting freedom of press and media.


----------



## McMurphy (Jan 17, 2005)

*Japan Ratings*

Thanks for you imput, WorldRuler. 



			
				WorldRuler said:
			
		

> Look at Japan, they are more imersed in video fames to begin with, but also they have far more controversial games than those in the US. However, the total deaths of in Japan in the past year was less than 100.


I have never been a fan of comparing raw numbers against each other. Japan doesn't have nearly as many people as the United States, and their disapportionate cases of rape and sex slave blackmarket do not get factored into the statistics. But you do have a point. Japan has a low rate of murder cases compared to many other industrial countries.

Unfortunately, it is not true that they have more controversial games in regards to violence than in the United States. Japan has a law, unless it has since been dropped, that games depicting graphic death can only be sold if the deaths are of animals, creatures, demons, zombies, etc. 



			
				WorldRuler said:
			
		

> The point is violence in games does not carry over into the world. Nonetheless, I believe that video game ratings should be treated more like movie ratings. On any given day a five year old can walk into a store and buy Halo leagally. Mature games are more or less the equivilent of an "R" rating in movies. A person under the age of 17 should have to have an adult to allow them to purchase it.
> 
> This is all the jurisdiction needed over video games. If people want to play games they're gonna get them somehow unless there is a ban of games M and above. I believe a law like that would come to close to restricting freedom of press and media.


What is the rating for Halo? If it is "M" then, no, five year old kids can not walk into a store and purchase the game legally (in the States).

I agree with you that if would be a bad idea for a country to decide it was illegal to sell and buy "M" or higher rated games. It would be a tragic stab at freedom.


----------



## WorldRuler (Jan 17, 2005)

*Re: Japan Ratings*

While you may be right about the jurisdiction in Japan, I am fairly confident that anyone is allowed to by any game that is not rated Adults Only.  Restriction of M rated games is up to company policy, not law.


----------



## McMurphy (Jan 20, 2005)

*Re: Japan Ratings*



			
				WorldRuler said:
			
		

> While you may be right about the jurisdiction in Japan, I am fairly confident that anyone is allowed to by any game that is not rated Adults Only. Restriction of M rated games is up to company policy, not law.


You do have a point there: the rating system is an industry invention, not a legal ramification. Because of that, how a country's laws relate to the ratings may be different than their global neighbors.


----------

