next »

[sega]

Yeah, I always found that unfair.  Unrated videogames won't be touched with a ten foot pole in retail, and if a chain tried to sell an uncut game as unrated, they would get a huge amount of flack.

I think it's because movies are respected.  People already see that as a type of speech, and have seen it as an art form for decades.  The ratings system isn't tied to movies intrinsically, just as it isn't tied to paintings or music, regardless of whether or not we create a ratings system for any of those things.

However, videogames are still largely viewed as toys.  Also, they really didn't have much time to move about without ratings.  Yeah there was Spacewar in 1962, but the public at large didn't really know about videogames until the early 80s, late 70s at the earliest.  The ratings system was put into effect in the early 90s, which gave videogames about 15 years of unregulated freedom.  That's nothing compared to the time movies had to establish themselves, and I don't have to mention music.  Because of that, I believe the ratings system tied itself to videogames in the minds of the public.  Videogames hadn't yet found their legs.

So yeah, I think it'll be a while yet before videogames are respected like movies are.  But respect or no, it's hypocritical of Walmart to stock unrated movie DVDs when they demand edited music and covers elsewhere.

By the way, MTV had an interesting article about the perception of movies in the early years.  It's interesting how closely it resembles what's being said about videogames now.  I wonder what the next demonized medium will be.  I think videogames will play that role for a while to come.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

To take this thread into a side-topic, one thing I've noticed is that the things that are labeled AO or even M are things that mature adults aren't even usually interested. Who's more interested in games or movies primarily focused around sex or gratuitous violence, kids or adults?

I also think that if kids were allowed to play AO games freely, it wouldn't seem so attractive to them, and they'd grow out of it. I have a little brother who has played the GTA game since he was five years old, and I'm fine with that. The way to make someone interested in something is to keep it secret from them.

And banning something for being violent would just make people desire it more -- how many people would care about this game if it had not been banned? Still quite a few, but probably fewer.

In other words, I think that if some people want to see less "objectionable materials", the best way to do that would be to end all restrictions on it and stop objecting to it, perhaps even eliminate the rating systems entirely, and don't treat it as anything special.

[sega]

well, the ratings system isn't there to tell you to want something or not.  It's there to help you use informed control (however small that may be in the big scheme of things) over what you and your children take in.

Banning, however, is ridiculous.  People who really want it, will get it.  In fact, it may just concentrate the consumption of that kind of entertainment to mainly the people they don't want to experience it.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Part of my point was that the parents who keep this kind of stuff away from their children are actually fostering it. My suspicion is that people wouldn't desire so much it if their parents didn't keep them away from it when they were younger. It's a forbidden fruit effect.

[sega]

Hah, dude... I think parents should tell their kids not to do some stuff.  You think we shouldn't have any laws either?  Makes people want it?  I think it's silly to do away with setting up rules.  It CAN go overboard, of course, but it's silly to say there should be no rules/restrictions at all with children especially.  I just know I wouldn't want to be stuck in an airplane filled with kids raised that way.

My point is that you can't just make an all-encompassing statement like that.  Parents have to keep their kids from doing some things.  Otherwise, the kids get a new foster home after they're found sticking forks in electrical sockets while swinging a cat around, after eating nothing but candy for days.

If a parent thinks that their child shouldn't have the experience of ripping someone's testicles off in Manhunt (yes, it's a real action in the game according to IGN), then I don't have a problem with that.  If a parent thinks they THEMSELVES shouldn't experience that, then I don't have a problem with it.  And it helps that they can make informed decisions like that based on information on the box, instead of finding out the hard way.

EDIT:
at the same time, I also don't have a problem with someone wanting to play that game, of course.  And they can use the ratings system to find out it has those things.  The ratings system serves both sides.  It's banning and publicly complaining that doesn't serve the purpose they want.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'm not sure how you got from that to no laws.

I didn't say there shouldn't be any rules for children set by their parents. Parents should definately keep kids away from things that will permanently harm them. But violent movies and games won't.

[sega]

Fair enough.  You did say "that kind of stuff".  Sorry I misunderstood.  But I'm still not completely certain it has no permanent effect.  It's unproven.

[ravuya]

It looks like Rockstar is going to edit the game down to get an M rating.

Disappointing. The ideal situation for me would be that the console releases are censored heavily but there's an "uncut" PC version available perhaps through Steam.

[sega]

Yeah, I was thinking that if Nintendo DID allow it on their console, Rockstar could sell two versions.  The M version would be in stores, and the AO version would be exclusively on their website.  They'd collect the full $50 per copy, instead of getting only $30 by selling to Best Buy.  It'd also bring in a lot of traffic, where they could tell people about other games they make.

I know in Japan, companies will sell games exclusively online if they feel they have a very small target market.  Sega did that with Segagaga, and eventually, it proved popular enough to make a retail release.  I wish American companies would do this.  It'd be a lower risk way of releasing games with unproven designs/content.  If it hits big, they can choose then to go into the large costs of distribution and getting it into stores while getting a smaller amount of money on each item sold.

[ZombiePixel]

Just resurrecting this thread to point something out.  For those who don't believe in the "slippery slope" theory of giving censors an inch and them taking a mile, Britain has banned an ad campaign for Burnout Dominator because it has a drawing of   a car crash and would "encourage dangerous driving and anti-social behavior".

That's the direction this is all going in, folks.

[FARTRON]

The MPAA hasn't defined a movie rating more extreme than rated R.

I'll just jump back a bit in the thread, because this wasn't addressed.  The MPAA has made several ratings more extreme than R, and it's been the threat of applying those ratings that have let the MPAA censor Hollywood.  They had X once upon a time, but that just became synonymous with porn, and the theater companies wouldn't show those movies.  NC-17 was an attempt at rebranding the rating, but it too is an effective blacklist.  All the ESRB and related ratings systems are mere shadows of the

, and it's their opaque and unchecked system that has declared violence acceptable and sexuality not.

[ravuya]

I don't think X was ever an "official" rating of the MPAA.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I seem to remember that they did at one time.

Yep, Wikipedia verifies it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system

[Dust]

I live in Australia and we have a very strict rating standard. For video games anything over a MA15+ rating is given "refused classification" which is stupid considering we have R rated movies. When the hot Coffee mod was discovered for San Andreas the game was banned here for sometime, until Rockstar released the modified of its game. and it seems like Australia isn't going to get Manhunt released here either. I mean this is stupid the OFCL even banned "Marc Ecko’s Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure" because they thought it would influence graffiti! have they even seen Jet Set radio Future!

[ZombiePixel]

Funny.  If you were a truly nefarious game developer it wouldn't take much to cozy up to local politicians and have them ban games that you don't want to compete with.

[Dust]

If only they were that easy to cozy up to, but then again it wouldn't really work. Games don't really get made here and if they do they're released somewhere else first.

[Xion]

Just resurrecting this thread to point something out.  For those who don't believe in the "slippery slope" theory of giving censors an inch and them taking a mile, Britain has banned an ad campaign for Burnout Dominator because it has a drawing of   a car crash and would "encourage dangerous driving and anti-social behavior".

That's the direction this is all going in, folks.

I thought that the poster was banned because of a caption on it. "Inner peace through outer violence"
Honestly, I think that was just a bad caption to put with anything. Especially a crashed car. Like "You'll find yourself at peace if you take your anger and frustrations out on people, objects, and dangerous behavior."

I'm against banning games and pretty much any media in general, but I've got no problem with ratings. That's pretty much my complete opinion on the matter.

[Oddbob]

No matter what company or product had attempted to get that poster through, it wouldn't have got clearance over here.

Its not a slippery slope - its business as usual. Not worth blowing up into some sort of tabloid-esque media frenzy like certain quarters of the internet are indulging in right now. (Thankfully, as ever, not here)

The sky's not falling, trust me. IGN have just ran a fairly decent interview with the BBFC about Manhunt 2, and I'm finding it incredibly hard to sympathise with the internet uproar this time round.

The BBFC won't suggest cuts because what they'd need to be removed would compromise the work as a whole, so they're backed into a no win situation. They either get the game through censored to fuck - which isn't in their interests or the interests of the gamer or they do the only option they're left with. They don't classify it. We're not with the "old" BBFC under Fermans reign anymore, with the honourable exception of the eternally sticky point of Last House On The Left - they pass more and more visceral stuff than ever before. Its not a decision they'd have come to easily and I have no doubt that there is no big conspiracy or pressure from outside in them doing this.

And no matter how many times someone suggests its a ban, its not. Local councils can overrule the BBFC ratings if they so choose and indeed, have done before now. Texas Chainsaw Massacre being a relatively recent (in the grand scheme of my life, anyway) example. Now, when it makes a DPP list then I'll start worrying.

This really isn't the big deal proportions of the internet are making it into and enduring tabloidesque cries of we're campaigning for the good of the gamers is starting to make me weep - its Daily Express/Daily Mail territory and I'm really not comfortable with that.