MomGamer & Hot Coffee

[GamerDad]

MomGamer weighed in too, she did a great job so I printed it here. It's like my take, only a bit angrier and she cuts Rockstar, the ESRB, and the Politicians less slack.

[momGamer]

Wow. I didn't know you were going to do that.

[Tater-Dad]

Get 'em!

[GamerDad]

I'm sorry, does it bother you? I told you, I think. Feel free to make edits if you like (I cleaned it up some) but - be warned - emails and promos have been sent! This'll get linked around town soon.

But don't worry. I like that you conveyed this attitude. It belongs on the site because you'll find people just as outraged out there. I don't want GamerDad to always fall on the videogame side of the equation, I mean.

[MathGoddess]

I thought it was really well-written. And I defintely agree that parents need to take more responsibility for what they give to their children and what they expose them to. I don't hear that in the dialog nearly often enough and appreciate hearing it

[momGamer]

No, I was just a little shocked, that's all. I was watching that gal's byline on the Dallas Morning News. And you're adding to my reputation for being wicked, mean, evil, bad, and nasty. How can that be bad?

I don't think you're going to see this filter through the net like yours has, though. Run a Google on "Gamerdad & Hot Coffee" and see. Your name has industry street cred, and this really showed it.

[Klonoa]

Yeah, momGamer! When you write something that good, you shouldn't be surprised that GamerDad would want to show it off! --Cary

[txa1265]

I don't think it was 'angry' - it was blunt and pointed. And darn good.

She tells game companies to get a grip. She tells the ESRB to do a reality check, then do something that actually helps people. She tells politicians / special interests to STFU unless they actually plan to do something to *help* the situation.

But most of all, she tells parents - if your kids are seeing this and they aren't 17+, look in the mirror for blame. Parental responsibility is the biggest part of this that nobody wants to deal with ... because we as a society seem to be about the corporatization of blame.

w00t!

Mike

[Siward]

I followed a link from Blue's News here to read the article, and thought I'd check the comments thread and weigh in if there weren't too many people already. This was an excellent article, momGamer -- you hit on several points that I've been preaching to anyone who'll listen.

To be honest, I play lots of violent video games, and have been a fan of the GTA series since the previous title, Vice City. Personally, I think that almost every title with violence in it warrants an AO rating, based on the ESRB standards -- I don't know of such a thing as non-prolonged violence in the video gaming industry. I don't think video games are quite deep enough yet to have that sort of parity (outside of the RPG genre, possibly). Frankly, I think that TV gets it right by including (in the rating image) single letter abbreviations which detail the reasons why this show got that rating. It's a quick glance away for anyone who needs to know what's going on, and I think some parents are less concerned with "adult situations" (which seem to apply to everything that kids don't deal with exclusively) than they are with "adult language." The ESRB has an extensive list of some 32 different game descriptors. I don't think that works in a store when a kid hands a parent a cardbord box and says "Mom, can I have this? Jimmy's mom let him have it! Please please please!"

I've never seen the sense in having a 17+ rating, and an 18+ rating. I hardly understand why it exists in the movie industry -- it makes even less sense to me in the video game industry. I feel like erasing the M rating would force developers (and the ESRB) to weigh the costs of their content more seriously. Similarly, I think it's silly for stores to not sell games with mature content. I get the feeling like big retail chains like Wal-Mart view an AO rating as pornographic, rather than something that reasonable people would agree shouldn't be seen by anyone under 18. Forgive me if that seems harsh, I've just always sort of felt like the R rating (and the M rating, for the ESRB) was a copout by the MPAA.

You're absolutely right about parents. Lawmakers want to shift the blame away from their constituents who aren't doing what they ought to be doing as parents. It seems like many people want corporations and the government to raise their children for them, and I think it's irresponsible of politicians to patronize them, too. Everyone's responsible here: the developers, the producers, the ratings boards, the retailers, the lawmakers, and the parents.

We may disagree on Grand Theft Auto (I've not played their other titles), but the important thing here is that we agree on what needs to happen with corporations, the ESRB, and parents. As Tycho recently said on Penny Arcade, this whole wink-and-nod deal that the ESRB seems to do with game manufacturers needs to stop. The ratings board needs to be honest and upfront (and revamp their descriptors, for crying out loud), and parents need to take responsibility for the things that are their responsibilities. I wish we had more parents who saw things like you folks do.

Finally, if you're confused as to how someone can completely agree with everything you said and still play violent video games, I'd love to explain myself.

[txa1265]

I think the distinction between movies and games in terms of the R vs. NC-17 and M vs. AO rating has to do with access.

An R-rated movie is supposed to mean 'no one under 17 admitted without parent', whereas NC-17 means no one under 17, period.

An M-rated game means "Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language." AO says "Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity."

So while the verbage of the ratings makes sense, the application doesn't. Stores aren't allowed to sell M games to people under 17 by law, yet we know tons of teens playing M games. So what does the rating difference make other than Walmart?

Mike

[fluoro]

I think there are two major potential outcomes of this entire story. One of them I think is very bad, and one of them I think is very good. And they're not mutually exclusive.. either could happen, both could happen, or neither could happen.

1/ The good. I'm of the opinion that the ESRB generally does a pretty good job of rating games. It also seems very clear that parents typically avoid whatever warnings are printed on the packages. This is such a high-profile news item that I feel it's possible parents will begin paying more attention to the ESRB labels, and maybe even start looking more at what their kids are playing.

2/ The bad. I'm worried about the impact of this on the modding community. I feel that this can negatively impact the software industry as a whole. If Rockstar did not put the content into GTA to begin with, as they originally claimed, then I think it would be terribly unjust for them to be punished and for GTA to be re-rated to a standard set by 3rd-party application not made by them for their game. That's like saying Firefox or Internet Explorer isn't suitable for kids because people have posted pornography online that is viewable using them.

However, it seems clear that Rockstar did put the content in there. This is sort of a fuzzy situation, but even as big a fan of them and their games as I am, and the fact that I am working to some capacity as a programmer in the game industry at the moment, I can't back them up on this. It seems obvious that their intentions were for it to be unlocked eventually. As a result, it would be entirely their fault and not the fault of game mods.

I hope that this doesn't impact the ability for games to be modded. The bottom line here is that I think developers should not be held accountable for the content that someone else inserts into their games. Software is becoming increasingly moddable, and not only in the games market. If someone so desired, they could create a Windows GUI theme that makes your titlebar look like a penis or something. Nobody would be blaming Microsoft for that, I hope.

It worries me that Congress or the Senate feels they need to get involved in this. Whenever the government get involved in stupid things, like the Shiavo case or the baseball league case, I always feel that they're trying to focus our attention on things that they should not have anything to do with in order to keep our attention off of themselves and the things that they're doing, like wars and environment and mistreatment of other people.

I'll stop now since I'm drifting off topic.

[fluoro]

I want to comment also on the comparison between movie ratings and game ratings, and how parents manage their kids in general.

Parents seem to be more aware of movie ratings than they are of game ratings, and this is partly for historical reasons I think. When I was a kid, my mom generally tried to keep me out of R rated movies, as most parents do. Naturally, that's impossible and I still managed to see a few. But she also saw the games I was playing, things like Mario and Zelda, and saw no reason for concern.

Games are still thought of as more harmless than movies, as far as I can tell. Going back to my last message, I think the high-profile aspect of this story may help change that.

Personally, I don't really agree with how people want to restrict their kids from this stuff. I lean much more to the philosophy of teaching them how to behave correctly in society and allowing them to watch R movies and play M games and stuff. I feel that this is a better long-term solution. As I said before, when I was a kid I managed to watch R movies. And throughout my childhood (and even into college) my tendency was always to do the opposite of what I was told. When people tell you, "you can't do this!!" then my reaction is usually, "Hmm... I think I'd like to do that." I know I'm not the only one. In summer music camps, most of them tried to set firm rules for the students, which the students always tried to break. Except for one, where their unwritten policy seemed to be "treat the students as professionals, unless they screw up and act like children. Then treat them like children." There were no curfews or, really, rules of any kind. The students were all perfectly well-behaved. Forcing people always results in people pushing back, so I don't force. I try to coerce and persuade, but not force. Obviously, everyone parents in their own way and it's pointless to say I'm right and others are wrong, but this has been my experience and it's been pretty accurate most of the time.

[Siward]

I think the distinction between movies and games in terms of the R vs. NC-17 and M vs. AO rating has to do with access.

An R-rated movie is supposed to mean 'no one under 17 admitted without parent', whereas NC-17 means no one under 17, period.

This is true, and I'd forgotten that. As fluoro said, it seems like parents have an easy time telling their kids "no" to R movies, but have no idea what Mature means when they're presented with a video game.

So while the verbage of the ratings makes sense, the application doesn't. Stores aren't allowed to sell M games to people under 17 by law, yet we know tons of teens playing M games. So what does the rating difference make other than Walmart?

Mike

I don't think the M rating makes sense. The ESRB says that AO games "may include prolonged scenes of intense violence..." I personally can't think of a game that has violence in it, but where the violence isn't prolonged, or where the game doesn't center around violence (like Unreal Tournament, or Half Life 2). I could understand this if video games were treated more like an artform, as movies sometimes are. Certain movies might be one or two violent sequences that were crucial plot points, but I don't feel like most video games (outside of possibly RPGs, which still have a form of violence and death) are like this.

If you do away with the M rating and turn M games into AO games, that might be a way to legally make parents keep kids away from these games. Since AO is 18+, there's no grey-area distinction between a "mature" kid and an "immature" kid. You're either a legal adult, or not. I feel like the current laws/regulations only deal with half of the problem, like momGamer said. Parents have to take their share of the responsibility here, too.

2/ The bad. I'm worried about the impact of this on the modding community. I feel that this can negatively impact the software industry as a whole. If Rockstar did not put the content into GTA to begin with, as they originally claimed, then I think it would be terribly unjust for them to be punished and for GTA to be re-rated to a standard set by 3rd-party application not made by them for their game. That's like saying Firefox or Internet Explorer isn't suitable for kids because people have posted pornography online that is viewable using them.

I've actually read a rebuttle on the idea that modding communities might be shut down because of this. So long as the video game maker didn't intend for a modder to create what a modder has created, they're not legally bound by what mods do. The analogy I read was that Ford cannot be held responsible if you mod your engine like a crazy person, and it blows up. Even though video games aren't a physical object, I'm sure that any court who tried a case like this would be able to make a leap from engines to video games.

What bothers me most about this issue is the media coverage this gets. All the clips I see from Grand Theft Auto are Tommy from Vice City beating the crap out of someone in the game until blood spurts everywhere. It's worse because this sort of thing is pretty difficult to defend. I think it's ridiculous that CNN only shows this, when I played through Vice City, and so have several of my friends, and we rarely ever did that. There's a lot of killing, a lot of swearing, and a lot of other adult content, but for the media to pretend like the game is a giant, blood-filled murder-fest is just as ridiculous as a lot of the stuff you do in the game.

Personally, I used to hate the GTA games. I thought they made the violent video game case pretty open and shut. However, I watched my friends play Vice City for a few weeks (before I started to play, too), and I realized that the game is over the top on purpose. Rockstar doesn't have to make the game full of crime, but they do to display the absurdities of society. Every aspect of Vice City (and San Andreas, to a lesser extent) is stereotypical to the extreme -- they hold up a mirror to society, portraying the absolute black-and-white extremes in everyone to show people (at least, this is how I feel) how stupid this stuff is. I think it's tongue-in-cheek to the ultimate extent, and is self-parodying at times.

I completely understand why children shouldn't be playing this game. If anything, I think that playing GTA has made me less violent, and allows me to work out my daily frustrations on virtual characters instead of bottling things up and then exploding on my friends because my professor gave me an unfair grade, or because some nut on the road nearly T-boned me on the way home.

[fluoro]

What bothers me most about this issue is the media coverage this gets. All the clips I see from Grand Theft Auto are Tommy from Vice City beating the crap out of someone in the game until blood spurts everywhere. It's worse because this sort of thing is pretty difficult to defend. I think it's ridiculous that CNN only shows this, when I played through Vice City, and so have several of my friends, and we rarely ever did that. There's a lot of killing, a lot of swearing, and a lot of other adult content, but for the media to pretend like the game is a giant, blood-filled murder-fest is just as ridiculous as a lot of the stuff you do in the game.

Since GTA3, the games have been focused largely on references to popular movies. GTA3 had a lot of references to The Godfather and those Italian mafia style movies. Vice City was obviously one big reference to Scarface. San Andreas was a reference to all those LA gangsta movies with Ice Cube, Snoop Dog, Dr. Dre, etc. I'm not quite as interested in those movies, which is perhaps why I'm not quite as into San Andreas as I was GTA3 and Vice City.

In terms of content, I don't mind the violence in San Andreas so much. It still feels sort of cartoony to me. What I don't really like that much, personally, is the language. I don't mind it here and there. But San Andreas uses it all the time. Why do they do that? Because they're copying the movies. If you ever watch any of those gangsta movies like Boyz n the Hood and New Jack City, they use language in this way. It's just a style, and I don't care for it that much. It's just overdone for me.

As for you feeling less violent, I think you're not the only one. It's easy to jump to conclusions about the effects violent games are likely to have, but I am constantly reading of studies and evidence the point to the contrary. I really hope Senator Clinton will do her research and keep these facts in perspective.

[momGamer]

Thank you all so much for your comments.

As far as the modders and the gamers, the legal picture is not nearly as cut and dried as you would hope. There are several cases I know of and a couple I'm personally familiar with that show that the courts are far from certain to have a clue here. Microsoft already can't include easter eggs in their software because they got sued by someone and they've been classified as "undocumented features". With all the other obvious mental breaks the legal profession has had about technology (SCO, anyone?), I'm not all that certain they're going to make the right choice.

I'm not confused about how you can agree with me and still play those games. That's how we roll around here at Gamerdad. I'm still interested in your explanation, if you want to give it, though. We're always on the lookout for a good way to say it. My beef is with the people who don't even look at the front of the box when they buy stuff for their kids, and even if you show them what's inside they don't care.

We all are gamers. I have my own M-rated downfalls, like Metal Gear Solid and Halo. A lot of the rest of the gang around here plays GTA. I don't play GTA because of taste issues. New rap and all the wigger posturing make me billious - I kick it old school if at all. My kids get enough of that and more just by listening to the radio and everywhere else. My kids play some M-rated games, but that's after I know exactly what's in that box. I play through every game that's not E rated before I let them have it. I did a quick list, and I think my list of "no buy" games has more T rated games on it than M. And even if I do let it in, once they have access to it we still play together. We talk about it, and we decide how it's going to go. Once they're adult, they can make their own choices just like I do and when they have their own kids I hope they will have the tools to make choices for them.

Playing with your kids isn't a chore for me. It's one of the coolest things about this. I played about a half an hour's worth of Halo2 with my sons last night. I haven't had time to play in a long time and I got my arse shot off. We have a house rule that the ultimate looser for the day has to use a profile with lavender armor and a screenname that's an abbreviation for "Grenade Magnet" for the next day. I lost so bad it was duly decided among all four of them and with much laughing and joshing that I have to use it for the rest of the week. I love that I can have that time and that connection with my kids.

I agree that the coverage of GTA is heavily biased, and I can see your point with your assesment of the stereotypes in the game. But for a kid, all that satire goes right over their head. Especially a kid who doesn't live there and doesn't see the other side. If you don't get to see the real object, the reflection in a mirror can trick you into thinking it's the real thing. They take this, the portrayal of the area on MTV and in movies, and that's all they have. If I thought my kids needed to know how things are out there on the meaner side of the street, I'd haul them down to White Center in Seattle and have them hang out. Let's go meet some real hookers, and some real gangstas. Let's really spend a night in a doorway or upstairs above a crackhouse.

CNN and the rest of the media are definately getting my goat. The real giant blood-filled murder fest is the one thing they don't want to talk about. Remember, they don't want to show people what is really out there, just the carefully cut out bits that support their theory. They don't want people out for blood, just carefully enraged enough that they will vote in their online polls the way they want. With even the tamest games it's very easy. If you showed the average non-gamer on the street a carefully made set of scenes from Rayman 3 you could freak them out. Imagine if they showed people Def Jam Vendetta, or maybe that idiot in New York needs to get ahold of a Dreamcast and play some Jet Grind Radio.

I rented it and tried it out and based on playing the game for a few hours I chose not to have this one in the house. I have other options for the aspects of this game that I want to play that don't have the rest of it that I don't. If I want to street race, I'd much rather play Need For Speed Underground 2. If I want stuff dead, I'll play Halo or Psy-ops. If I want to beat the holy living daylights out of stuff I have a large collection of games from Super Smash Brothers to Soul Caliber. If I want to take some stress out, for me nothing beats kicking Kirby's fluffy little butt into the stratosphere. But that's just me.