|
I was watching television just the other night and a videogame was being advertised. It was a first-person, war-themed shoot-em-up, something a la Call of Duty. My wife turned to me inquisitively and asked me if that was a game I would like to play, if it was up my alley, so to speak. I knew it was somewhat of a ploy; my wife loves videogames, but doesn’t really like games that involve killing. We don’t have kids yet, but we will someday, and I’m sure being the parents we’ll be, we will introduce them to gaming, but probably in a rather controlled manner. This particular game, which highlighted “realistic wartime action,” would most definitely not make it past mom’s censors. But her question intrigued me: what did I think of such games?
I quickly ran through the games that have a permanent place in my library. I have loads of them, but often I’ll play them a few times and then disperse them to true lovers of the genre. But of course, I have some keepers, titles that I’ll play over and over again. Some of those currently include Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum and, naturally, all of the franchises from my youth (Mario, Zelda, etc). I realized that conspicuously absent were any games whose main objective was: as a human, realistically harm another human. I throw that modifier in there because Team Fortress 2 is all about murdering one another, but it’s so cartoony I never really thought about the characters as real people, which I think makes a difference.
I don’t know if this was a conscious decision, but I realized that I’ve never owned any game that dealt with historical war, or organized crime, or any other “realistic” type transgressions that involve people vs. other people. I explained this to my wife, who is playfully dubious that I’ll corrupt our children with violent games. But I explain my rationale that not all violence is equal. I argue then when I kill hordes of zombies or aliens, it’s quite different than the simulating killing of other people. But interestingly, the world doesn’t really judge it that way, at least not from a ratings standpoint.
Let’s look at a couple of games for a moment:
Gears of War 2: Mature (17+) for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language
Team Fortress 2: Mature (17+) for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence
Call of Duty: Black Ops: Mature (17+) for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language
Grand Theft Auto IV: Mature (17+) for Blood, Intense Violence, Partial Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs and Alcohol
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess: Teen for Fantasy Violence, Animated Blood
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker: Everyone for Violence
 Here’s what I find fascinating about this: “Blood and Gore” is the same label across Gears, TF2 and CoD, yet the conditions in which the violence occurs are all very different. I admit that Gears has some horrific sequences, but does it make a difference that the antagonists are clearly not humans? Is the violence in Team Fortress really “the same” as it is in GTA? The blood in Twilight Princess is “animated,” but not in Team Fortress? And I would like to note (this is a spoiler) that at the end of Wind Waker, Link leaps into the air and, with a downward strike, impales Ganondorf’s forehead with his sword. However, this is not “intense” violence, and the game is apparently suitable for anyone, as it has the same rating as Tetris.
I know no one likes the ratings system, I do get that, and I’m not really suggesting that the levels need to be adjusted. My argument with all of this is, I think there’s a difference in the types of violence that are portrayed in videogames. I think there’s something…I don’t want to sound negative here, but perhaps darker, more traumatic, about killing other humans in a realistic way or environment, one that’s trying to simulate actual murder than other premises in games. I’m not saying that I want those games to be banned or that there’s not a place for them in gaming. What I’m saying is, I think a distinction should be made.
But that’s just my thought. What say all of you on the topic?
|
I’m inclined to agree with you really, it’s not just games either movies have a similar problem with ratings but quite often it’s the opposite, I’ve seen plenty of films rated 15 or even 12 with enough violence in them (and sex often too) to clearly warrant an 18 and then others with 18 ratings with no violence at all.
I think that “realistic” (and I use the speech marks for a reason) portrayals of human against human violence should be limited to the adult gaming world, but the absurdly cartoony violence of other games (such as swinging a ridiculously massive sword around chopping up demons or whatever) isn’t any worse than half the kids cartoons I watched growing up (and most of the ones my own kids watch now) and as for swearing, well have you been anywhere near a school at home time lately?
I was always curious… what exactly happens at 12:00 AM on a person’s 18th birthday, which makes them be able to view sex and violence all of a sudden, whereas before they were unable to. I slept through my own transformation, so maybe one of you who stayed up could tell me.
Kahless- I think you make an excellent point in comparing the rating system to film. It’s practically the same argument. And you are totally correct about cartoons. I’m fairly certain that Wily E. Coyote should just be a puddle of goo after all the violence he’s endured.
Alaric- it’s a magical moment where you feel alive! You learn that can now have the freedom to watch violent actions in games without the fear that the instant you view them, you will then march out your door and instantly commit them (which we all know WOULD happen were you to witness such things BEFORE 12:00 AM). Really, without the ESRB, the world would be full of children constantly stealing cars and killing one another with grenade launchers and flamethrowers.
The thing is we are all at different points in our race to emotional maturity, even though we may be the same age. Some human beings just take longer to develop, either due to genetics, upbringing, and/or life experiences. There is a large gap usually between 18 and 21 and an even bigger one between 21 and 25 for most young people.
When I was those ages, we didnt have shooters yet, but I did play sports video games a lot. Now I play most of the popular shooters that are more team and class based. It makes for a deeper game for me. The thing is I have a solid emotional foundation that maybe I wouldn’t have had in my teens and earlier. There are a lot of really messed up kids out there now. Even though, they are the most enlightened generation yet, the argument could be made they are also the most emotionally immature, due to overactive media contamination and weak parental value establishment. Between the media and peer pressure, kids can really get screwed up these days.
I played Wolfenstein 3D and Doom when I was 13. And despite all the shooting people in the face, and all of the occult imagery I didn’t grow up to be a cannibal or a serial killer.
The argument that the current generation is the most emotionally immature doesn’t hold water. Mostly because it’s the same old argument since our cave days.
“Our youth have an insatiable desire for wealth; they have bad manners and atrocious customs regarding dressing and their hair and what garments or shoes they wear.”
~Plato
“The world is passing through troublesome times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint; they talk as if they alone know everything….”
~ Matthew Paris (13th Century A.D.)
“Our young men have grown slothful. There is not a single honourable occupation for which they will toil night and day. They sing and dance and grow effeminate and curl their hair and learn womanish tricks of speech; They are as languid as women and deck themselves out with unbecoming ornaments. With out strength, without energy, they add nothing during life to the gifts with which they were born – then they complain of their lot.”
~Seneca
“The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence [respect] for their parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint; They talk as if they alone know everything and what passes for wisdom in us foolishness in them. As for the girls, they are foolish and immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress.”
~Peter the Hermit, 1083
SDwinder-
You have some insightful aspects to your post. What would be your overall recommendation then about the ratings system?
~Christopher
So Alaric- if you were in charge of all that was gaming, what would you do with the ratings system? Anything? What I’m mostly curious about is the current ratings system uniformly accurate? My blog was attempting to make the point that the ratings, as they stand now, do not give a very description of the actual content of the games…and isn’t that their #1 purpose- to inform parents?
I think the government has no business regulating content. (I’m aware than ESRB is an industry body, not a government one, but as is with the film industry it exists only to stave off government regulation and censorship.)
Alaric- Interesting, but what about the role of providing information to say, parents? As in having a ratings system that gave a detailed description regarding a content of a game, but have no weight in regulation (i.e. anyone can purchase any game of any rating)?
The role of government is to protect the population from aggression foreign or domestic. To that end the government has a right to collect taxes and spend them on the upkeep for the smallest force necessary to perform that task. The government is not a construction worker, it is not a nurse, nor an educator, nor a helper-across-the-street for old ladies.
I personally find it bothersome that my tax money is being spent (very ineffectively by the way) on doing parenting for those who cannot be bothered to do it themselves. If someone decides to procreate they must accept the responsibility that comes with it. It is their job to decide what is right for their kids, and yes, it may involve a lot of research. That’s what parenting is, not just playing catch or singing lullabies.
Very passionate, but that’s not what I asked…I asked what the role of ratings were, not government.
In theory a rating is a concise synopsis of a game. The problem is that is carries no useful information whatsoever. =)
Imagine there was an identical system for books. Would you buy your child a book that has the following done by the protagonist, who is also portrayed as a positive character:
Drinking. Gambling. Strong language. Graphic violence. Glorification of violence against law enforcement. Theft. Robbery. Sex. Kidnapping. Execution-style murder.
Sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it? Well, I was talking about the Three Musketeers, something we all read in childhood. By all current rating systems we wouldn’t be allowed near it until at least 17 years of age.
Post a Comment