When Gaming Meets Politics: The Big Day
Go over to GamesPolitics (to the right if you're viewing the Blogspot mirror), because there's plenty of news regarding political aspects of gaming.
In short, First the National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF) released a report card on their assessment on videogames and their ratings, giving the ESRB overall a very negative rating. Then the ESRB responded, basicly saying that the NIMF report card is nothing more then a biased, unscientific account from a group that went from a independant group to now a lobbiest (I'll agree with the ESRB's former suggestion, but disagree with the latter).
Then Hillary Clinton came out to announce the introduction of a bill that would restrict the sales of M and AO-rated videogames to minors. The ESRB responded in saying they will not support the bill, saying the bill is unnessisary (especially with all three next-gen consoles will have parental controls).
While I will say that this isn't the worst bill on the topic, I still tend to agree with the ESRB. I would accept AO-rated games being restricted (since NC-17 movies get the same treatment), but there really isn't anything to restrict. No retailer even puts an AO game on the shelf, so videogame developers don't make them. There isn't even Unrated games at brick&morter stores; you have to buy them online (even then, there's only one game that I can think of). Unrated movies are sold all the time in stores.
This seems to be more of a case of videogames being singled out and blamed rather then an actual concern.
Now I would like to go through the report card that was posted (here: http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_vgrc_2005.shtml).
Ratings Accuracy: Two things seem to come out of their score (which was F): difference of opinion and the Hot Coffee controversy. On the latter, this was rare, probably one-time only event. The code was hidden, so it wasn't accessable until hacks came about.
On the former, they seem to want stricter ratings across the board. Whereas most raters (ie: ESRB, MPAA) consider only explicit sexual activity in the highest, these people want to see extreme violence as a AO/NC17 rating. While the definition between M and AO ratings seem a little vague, it seems that there hasn't been a game so violent, that it earned the extreme rating.
One thing NIMF seems to miss, and the ESRB points out, is that developers avoid getting an AO-rating if at all possible. It isn't that the ESRB is afraid to give such a rating, it's that developers conform to the ESRB's definition of M-rating.
Ratings Education: The fun thing about this is that they put the emphasis on retailers, not the ESRB. I've seen more then a few commercials on the ratings, and almost all M-rated game commercials state so at the beginning or end of the ad.
Retailer Performance: Ironicly, they called Best Buy the best, whereas Jack Thompson is about ready to sue them because of the same topic.
There are only two things that come into mind. Does the retailer in question have a policy for this, and how well do they enforce that policy (not NIMF's)? Even presuming no on the first, I still ask: where are the parents?
Their assessment is that the policies are good, but enforcement isn't. This of course they have to call on the retailers about.
And finally, the two studies. The parental study, while seems a little inaccurate in numbers (they polled around 150 people, where I belive it takes around 350 to have a +/-4% accuracy), but I do have the feeling that they are probably correct. Most parents are either inexperienced with the rating system, or just don't care. However, I'm curious on why ~45% of the parents polled said they weren't with their kids when they purchased a game. Don't kids need transportation (I'm doubting kids will walk very far to get a videogame)?
As for the childrens polls, a much higher sample was made, but didn't release any specifics. The age range they have is 8-17 (note, one year is at the M-rating), but they don't specify beyond that. They average ~13, but I can still see this survey being thrown a bit. One thing I like about political surveys is that they do brake-down the statistics.
Also, their question on parental-involvement was on if the parents stopped them from buying an M-rated game. Not if their parents said okay or weren't involved, or even manuevered around. Again, something they should look deeper into. The only depth they even tried to go into was in what they played or bought.
With gaming in an age where it is mostly adults playing (and thus targeted), parents do have a roll in controlling what their children play. But taking a quote from the survey
"Obviously, parents play a very important role in supervising the game play of children. From the Student Survey it appears that not enough parents are paying attention."
So why is it that the game industry has to suffer? Would it do any good to do more? Or would it actually do more harm?
Many videogames do try to push the limits of what's acceptable. A majority of such titles fail commercially. Some games just feed off the controversy (Postal anyone?). It's something we seen in music and movies. Videogames are still a refining medium, but NIMF is trying to cut it off before the phase ends. I don't completely disagree with what some of their goals are, in keeping adult games out of kids hands. But they seem to be taking this goal not only to extremes, but the wrong way.
In short, First the National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF) released a report card on their assessment on videogames and their ratings, giving the ESRB overall a very negative rating. Then the ESRB responded, basicly saying that the NIMF report card is nothing more then a biased, unscientific account from a group that went from a independant group to now a lobbiest (I'll agree with the ESRB's former suggestion, but disagree with the latter).
Then Hillary Clinton came out to announce the introduction of a bill that would restrict the sales of M and AO-rated videogames to minors. The ESRB responded in saying they will not support the bill, saying the bill is unnessisary (especially with all three next-gen consoles will have parental controls).
While I will say that this isn't the worst bill on the topic, I still tend to agree with the ESRB. I would accept AO-rated games being restricted (since NC-17 movies get the same treatment), but there really isn't anything to restrict. No retailer even puts an AO game on the shelf, so videogame developers don't make them. There isn't even Unrated games at brick&morter stores; you have to buy them online (even then, there's only one game that I can think of). Unrated movies are sold all the time in stores.
This seems to be more of a case of videogames being singled out and blamed rather then an actual concern.
Now I would like to go through the report card that was posted (here: http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_vgrc_2005.shtml).
Ratings Accuracy: Two things seem to come out of their score (which was F): difference of opinion and the Hot Coffee controversy. On the latter, this was rare, probably one-time only event. The code was hidden, so it wasn't accessable until hacks came about.
On the former, they seem to want stricter ratings across the board. Whereas most raters (ie: ESRB, MPAA) consider only explicit sexual activity in the highest, these people want to see extreme violence as a AO/NC17 rating. While the definition between M and AO ratings seem a little vague, it seems that there hasn't been a game so violent, that it earned the extreme rating.
One thing NIMF seems to miss, and the ESRB points out, is that developers avoid getting an AO-rating if at all possible. It isn't that the ESRB is afraid to give such a rating, it's that developers conform to the ESRB's definition of M-rating.
Ratings Education: The fun thing about this is that they put the emphasis on retailers, not the ESRB. I've seen more then a few commercials on the ratings, and almost all M-rated game commercials state so at the beginning or end of the ad.
Retailer Performance: Ironicly, they called Best Buy the best, whereas Jack Thompson is about ready to sue them because of the same topic.
There are only two things that come into mind. Does the retailer in question have a policy for this, and how well do they enforce that policy (not NIMF's)? Even presuming no on the first, I still ask: where are the parents?
Their assessment is that the policies are good, but enforcement isn't. This of course they have to call on the retailers about.
And finally, the two studies. The parental study, while seems a little inaccurate in numbers (they polled around 150 people, where I belive it takes around 350 to have a +/-4% accuracy), but I do have the feeling that they are probably correct. Most parents are either inexperienced with the rating system, or just don't care. However, I'm curious on why ~45% of the parents polled said they weren't with their kids when they purchased a game. Don't kids need transportation (I'm doubting kids will walk very far to get a videogame)?
As for the childrens polls, a much higher sample was made, but didn't release any specifics. The age range they have is 8-17 (note, one year is at the M-rating), but they don't specify beyond that. They average ~13, but I can still see this survey being thrown a bit. One thing I like about political surveys is that they do brake-down the statistics.
Also, their question on parental-involvement was on if the parents stopped them from buying an M-rated game. Not if their parents said okay or weren't involved, or even manuevered around. Again, something they should look deeper into. The only depth they even tried to go into was in what they played or bought.
With gaming in an age where it is mostly adults playing (and thus targeted), parents do have a roll in controlling what their children play. But taking a quote from the survey
"Obviously, parents play a very important role in supervising the game play of children. From the Student Survey it appears that not enough parents are paying attention."
So why is it that the game industry has to suffer? Would it do any good to do more? Or would it actually do more harm?
Many videogames do try to push the limits of what's acceptable. A majority of such titles fail commercially. Some games just feed off the controversy (Postal anyone?). It's something we seen in music and movies. Videogames are still a refining medium, but NIMF is trying to cut it off before the phase ends. I don't completely disagree with what some of their goals are, in keeping adult games out of kids hands. But they seem to be taking this goal not only to extremes, but the wrong way.
posted by SeanM at 8:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home