Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

B.C. Officially Proposes Video Game Regulations 164

Posted by timothy from the don't-worry-we-know-what's-best dept.
CitizenC writes: "The British Columbia Attorney General has now officially proposed legislation for a government sponsored classification system for video and PC games. Stomped spoke with a spokesperson with the Attorney General's office today for more infomation about the proposed regulations; read the report here." Basically, the proposed system (only proposed, note) would require video games be rated, much like movies are. Phwew! At least this is Canada! Nothing like this could ever affect us down here in the land of the free, home of -- Oh wait. Yes, it could.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

B.C. Officially Proposes Video Game Regulations More

B.C. Officially Proposes Video Game Regulations

Comments Filter:
  • Well, excuse me, Mr "Great", but I can't see why you think you're so great at all.

    Let me introduce myself. I'm 19, and I live with my parents. I've played many violent games. I saw violence in movies, TV, the internet and at school. I've been hit, and beat several times. I also saw some amount of porn (who hasn't?) when I was younger, but it never interested me too much. I've been insulted many times too. Now guess how am I. Do you think I'm one of those violent idiots who think they can solve anything with violence? Well, sorry, but I'm a quiet, shy and peaceful person, and play games like Creatures (you have to take care of a virtual creature). I don't drink alcohol or take drugs or think women are inferior. And I'm wondering why. Let me tell you that regarless of all the violence (and some sex) I've seen, I have no intention of hurting, killing or raping anybody.

    Now about yourself... What kind of parent are you? If your children love you, then I feel sorry for them. They don't deserve a parent who thinks that his/her time is too valuable to use it to take care about his/her own children!

    Also, think that NOTHING in this world will stop your children from doing something you don't want them to, if they want. I needed only 3 minutes to disable my school's control system on computers, and anohter few minutes to discover the administrator's password. It was foolishly encoded by simple substitution. If your kids want to play games, they'll play games, either by downloading them from warez sites, getting them from friends, or buying them and lying about their age (I'm really 17, I just look like I'm 14 because of hormonal problems). I bet they can find some way of playing them while you're out, or at a friend's house.

    You're their parent. It's your work to take care of them and teach them what's good and what's bad. Sincerly, if you really think the government is going to take care of your children and just with a foolish rating system, you're the biggest idiot and worst parent I've ever seen.

    Sorry, but you just got on my nerves. Now I'll get back to Perl and Creatures :-)
  • Hmm... I guess the title of that should have said "Parenting not the cause of violence", not "Parents...", since if it is genetically related, then it kind of *is* the parents. But anyway... :-)
  • I would hardly classify SoF as "disgustingly violent." I'd say Diablo and Doom were much much much violent. No one kicked upa fuss over either of them! The difference? SoF has a nifty graphics engine mod that allows for certain body parts to be removed based on where the fatal blow hit. Rather kewl if you ask me! This comes from a 17 year old who has play such games (I play all three above) since the days of Wolfenstein 3D. (Which, I have.) Violence shouldn't be deemed something for adults only! Heck, I'd be more worried about them!

    Fact: The kids who go on shooting sprees ins chools and such have difficulty distinguishing between illusion and reality. They have difficulty seeing hmm in SoF I die and others die and I reload and we all come back, however, in real life that doesn't happen.

    Ratings will not stop them from getting them.

    So ban em you might say. Well, television offers the same illusion. How many of you will ban television?

    Well, let's say you do. Hey we still have books.

    Ban books and so on and so forth down the line.

    PointleSS!!!!

    It's just another waste of government monies.

    On the other hand, ratings are not bad, the problem is requiring "AO" ame sbeing places in a seperate room. Translation, "We know stores that sell games don't have seperate rooms so we are forcing them not to sell such games."

    Now that IS censorship!

    Derek Greene
  • I'm sorry, I know this person is a troll, but I got to say it.

    Monitoring what your kids do IS YOUR JOB!!! Just because you feel that your time is too valuable to be wasted on raising your children mean that you have a major problem, and need to foster your children out to some people who would love them and raise them in the way you can't seem to find the time to do so because you're time is too valuable to waste it on your children.

    Sorry about that folks, but it needed to be said.

    --Ben

  • What is all the panic about???? Currently the way things work with the ESRB is stricly on the companies whim to have the game rated. Many companies already do this with pleasure, Blizzard Entertainment [blizzard.com].

    Would the requirement of having games rated be so different? As I have seen it looks like more and more companies are submitting to the ESRB.

    Personally I think this is a good move but I'm still young and don't know any better.

  • That's all well and good, but for every child who would react similarly to how you did, there would be a child who would go back to smoking and drinking, even if they initially found it distasteful.

    There's reasons besides moral ones why we don't give children ready access to smokes and booze: they're much harder on a child's growing body then they are on an adults. Pr0n's a different story, in that it's not directly harmful. The argument could be made, I suppose, that it's mentally damaging, but that's left up for the psych majors to decide.
  • Are the citizens of British Columbia blind or stupid? Every video game already comes with a rating on the front, and on the back actually lists the reasoning for that rating, breaking it down into sex, violence, gore, drug use, and whatever else parents may not like. Video games have had these ratings for five years now. The government getting involved is, at best, a total waste of money.

    Of course, that would not further the career the politician pushing for this, who apparently is so bad at what he does that he cannot find a better vehicle for his political advancement.

  • This is just going to result in games that are edited and sanitzed not because the players want it, not because the game makers want it that way, but to satisfy some OUTSIDE THIRD PARTY that thinks that's the way it ought to be.

    Arcades that are not licensed as "adult establishments" (which is, oh I don't know, NO ARCADES) will not be able to put out the NC17/X/UltraViolence video games. If no one buys them, game makers won't make them.

    This is the same with movies. Robocop was originally rated NC17 (for excessive violence), so the studio EDITS it down to an R because many local zoning ordinances prohibit theaters from even showing NC17 films. Ditto Basic Instinct, and other films.

    This also results in two home versions. The "movie" version.... and IF there's demand (hmmm, stifiling creativity here?)... and "unrated" release.

    Why are we jumping through these hoops? Again, it's for OUTSIDE THIRD PARTIES who, beyond rating it, will never see the movie or video game ever agian.

    Something is really fucked up here. And I see no "problem" that needs to be solved with new restrictions. Games are games. Reality is reality. The rating boards need to figure this out and quit trying to correleate one with the other.

  • Hmmm.....when I was 8 I never had $60 to $80 to drop on a game, let alone a violent one. I was more into street hocky & my friends own version of baseball.

    --Clay

  • Actually, I think the methods for determining a rating will probably be pretty simple. I don't think they are going to spend the time trying to look at every different possibility. They will play the game, work out how much blood, sex, violence, whatever that the game has and then try and slot it into a general category.
  • They've been doing this for years in the UK (some have a voluntary BBFC rating, all seem to have a mandatory European one). Since the ratings are printed on the edge of the box (well PC cardboard boxes anyway), and really small no one ever pays attention to them.

    Its all completely pointless getting upset about the fact that your five year old son can't buy the latest photo-realistic bloodbath game until the people who sell the games actually pay attention to the rating printed on it.

    Steve.

  • While I do agree with the idea that people are allowing television to raise their kids to an increasing degree, I can't help but find a bit of a paradox here. We're getting a distinct mixed message from those people who're anti-ratings.

    On one hand, they say that parents shouldn't allow their kids to watch certain material. It's the parents' own fault and responsibility, etc. However, on the other hand, you see them talking about how kids should have an increasing world view. How they should be allowed to access the internet unfiltered or unrestricted because of the holes in the ratings software.

    Why do I think this is a paradox? Because on one hand, we have people saying that this system is flawed, so we shouldn't use it. And on the other hand, we see people expressing outrage because "soccermoms" are bringing into effect a ratings system that, from looking at the video industry, at least, appears it would work.

    Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like a double standard. It sounds to me more like people here just want to protect their own interests, and will embrace any philosophy on a subject that fits their wants.

    This is the kind of politics that put George W Bush in power. Do we really want to continue down this road further? Do people not see that personal politics can really screw up a system something good?

    Personally, I think that a ratings system for video games is a great idea. Currently, there are video games out there that are twice as violent as any movie I've ever seen. (Granted, I haven't seen many, but still..) As long as the ratings system bases it's ratings upon simple, clear core ideas, (ie; whether the title contains visible violence, sex or nudity, and whether or not swearing is featured--and whether or not it can be toggled) then I think it would be perfectly okay to use.

    However, this probably won't help things one iota in the area where it's probably needed most, which is the warez industry. If a kid can download a game off the net, then he can easily circumvent the system. I personally don't see any way around this, other than to maybe put the rating on the load-up graphic, so parents can recognize the ratings if they happen to be passing by..?

    The problem is that movies are controlled from a central location--theatres--whilest video games are decentralized as soon as they become warezed. So while it won't help the soccermom whose kid is sitting online dl/ding warez, it will help the family who's trying to pick out a good Christmas present for their kid and don't want to accidentally end up with the gore game of the year.

    And how, exactly, is this harming the rights of adults? I mean, if my right to see someone brutally decapitated and someone crap down their neck is infringed upon, I probably won't be too disturbed. Idunno, maybe it's just because I'm now approaching 21, and all of this adultish material's not as interesting any more. Maybe I even childish. Maybe I'm finally growing up? I dunno.

    Personally, I think that if games spent as much time extolling the downsides of violence as they did the virtues of it (ie; through funeral sequences or cutscenes of regret or maybe even someone watching in horror as someone dies) then maybe we wouldn't need this kind of thing. The reason for this type of legislation shouldn't be to ban violence or hide it from children, it should be an attempt to make sure that the audience is presented with the consequences of theirs and others violent actions in the game.

    See Half-Life for some good examples of this. (Medics, people running away in horror from monsters, etc.)

    I don't see this legislation as stepping on many toes, therefor, except maybe a few select memebers of the gaming industry that tend to gloralize violence; there'll probably be an increase in warezing of violent video games.
  • While I agree that parenting is a much bigger influence than any video game, movie, or TV show, children can become desensitized toward violence through repeated exposure. No, video games do not turn kids into rapist/killers, but I believe they are a factor in the development of aggressive tendencies in children. For that reason, I would support a fair, accurate, and reasonable rating system for parents to use.
  • The point of the blind and stupid comment was that the residents are not actually blind and stupid, and thus there should be now reason for this.
  • Movie producers voluntarily submit their productions to the MPAA for ratings in order to assure people that they won't be overly offensive. Sure, they are unfounded and generally pointless, but they aren't some sort of government enforced censoring.
  • But what's really driving this movement are politicians looking for something else to tax. It's another sin tax, and we all know that once we have a sin tax is nearly impossible to repeal it.
    ---
    >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
  • What you wrote does make sense. However, the difficulty I have with the current movie rating system is that it causes producers to dumb-down many movies in order to attract the teenage audience. I'm not implying that teenagers are dumb; only that producers want to make movies that appeal to a broad, broad audience. It's simple economics.Face it, 99% of Hollywood movies are bland, boring, stupid, and bland. Did I mention bland? Have you ever taken a look at network television recently? At any televised program? Notice the weak plots, the *blandness*? A producer wants to make money, so he targets the largest audience. In order to do so, he must dilute his offerings.
    In the case of video games, the target market *are* the teenagers. By adding ratings, I may no longer be able to run down to the computer store and pick up a game because it would not be profitable to stock.
  • My biggest problem is not the rating system, but the fact that the B.C. government - or governments in general - is in control of the rating system. Normally I don't care too much about ratings because I'm an adult. But government control is the killer. What happens when another school shooting and Quake-clone v1.4 is implicated? Does the government place different restrictions on this game? Or how about games dealing with "mature themes" such as gay and lesbian issues? A children's adventure game could have gay or lesbian parents; and I remember the debate over the same issues in books. I realize that the last one is stretching it, but other examples are readily available. Or how about the killing of animals. Should Deer Hunter be an all-ages game or a PG game? I'm sure that the NDP government and PETA have different views than mine. I don't want "concerned parents and politicians" blocking something based on the next election.
  • Not really. R rated (18 years+) movies are in amongst the rest of the movies, but I believe X rated movies must be in a separate room, although I'm not sure if they have to be. I've only been to one store that does that. Blockbuster and Rogers Video don't rent X rated films. At local convenience stores, X rated movies are in with the rest of them, but they're on the top shelf, and are covered with another box that says something along the lines of "Adult Movie".
    Thing is, all movies go through Canada's own rating board, and alot of the movies that would be R rated in the States are only 14A here. It's the whole language/violence thing that we saw in South Park the Movie. I suppose that wouldn't apply to games much, because language really isn't an issue. They're either bloody violent, or there's no violence at all.
    The guy who posted about the NDP trying frantically to get some votes was right. This probably won't happen.
  • >I can find no reason for the CRTC to limit how much conent we watch because its not from canada. Who gives them the right?

    The TV & Radio spectrum is limited, of course. It's even more limited because it must be shared with the US. The FCC determines who gets a slice in the US, the CRTC in Canada.

    Pretend you a TV exec wannabe. You approach the CRTC for a slice of that now limited spectrum. Do you:
    a) tell them you want it to rebroadcast American channels that 96% of the population already receive
    b) broadcast material that is not already being received by Canadians, or;
    c) broadcast material that is not already being received by Canadians and is made by them.

    C is usually going to be the winner, but many cases of B (such as foreign-showcasing multi-cultural channels) also get their broadcasting license. What doesn't get licensed are TV stations that want to double-up on what is already available.

    Can a Canadian open (or buy) a TV station in the US? Nope. The US doesn't allow foreigners to control their broadcast spectrum, why should the Canucks?

    Remember -- this doesn't apply to cable. Canada has DOZENS of US cable channels available. The spectrum is public property. Use it wisely.
  • I'm glad that (for the most part) we have a voluntary code in the UK; some games do go for official ratings by the same committee that rates films (the BBFC) but most don't. The problem with rating interactive product is that you've got to see everything that might be considered controversial. Not much of an issue with your Resident Evil/Onimusha type game thats practically on rails, but something like Black & White or The Sims where the game is highly non-linear you could cause a million different things to happen, each of which might need reviewing for suitability.

    Mind you, the fact that its a tradition of older brothers to do evil things with their little sisters Barbie dolls doesn't seem to have made them get banned either, so who knows...
  • I'm a left-libertarian; I think that government should be nonexistent except for a court system, and everything else should be left to the people. I am fully in favor of a voluntary rating system, as long as it's industry-created and stores choose on their own what to do with certain rated games; however, the minute government touches it, I'm out. When we start restricting games to people at certain ages, it only makes the people who can't play these games want to play them games more (and possibly get them illegally), and just leads the way to restriction to older and older ages until we have total censorship.
  • You're the moron, for drawing a causal link between Doom and being a moron without evidence, doubly so because you used the adjective "obvious". :)
  • In arcades, MA (15yrs +) classification includes obstructing view of the game by curtains (the gun/scope games)... also, there are no X rated games allowed, period.
  • Since about a month there is also a classification system for video games in the Netherlands. We used to have a system only for movies but now the industry itself (probably pushed by our goverment) came up with one system [kijkwijzer.nl] classifying games, movies and TV. I personally don't care much about those classifications but I like the idea of self regulation.

  • I like ratings. They help you choose what you want to see, or what your kids want to see. My big problem with the US system is that the ratings are fairly useless for this purpose.

    In Australia, we don't have a perfect system (far from it), but one thing that I like is the consumer advice label. Rather than just give an overall rating (G, PG, M, MA, R), they actually give you, on the movie poster, video cover, TV guide or broadcast the programme, the reasons why it got that rating.

    Reasons can include violence, nudity, sex, coarse language, drug use, horror or a particularly useful category called "adult themes". Adult themes are topics which kids may need parental guidance or help in understanding, like mental illness, marital breakup, the supernatural and so on. I love this, because I can envisage an age which my daughter will reach where I won't have a problem with, say, nudity (it's just the human body in its natural state) or coarse language (there's plenty of that around in the wider world), but I'd like to sit with her if she sees a portrayal of hate groups, or people with mental illnesses. I think that would be more confusing for a 10 year old, and need "parental guidance" more, than depictions of sex.

    So, IMO, these ratings on video games will do as much good as the other North American ratings on TV programmes or films: hardly any good at all. How about some real information instead?

  • I swear everytime I hear about banning this game or that its always BC. did I miss something?
  • Posted by hairy_palms:

    I think that this could help out the gaming industry, and get some people off there backs by them clearly rating the games. We have a rating system in america, but that still hasn't gotten them people off our back about gaming violence, so scrach all that i said above.

    This isn't a good idea, the rating system on movies dosn't work, the rating system on games dosn't work, i'm 15 and i can walk into a R rated movie like i own the place, and i can just as esily can get my grubby little hands on a M (mature) rated game. No one cares, and it still dosn't get these gaming people off our backs, so i say don't do it. These people just need something to piss and moan about. So don't do it.

    "I hate you milkman dan"....Suzie

  • Even if the films are rated, that does not prevent anyone from watching them. So even if the games become rated, that won't change anything.
  • To me, this is a blessing in disguise. Sure, some may oppose this as "big government" excercising more control over our lives, but, come on, it's just video games!

    As a single parent, I definitely see how such a rating system would help me out. I would no longer have to monitor every video game my children played -- I could just check the rating! This saves my valuable time and prevents my children from seeing things they shouldn't have to see, or participating in violence or sex-driven games that could twist their values. I know I don't want my children to grow up to become killers or rapists!!

  • Rating system is not about censorship (Score:5)

    by erotus ( 209727 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2001 @12:59AM (#352552)
    I'm basically libertarian in most of my viewpoints. I believe that adults(not children) should have the freedom to choose, die, drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. I don't believe these freedoms should be granted to minors. Rating video games is not the end of the world people. We have ratings for movies here in the USA and many of you would consider this ok.

    There are better things kids could be doing anyway. With age, comes maturity and more responsibility. We don't let minors drink, smoke, or watch porn. Why should graphically violent games be any different. If parents want to buy those games for their children, then they have the right to do so. If a parent wants to rent an "R" rated movie for their teenage son, then they have that right. All that was suggested here is a rating system, not the end of game consoles as we know it.
  • What is wrong with marking a disgustingly violent game like Soldiers of Fortune as such?

    Read the article.

    It isn't marked "disgustingly violent", it's marked "Adults Only". Now, I may not like SoF -- either the game or the gimmick -- but I hardly think that it should be for Adults Only. Frankly I don't see SoF as being any worse than the exploding humans in Doom, and Doom didn't damage my brain when I played it at age 15.

    It's not like those who will buy the game anyway couldn't

    According to the article, a special license will be required to sell M and AO games. M games will have to be in a separate section, and AO games will have to be in a separate room. Running through all the game stores I can remember, I can't think of any that have a separate room -- and thus they couldn't sell SoF.

    No, there is nothing wrong with identifying the content of the game. To restrict games you don't like is censorship, even if you aren't explicitly banning them.

  • Until you find the hidden level where you slaughter them like crazy! Woot! I can't wait til a law like that passes... Then I'll deliberately fuck with little kids minds by making gruesome video games :P Hey I'm not the one rating em eh. This isn't what its all aboot.
  • ...or maybe not.

    I see the self-imposed rating system that game developers use in America as only that: a break before the storm. Government regulation is, in my mind, going to be inevitable. At least as long as the tenuous (if even extant) link between social violence and violence in entertainment is perpetuated by media.

    But would it really be such a bad thing? I'm not going to raise my hand in favor of censorship, but I have to wonder about what the results might be. Being controversial for the sake of increased visibility will never go away...and it isn't really too much a problem (as far as gamer's are concerned) if there is good gameplay to back it up. BUT...anyone remember "Postal?" It didn't have the gameplay and it was visible solely because it contained controversial content.

    Ultimately good games sell because they are fun, not because they are offensive. Smart developers, like those guys at Konami, realize that you can have edgy, intelligent content without being needlessly offensive. To that end, Metal Gear Solid is a truly masterful work.

    What is happening in British Columbia is nothing new. Germany, for example, has extremely restrictive content control. It doesn't really hurt developers too much because the majority of the market is in America and Japan (at least for Japanese developers, American developers have had difficulty entering the Japanese market).

    Should developers be worried? Yes. We ARE worried. But there seems to be little we can do directly, other than to act responsibly and keep rehashing the arguments we've made time and again.

    My own thoughts are that parents aren't going to magically start being responsible for their children. Kids are going to continue to get material their parents think they shouldn't and the government will act on it. They will act as they have in the past: instead of education or some true method of solvency they will seek to make the material more difficult to acquire. Instead of engendering the missing responsibility, they will release a patch for the problem.

    Oh and...yes...the company I work for and the game I am helping program and design will have a lot of edgy semi-adult content, but the game is also full of gameplay. We won't be selling DNF on the merits of controversy, but on the merits of gameplay and fun.

    Heh...somehow I don't think it is going to be possible to convince the geezers in DC what we, as gamers, find to be fun and acceptable.

    But don't take my word for it. I listen to black metal and watch hentai. I'm probably not the best person to judge morality or defend the values of my industry. ;)

    Here's my sig that doesn't have carriage returns:

  • It's amazing how a little bit of ignorance can go a long way!

  • As a co-owner and server admin for digitaladdiction.net [slashdot.org] (ya, the site looks ugly. I'm working on it), I am openly wondering how they will look upon game servers. Will our site (and game servers) require 'Adults only' signs? Will we have to regulate who connects to our game servers? Christ, we have the #1 rated CounterStrike server [theclq.com], along with a couple q2 servers, and I would not look forward to doing 'Age verifications' in order to let people play. As you can tell by our Addicted Users Page [digitaladdiction.net] (which is hidden right now - I'm working on it), we *do* have a few players who are under the age of 18 (hell, a good 40% of our players are under 18), and I would not look forward to telling them to play elsewhere...........

  • 1) How the hell are adults rights being hurt by a ratings system so long as nothing is censored, just rated?

    2) The point isn't that this relieves the responsibility of the parents to raise their kids, but why make their jobs harder?

    Should kids be allowed to buy guns since any decent parent wouldn't let their kid go into a gun shop?

    Same goes for drivers license, alcohol, tobacco, and lots of other things kids aren't allowed to do.

  • Look, there are similar ratings on movies, OK? I know that those ratings are totally s****ed up in the US (like, you can show as much blood, gore and violence as you wish as long nobody says 'fuck' and you can't see a bloody inch of a tit), but that the system is s***ed up in the US doesn't mean it is s***ed up everywhere.

    I dunno if people will classify this as 'good' or 'bad', and I don't know the differences between Alberta and BC in this respect, but...

    When I lived in Alberta a few years ago, a movie came out, called (I believe) Wild Things or something. I haven't seen this movie, but it was described by all my 15/16-year-old hormone-crazed adolescant friends as 'lesbian pr0n', the day after they went to see it in theatres.

    Apparantly, even violent dismemberment and lesbian sex scenes are alright, so perhaps this bodes well for the freedom-of-corruption junkies out there.

    On the other hand, whoever reviews/rates the games is going to be from BC, and I doubt movie ratings in Alberta are, so perhaps that bodes well for the 'protect our children' junkies.

    For the record, I'm the latter, but when there are holes in the system (the former), I abused them (I'm 19 now, so sex, pr0n, and beer are mine for the taking).

    ~Sentry21~
  • "They are preventing me from having the ability to make my own decisions"

    If you are under 18, you don't have the right to make your own decisions.
  • Unfortunately, that sex pictogram is itself a 16+ year old rating, thus must be taped over on boxes on shelves open to the general public.
  • Yes, this is a reason to get upset. Granted, ratings are nothing new, but that is hardly a reason for accepting them. And they probably are useful for parents, but that is not the point.

    The point is that these would be ratings made by the government, which, at least in my opinion, is an infringement on the freedom of speech. These ratings would give the government the power to say what games they would like their citizens to play, and what kind of games they approve.

    It would be a completely different matter if the ratings were made by the gaming industry itself, or by a private company, for example. If this were the case, everybody would be able to choose whether they want to use the ratings or not, and whose ratings to use. If the government controls things, this freedom of choice is lost.

    I know this kind of matter is of no great importance in the grand scheme of things - Canada is not going to turn into a totalitarian state if British Columbia starts rating video games. The country I live in, Finland, rates the movies (which is in a sense the same thing as rating games) shown here, and we still are quite a free country. But this system of rating games would still be a loss of liberty, and should therefore be resisted.
  • maybe i'm clueless, but all games I've purchased, and I live in Canada, already have a rating on them. They range from E for everyone to A for adult. Isn't that the system that is used everywhere? Why does BC, the land of toked up, granola eating hippies, need a different system, let alone one that mimics the farcical film ratings system?
  • Robocop was originally rated NC17

    The version of Robocop that you speak of was originally shown at theaters with an R rating, then the MPAA (after the fact) changed their minds and threatned the film with an X rating if the scenes where Murphy's hand is blown off and the scene with the E.D. 209 blasting the shit out of that executive were not toned down.

    As I remember the NC17 rating did not exist in the late 1980's when Robocop came out.

    Something is really fucked up here. And I see no "problem" that needs to be solved with new restrictions. Games are games. Reality is reality. The rating boards need to figure this out and quit trying to correleate one with the other.

    What I would like to see replace ratings is a list of questionable material in a movie. Instead of "This movie has been rated 'R' by the MPAA" I'd like to see "This film contains depictions of violent acts including murder, rape, assault and battery as well as extortion, drug usage, and music piracy."

    LK
  • ""... getting ready to try to sue the video game industry out of existance." What crap! As usual, overreacting to reasonable people trying to protect the innocent."

    Overreacting? In this age of using the courts as a national lottery? Come on. The tobacco industry (which I won't defend) was selling a legal product that carried government mandated warning labels for over 25 years.

    And government (thru taxation) makes far more money per pack of cigarettes sold than do the tobacco companies...

    Yet that didn't stop the government and every whorehouse lawfirm from trying to sue them on the basis that people were too stupid to know that smoking is BAD for you.

    Anyone who wasn't aware of that fact and has lived in the USA in the last 25 years is a candidate for the Darwin Awards.

    It's just a matter of time before a "concerned" group of hysterical Soccermoms becomes the front for a suit against the game industry. Mark my words and this date. It WILL happen.

    Eventually, every industry that produces anything that could conceivably harm ANYONE if misused, even IF there are warning labels WILL be sued unless this practice is stopped with meaningful lawsuit reform. The result? Economic collapse, the complete demise of creativity an innovation, poverty, starvation, and a LOT of dead lawyers when the revolution comes.

    Maybe that scenario IS a bit exteme, but it's becoming more and more likely, as this new trend for governments and special interests to sue industry continues. And it WILL continue, and will continue to be expended to other industries (like video game makers), as it's already been proven a great new method of taxation. New taxes never go away.

  • Quit your Bitching! (Score:5)

    by Accipiter ( 8228 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2001 @04:58AM (#352566)
    Phwew! At least this is Canada! Nothing like this could ever affect us down here in the land of the free, home of -- Oh wait. Yes, it could.

    I'm sorry, but does anyone else notice that timothy has been complaining about everything he can at every opportunity? Especially Microsoft, but everything in general.

    HELLO. Movie Ratings aren't a bad thing! Why are ratings on video games a bad thing? Responsible parents will like a system like this because their kids will obviously want to play games, and parents usually have no clue as to their content.

    Have you looked at the video game rating system we have here in the states? It's pretty nice. It comes with a Letter rating, as well as a summery of items contained in the game that contributed to that rating. I, as a 21 year old gamer, even find this system useful for myself. It takes less than an inch of package space, and doesn't affect game play whatsoever.

    SO WHY THE HELL ARE YOU COMPLAINING? I mean, Christ! It's not like they're storming into your house, pointing a semi-automatic weapon at your head, and READING the ratings to you. It's a fucking tiny little label on the packaging!

    Get a Grip! Seriously. Complaining about stuff doesn't make you a "Cool Kid", it just makes you irritating. Especially when it's over trivial shit like this.

    If it was a large-scale violation of basic rights, I can see complaining. If it was a move by the industry to stifle the consumers, or force their hand, then I can see bitching. But complaining about a fucking rating system? Jesus Christ, you need a hobby.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • What I find wierd are those shows that *do* show breasts, but they still result to the old tricks sometimes - the same person on scene could be full frontal naked, and then a camera change later she's standing so a metal bar exactly obscures her chest. It makes me wonder what they're thinking..
    ----
  • In Australia, not only must computer games be classified, but there is no adult classification! That is to say, the classifications jump straight from MA (not suitable for children under 15) to RC (banned). Anthony Larme has a site with the details [bit.net.au].

    Danny (my own Australian censorship pages [danny.oz.au]).

  • Don't forget that these are the same people who will scream bloody murder if you try to spank your chil (a method that has been proven to work over thousands of years though you can't tell them that, they're think they can re-invent the wheel)
  • Actually what's worst is that Blockbuster Video, which holds something like 1/3 of the video rental market in the US, won't allow NC17 films in their stores (because they're a "family" video store). So if any movie producer wants to put out a NC17 film guess what, there goes 1/3 of your video rental revenue. You'd be loosing a lot of money by putting out a NC17 film, that's why nobody does it anymore.

  • What do you mean by "children"? (Score:3)

    by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2001 @01:10AM (#352571) Homepage
    I agree, but one thing I want to be sure of is your definition of children (a vague word in our language). If "children" means "pre-teens", then I'll say "yes, I agree completely". Otherwise, I'll say "it's too late".

    Seriously. If the "child" you're referring to is 15 years old, and playing a video game causes them to develop violent tendencies, then something has already gone seriously wrong in their development.

    Regardless, a rating system by itself is good. Restricting the higher-rated games is censorship.

  • Why should this be a bad thing? (Score:3)

    by jw3 ( 99683 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2001 @01:11AM (#352572) Homepage
    I mean, come on. It's not like they are banning Quake or something. If I understand it correctly, it's just additional information for the parent about a game he or she is buying for the kid. I can't see why this should be oh-so-evil. If you *are* a parent, then you should automatically care about what your kids read, watch etc., because basically that is what education is all about. That, and not censorship.

    Look, there are similar ratings on movies, OK? I know that those ratings are totally s****ed up in the US (like, you can show as much blood, gore and violence as you wish as long nobody says 'fuck' and you can't see a bloody inch of a tit), but that the system is s***ed up in the US doesn't mean it is s***ed up everywhere. Have you seen `The baby of Macon' by Peter Greeneway? Would you let just any kid wander into the movie theatre to watch this movie? You could give countless examples like that.

    I am the last person to think that games are the cause of violence and various killings in the US. Not taking care about ones children definitely is. Obviously, a kid playing Quake with his parent, who will take the kid after the game to talk it over and explain a few things is better off then a kid playing day and night Civilisation III, because his parents don't give shit about him. But, you see, making a classification of games is for the parents who care. If the parents don't nothing will help. When I was a kid, I had no technical problems getting my hands on anything which was forbidden: from matches in my early years to XXX and violent videos a little later.

    Best regards,

    January

  • Hmmm, a reply... yes. At least the UK have some slightly sane journalists [pipex.com] (read the link, it's quite good really).

  • I'm all for classification.

    Classification keeps "concerned parents" and the like happy, while reducing the need for censorship.

    As an adult year old, I can see films that are not suitable for a twelve year old. If it weren't for the system enforcing this, all films unsuitable for a 12 year old would have to be banned -- not good news.

    In the UK, some films are denied an 18 certificate -- this I have a problem with. As an adult I feel I have the right to view whatever I like, and I would like to see the 18 certificate as some sort of "catch all", the default in the switch statement that is the British Board of Film Classification... and things are gradually moving in that direction, with films like Ai No Corrida and The Excorcist finally being granted video certificates.
    --

  • Common Sense (Score:3)

    by MrMeanie ( 145643 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2001 @01:15AM (#352575)
    Meahwhile I do NOT believe that Doom caused Columbine, I believe that it is common sense not to give an 18 rated movie to an 8 year old. AFAIK young children are quite impressionable, and they will try to find role models; giving them violent/unsuitable ones is a bad idea. For people who are more mature; those in their mid to late teens, such material is most probably fine.
    A rating system for games probably isn't such a bad idea in a way, since it would prevent kids from obtaining unsuitable material.

    NOTE: I am not saying that violent movies and games are bad (although they may be unnecessary in some cases), I am saying that it is a bad idea to give such material to a young child. This is what a rating system can prevent.
  • Controlling the media inputs of your children is a part of good parenting. Would you take a 6 year old child to see a hard core porn film with you? I hope not. What a rating system like this would do is allow the parents to see what objectionable content a child might encounter in a game so that they will be better prepared to deal with it - even if their method of dealing is to not buy the game.

    Besides the typical "government interference is evil" line that is always played on slashdot, i have yet to see someone give a good reason why such a rating system is a bad thing. At worst the system becomes meaningless a la explicit lyric warnings on cds, but it's worth a try.

  • Doesn't the US already have a voluntary game rating board [esrb.org]?
  • It's amazing how a little bit of ignorance can go a such long way.

    No it is not what Hitler said before he gassed the Jews. Read the context of the statement to understand it. You can easily take any statement out of context and put a negative spin on it.

    I was under the impression that these discussion boards were a place to express interesting views, not promore stupidity, close mindedness and ignorance. If you have an interesting point to make, make it...don't anonymously hurl childish insults. At least have the courage to identify yourself.
  • I live in Ontario, Canada. A year ago I tried to rent Duke Nukem 3D for Nintendo 64, and They asked me for ID because the game was rated for "Mature Adults". This game rating system has been in use widly in ontario, the funny part is the same state that allows possesion of child porn, and could be declared the Drug capitol of the country, won't let their kids play evil games? "Sorry son, you can't rent this, could I interest you in some marajuana?"
  • Yeah it's good, means you can play the damn game without people staring over your shoulder.

    I really don't see a problem with this, but then again, I ain't one of you "live free or die" types....

  • Imagine this scenario:

    1. Government imposes mandatory rating system. All video games must have a Tipper sticker with one of a number of labels like "O" for occult, "S" for sex, and "V" for violence.
    2. A viscious right wing faction gets "elected" and appoints rabid conservative Cristians to the censorship board that decides which games get which labels. Now any video game that goes contrary to the beliefs of the bigoted Christians gets the scarlet letter.
    3. The government pressures retailers into not carrying any video games with the scarlet letter. Note that this wouldn't take legislation, just the threat of legislation.
    4. All of a sudden, we have censorship! You can no longer buy controversial or non-Christian video games!
    Now, I know this may sound far-fetched to some, but guess what; it's already happened! That's right, the US has a scarlet letter system for records, although it's not mandated by law. But it still has a chilling effect on record production. The two largest music retailers here (K-Mart and Wal-Mart) refuse to carry any album with a Tipper sticker, so kids in places where those two retailers are the only places to buy music are only exposed to drivel like N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys.

    Then there's the unofficial censorship that goes on behind the scenes. Many bands are forced by their label to change or eliminate songs to avoid getting a Tipper sticker. This distorts the message of controversial bands, and will do the same for video games.

    Don't let the PMRC-types ruin the creativity of the video game industry. Parents need to take more responsibility for their children instead of abdicating said responsibility in favor of limits on freedom.

  • The version of EWS in your cineplexes was not the version Kubrick originally delivered to Warner Brothers. That's exactly the point -- it had to be bowdlerized to meet the terms of Warner's contract with Kubrick, which required an R-rated film.

    ... and Warner's made that restriction because large cinema chains have "no NC-17" policies. The chains have this policy because upright prigs stage boycotts and do pickets when NC-17 movies come to their towns.

    I think the original poster got the point exactly. The problem is not the Evil Corporations (who really just want to sell stuff people will buy). The problem is the people (i.e. middle Americans) they're trying to sell stuff to.

    There's an argument that corporate consolidation has made this problem worse, because a few theater chains become the arbiter of which movies do and don't get shown as is simply because they contol so many screens. Unfortunately, short of really agressive meddling in who does and does not get to merge, I don't know how this can be addressed.

    j.
  • Its not just video games. After video games its books, after books, its newspapers, after newspapers, its internet sites, after internet sites, its the library of congress, after the library of congress, its the freedom of the press, after the freedom of the press, freedom to bare arms, after its ... If we give the government an inch, they'll take the yard. The current ratings are good enough because they aren't government regulated and for the parents use. When they become mandatory, then we've lost the war. By the way, your children are not that much more likely to become killers and rapists unless they have an average or lower IQ.
  • If I were you I would be implementing age checking mechanisms now, no matter what.

    What mechanisms do you suggest? Lots of things have been tried and rejected because they didn't work.

    Drop down boxes where you enter your age? Kids lie . Anyone who doesn't believe this hasn't had kids long (or was never a kid themselves).

    Questions only someone the appropriate age could answer? A google search will usually solve that while someone puts up the online answer page.

    Credit card verification, as I understand some countries have a minimum credit age limit? Any kid that wants on one of these systems will get the card number, and as long as no charge appears on the statement, the parent will never know.


    Server side age verifications don't work.
  • Ratings do nothing mre than tell certain kids where they should start looking. They can skip all the G labels and go straight to the R stuff.
  • When I was a teen, growing up in a small Irish market town, the only real entertainment we had was violent video games.

    I remember one particularly gruesome and realistic game called Manic Miner, with its insidious music and violent, graphic scenery.

    Shortly after playing it for the first time I climbed the scaffolding that had been erected around the town hall and hung upside down from the weather vane by my knees with a fellow delinquent.

    I blame Manic Miner! It had absolutely nothing to do with the blotter paper we'd just swallowed, I tell you, nothing.

    And don't get me started on Mission Impossible for the C64, good Lord, what sick mind came up with that one, I still have nightmares.
  • Perhaps raising a child better would prevent any problem, but if the child does not get properly raised, the importance of those video games comes to the foreground all of a sudden.

    Don't underestimate the power of subliminal (this includes obvious) messages and how prone kids are to their influence. I've never heard of kids shooting up their schools before... did parenting get worse all of a sudden? No, it's always been pretty bad in general.

    Just lately lack of good parenting has much worse consequences... violent films and games are part of it..... arguing that they're not is like arguing that pollution isn't making us sick because the evidence is inconclusive.... who cares that we don't know 100%.. the point is that we have good reason to believe that violent games/films have a strong influence on young people.. That should be enough to do something.. If you wanted conclusive evidence on every parenting practice, I don't think you'd ever get to actually doing any parenting... it's a heuristic. :)

    Janimal
  • PROPER SPELLING IS SENSORSHIP [slashdot.org]

    -------
  • Producers are constantly cutting scenes from movies so they escape the dreaded R rating. Not only do kids not see these scenes but no-one does.

    If the scenes are cut maybe they were not so important to the artistic value of the movie?

    Of course the director might be pulling his hairs out in rage over the produceds decision, but somehow I cant cuite se them cut scenes from a movie with serius artistic goals rater than a commersial one.

  • Yep, that's correct. Now, if a 15 year old is playing violent video games, watching violent films, etc., those may be factors in reinforcing tendencies already present, but by themselves do not cause those tendencies. Of course this effect would be greatly enhanced if the child in question was a 5 year old, and further diminished if the person in question was a 21 year old adult.
  • It's just a question of who censors what.

    Compare movie ratings in the US and Australia. In the US, it's done by the film industry. In Australia, it's done by the govt. There's a huge difference between the two.

    More important than the censorship itself is who controls it. If it's the industry itself, there's a built-in balance. An industry will tend to censor itself as little as possible (for obvious reasons). A govt. will try to censor as much as possible (for obvious reasons). There's also the philosophical question of the state controlling the citizenry's right to free expression.

    The Aussies have a govt. body with the rather Orwellian name of The Office of Film and Literature Classification [oflc.gov.au]. It censors games as well (I'm not sure if they come under film or literature, though "Move every zig for great justice" is memorable prose indeed). Ignore the cute kangaroo and try looking up some names. A search on "quake" reveals that Quake (the game) is MA15+ rated for "high level violence", whereas Earthquake Girls (the movie) is rated X. Of course, books are rated too, and in some cases, prohibited. Games in arcades have big ratings signs posted. There was a news item a couple of years ago of the New Zealand govt. having difficulty rating video games because govt. bureaucrats were having difficulty going past the first few levels in violent games. The very image of buttoned-up, middle-aged officials getting paid to struggle through "Toxic Waste Dump" makes you wonder if society has better ways of spending tax dollars. Canada, you are next.

    There are some ironies, however. I've lived in both Australia and the US. Inspite of Australia having a govt. censor, you can see breasts on TV all the time, even at 9 PM, and (irony of ironies) even on a news program re. censorship on ....state run TV. There is quite a bit of contrast in how the Land of the Free shudders in prude puritanical fear at the sight of nipples, while the laid-back Aussies appoint govt. censors and casually walk past pictures of bared breasts in malls and public places.

    You can see movie posters with tits on full display. Sex and the City, which largely gets its high ratings on US cable from the shock that Americans feel at the sight of yuppie women baring breasts on a TV show and saying "fuck" several times, is regularly shown on open public broadcast in Australia. You can see breasts on the front pages of newspapers sometimes, lying there in a newstand stack as children walk past them to buy candies. Oddly, such obscenities haven't resulted in higher crime or moral turpitude.

    OTOH, the problem with govt. censorship is just that - it's govt. censorship. They can ban movies if they don't feel the public should watch it. God forbid they should come across the old Mega TF mod that lets you shoot your opponent's head off and kick it around like a football....

    w/m
  • "How the hell are adults rights being hurt by a ratings system so long as nothing is censored, just rated?"

    For one thing, in this case it's the GOVERNMENT reviewing and rating movies. This means the GOVERNMENT has the power to rate something according to the bureaucrat's own biases and that rating might FORCE the game maker to change the game to get into the chain stores, just as movies get censored or not carried at Blockbuster.

    That's censorship. By government. It's a slippery slope you DONT want to slide down.

    "2) The point isn't that this relieves the responsibility of the parents to raise their kids, but why make their jobs harder?"

    I don't have kids. It's not my responsibility to raise yours. It's also not my problem, but YOURS to keep your kids out of things you don't want them to have and see.

    You seem to be suggesting that we censor everything not fit for children from public places, and from public MARKETPLACES. Can you not see how dangerous this is? Children will spend much more of their lives as ADULTS, and you're talking about depriving them of liberty.

    Why don't YOU as a parent take responsibility and spend the TIME with your kids to know what they are watching, what video games they are playing, etc. Kids under 16 shouldn't be given money and allowed to run loose in the mall ANYWAY to buy whatever the hell they want UNSUPERVISED.

    I hate to break it to you, but being a parent is a tough job that demands long hours and lots of attention. If you weren't prepared for that, maybe you should have used responsible birth control?

    "Should kids be allowed to buy guns since any decent parent wouldn't let their kid go into a gun shop?"

    This is a totally different issue. Children are not adults, and should not have adult responsibility, and owning a firearm is about as adult as it gets.

    Not to say that it is a bad idea to introduce kids to firearms (it is a great idea to teach them responsible ways to handle weapons), but it should be done in a supervised manner.

    "Same goes for drivers license, alcohol, tobacco, and lots of other things kids aren't allowed to do."

    There is a reason for this: the minimum legal age limits of 18/21. YOU as a parent are responsible for the kids until they reach the age of 18.

  • You don't drink, smoke, or look at porn?

    What else do you have to live for?
  • Sort of.

    Most video rental stores did have a seperate room or at least section for pr0n and "Faces of Death" type stuff. At least they did when I was a kid, most rental places now are part of a chain like Blockbuster or Rogers and they don't even cary stuff like that. If you want to get pr0n movies you usually have to go to stores that only cary adult movies, indepenantly owned video places have prety much vanished.

    This sounds like it's going a little farther though, I would love to hear the screams if Blockbuster had to have a seperate room for R rated movies.

    I was kind of surprised when I saw this on the news tonight. I never really thought of Canada, and especially BC as a place where this was likely to happen first. We don't really seem to have quite the same tendency to get into the whole "Save the Children" hysteria as you hear comming out of the States every so often.

    I don't really disagree with a ratings system but I really don't see the need to legislate to this level of graularity. If I had a 8 year old child, I would not be pleased to see them playing Quake or Resident Evil, or watching violent movies. However I would probably consider this my resposibility rather than the government's.

    I don't have a whole lot of faith in the way these systems make their decisions either. I have always found it rather silly that you can watch Die Hard on TV at 3pm on Saturday with all the swearing changed or muted and very little else changed. I would much rather have a small child hear someone say "shit" or see a naked boobie than have them watch 30 terrorists get shot every five minutes.
  • The problem is not "Explicit Lyrics" but other language-related problem: grammar. Already the technologically challenged citizens of Canada are left in bewildered incomprehension of the burgeoning tech jargon that shows no sign of abating. But the hell of technology acronym and jargon is now being inflamed and by a fiery mix of bad spelling and grammar into a conflagration of epic porportions. This duality further confuses the masses of people, as their lack of understanding of the underlying technology is further compounded by the grammatical incorrectness of its expression. According to Aryan Wind, spokesperson for the Campaign for Purity of Canadian English (CPCE),
    this may lead to insecurity as they perceived their lack of comprehension of not just the technology but the language structure to reflect on an inferior intellect. Aryan fears that long term exposure to this phenomenon can causing lasting psychological damage.

    Aryan singled out computer games as the major cause of the language depredations that exist in Canada today. "Computer games are the means in which these abhorrations of languages reaches the common masses," Aryan said. "Furthermore, computer games are specifically targeted at a generation at its most impressionable: our children, our future." Aryan noted that the recent advances of the Internet have further spread the problem, making the problem much more difficult to stem. "Already, these so-called 'h4xx0rs' speaks as if they are from a different planet." Aryan insisted that, "if left unregulated this problem fester and further alienate between Canadian citizens already fractured by the English/French divide."

    Most Canadians apparently support the move. "We have a very good following among parents and educators," according to Aryan. "All your base are belong to us."
  • blockquote> Someone (YES, A SINGLE PERSON) called the Attorney General's office to complain about Soldier of Fortune. Often someone (YES, A SINGLE PERSON) can have disproportionate influence. A SINGLE reporter once asked the Québec minister responsible for sports "how about the coroner's reports on SCUBA diving fatalities?" (Québec had seen what seemed - to the media - a quite alarming rate of SCUBA diving fatalities - never mind that more people died while fishing than while diving in the same period of time). Caught off-guard, the minister sheepishly answered "we're working on it".

    Last year, the result came out. A quite waaay off-the target diver licensing scheme [fqas.qc.ca]which penalizes the individual diver rather than the real culprit: the diving industry (it's just like if car dealers were not only giving driving lessons, but also hand-out the drivers licenses. Do you think that many people would flunk their driving test???)...

    --

  • I quite don't understand why people make such a big deal out of all this taken that most support the movie ratings. If one thinks about what's ahead of us in the near future, VR worlds of carnage, terror, sex and all the same stuff that nowadays make the movies rated, it should be trivial that they're gonna rate the games, too.

    Moreover, what computer games will offer in the very near future, if not already, will be far deeper experience than movies, given the liberty of one's own actions and the sense that he's actually living in it rather than just watching it, while on the same also getting all the role model effect from others and from the game itself same as with movies.

    Thus it's fairly pointless to argue against rating games without on the same arguing against movie ratings aswell. The gap between the depth of experience in movies and with computer games is already narrow enough to rule out most of the arguments that are solely against rating computer games.

    Wether movies/games should be rated at all is another issue...
  • 'R' rated movies or 'explicit lyrics' CDs never stopped anyone from seeing them, anymore than an 'extreme violence' sticker on a game would.

    In fact we all know that these things can gave the opposite effect than that intended. What game ratings would do, which seems like a *good* thing, would be to allow parents to have some control on what they give their kids as presents, or even to have a clue what the stuff lying around in their room is.
  • We don't let minors drink, smoke, or watch porn.
    When I was a kid, there was no objection in me having a drink. The result: I get sick, and I never think of drinking again (or, at least, until muuuuch later).

    When I was a kid, there was no objection in me having a puff. The result: I found that so disgusting that I never had a puff ever after (even when I was working for a tobacco company that gave me two cartons of the stuff a week, for free). What also didn't help was being cooped-up in the back of the VolksWagen, not being able to open the window, having headaches breathing the cigarette smoke coming from the front. And heaven forbid I would touch the green stuff (coming from behind my grandfather's barn) my folks were merrily puffing on.

    When I was a kid, there was no objection in me l00king @ pr0n (hell, my folks brought me to a Linda Lovelace movie when I was 12). The result, I don't find pr0n worthy of wasting neurons on.

    But when I was a kid, I had very strict instructions from my mother never to take the subway . The result: I am a totally freaking-out subway freak [emdx.org] .

    The moral? You figure it out.

    --

  • "On one hand, they say that parents shouldn't allow their kids to watch certain material. It's the parents' own fault and responsibility, etc. However, on the other hand, you see them talking about how kids should have an increasing world view. How they should be allowed to access the internet unfiltered or unrestricted because of the holes in the ratings software."

    The point is, if you don't want your kids seeing certain things on the Internet, then you shouldn't be allowing them to USE it without your supervision.

    Same attitude I was talking about in my original post: You want ME to take responsibility for censoring for YOUR kids because YOU don't want to take the time to do it yourself!

    "Personally, I think that if games spent as much time extolling the downsides of violence as they did the virtues of it (ie; through funeral sequences or cutscenes of regret or maybe even someone watching in horror as someone dies) then maybe we wouldn't need this kind of thing. The reason for this type of legislation shouldn't be to ban violence or hide it from children, it should be an attempt to make sure that the audience is presented with the consequences of theirs and others violent actions in the game"

    Again, this is YOUR responsibility. If you don't want your kids playing violent video games, then it's up to YOU to read the reviews, and to control whether they buy it or not.

    If you want a game like that, write the game companies. Get people who want the same thing to write too. And then when they come out with it, BUY IT. If it succeeds in the marketplace, there will be more like it.

    However, you seem to be wanting to use the power and might of the government to FORCE this down the throats of the industry by denying access to the markets to those who don't go along with what you want. This is the effect government mandated and controlled ratings would have.

  • From the article:
    " All retailers would have to have a special license to sell "M" and "AO" rated games. "M" rated games must be put in a special section of a video game store while "AO" rated games would be put in a separate room. "

    Is this a double standard, or do you differ from the UK and US where video shops aren't required to put their 18/R rated titles in a whole different room? Surely, as long as the boxes are suitably labelled and have no offensive artwork on them there is no need for this.

    Or does the mere presence of Soldier Of Fortune a couple of boxes away from Pikachu somehow contaminate the hideous bundle of yellow fluff?
  • Though it is somewhat silly, it makes sense.

    Traditionally, this is about broadcast rights, using PUBLIC airwaves. THey are saying that if you want to use canadian airwaves, you can't simply be rebroadcasting foreign stuff, you have to have local content. THAT is fair to the people, who own the airwaves ultimately.

    Canadian broadcasters can compete because, originally, they are the only ones who COULD reach canadians... and if you think US broadcasters are not similarly regulated, think again.

  • From someone who lived most of his life up until recently in BC, kudos. You hit it right on the nail.

    Vancouver is beautiful. The downtown east-side has a severe drug abuse problem. So lets' spend money censoring video games!

    The B.C. Government is on crack. This is simply not something that taxpayer money should be spent on, period. No enforcement. Parents should know what their kids are up to, period.

  • So? (Score:3)

    by Heidi Wall ( 317302 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2001 @12:22AM (#352632)
    Basically, the proposed system (only proposed, note) would require video games be rated, much like movies are.

    Where exactly is the problem with this scheme? What is wrong with marking a disgustingly violent game like Soldiers of Fortune as such?

    It's not like those who will buy the game anyway couldn't, and letting parents know what kind of content is to be expected in a game is certainly a perfectly justified proposition.

    However, I'm wondering how they are going to go about checking out all possible game situations, looking for violence. They's need awfully good gamers to be able to process the quantities of Quake clone being published these days.

    Maybe they're hiring?

    /* And you'll never guess what the dog had */
    /* in its mouth... */
  • Where does a 10-12 year old get $60 CDN to buy videogames? From their parents. The problem here is simple: Do Some Research dont mindlessly spend your money on whatever your kid is crying out for today. If you are caving into the requests of a 12 year old to buy the latest VideoGame - BUT - you havnt any idea what it contains; you deserve what you get.

    Its ridiculous for adults to carelessly buy anything their child requests - not only are you teaching them to be mindless ConsumoTrons(TM)(C)(R) - but you are demonstrating your own lack of character.

    If you arent capable of going to a website, reading a magazine, reading the back of a box, going to a video-game-center, speaking to other adults, speaking with the older Video-Game-Fan you surely know, asking the shop owners etc etc in order to decide for yourself - then, again, you get what you deserve.

    Im tired of the State empowering themselves (or worse the Capitalists) to control what *I* am capable of buying/viewing/reading/owning/using simply because the world is populated with irresponsible sheeple. The whole idea stinks - absurd. Why not demand personal responsibility instead of adding layer upon layer of idiotic legislation. Isnt ANYONE responsible for their actions anymore?

  • Oddly, such obscenities haven't resulted in higher crime or moral turpitude.

    Oh, sorry! I thought this was Australia you were talking about...

    (Sorry.)

    --

  • No Problem (Score:3)

    by Ubi_NL ( 313657 ) <joris.benschop@g ... Ecom minus punct> on Tuesday March 20, 2001 @12:26AM (#352640) Journal
    Is this a reason to get upset?

    Ratings are nothing new really. And they are very usefull for those parents that do want to consider non-violence in the upbringing of their kids. By giving ratings, you simply give a choice. What's wrong with that?

  • They listened to us, then got stupid anyway. (Score:3)

    by Yohimbe ( 17439 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2001 @12:26AM (#352641) Homepage
    I was part of the protest when this issue first got raised. Someone (YES, A SINGLE PERSON) called the Attorney General's office to complain about Soldier of Fortune. Now I particularly dislike SOF, but I felt I needed to speak out. I spoke to the mainstream press, along with the actual organizer of the event. The organizer, Iambe, a columnist for UF, amongst other things, spoke to the attorney general's office, and they promised they'd be sane about it. It looks like they took what we told them to do (just implement ESRB), and perverted it in the usual Canadian government way , IE, try to ban or tax or "license" things it deems objectionable. My biggest complaint about BC is the extreme lengths the government will go to be "Politically Correct". At least they didn't try to institute their own review board like their first idea. Man. Such idiocy.

  • Why not help parents? (Score:3)

    by krmt ( 91422 ) <therefrmhere@yah o o . com> on Tuesday March 20, 2001 @12:27AM (#352642) Homepage
    I support the idea of a ratings system for video games. With all the talk now about how parents aren't paying enough attention to their kids, I think it's important to provide some tools for parents to supervise. Granted, something like filterware which doesn't work and actually hinders more than it helps is a high profile example of a flaming failure, but I think this would be better. Many parents trust their kids to the ratings system, and I hear relatively few complaints in that area except by kids who aren't old enough to see R movies (I was one of them too ;-)

    This system would help parents decide what to let their kids buy, while still letting that college student check out Soldier of Fortune. What's so wrong with that? If we're going to be casting blame on bad parenting, then shouldn't we help the parents to be good parents without hindering free speech? Remember, a mother can still buy the latest Playboy DVD for their son if they want to, the ratings won't hinder their video game buying abilities any more than it will their movie buying abilities. It'll just help them make better choices.

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."
  • 1. Ratings
    In British Columbia, they rate they don't censor. Are you an adult? You can watch any movie or play any game you like. Uncensored.

    2. Radio & TV being unAmerican
    96% of Canadians have cable TV. Every cable subscriber has all US TV networks, CNN, CNBC, the lot.

    Most Canadians can receive US TV and radio over the air anyways.

    Why, pray tell, would the CRTC (the Canadian equivilent of the FCC) license Canadian broadcasters who don't show anything from their own country? What a waste of a publicly-owned resource.

    TV & Radio must broadcast a huge, colossal, unimaginable amount of Canadian material. How much? 30 per cent. Big flipping deal. I don't know how the US music and tv industries could survive with a mere 70% of the Canadian broadcast spectrum.

    As for movies, the person was mistaken. There are no quotas for movies in Canada. We just run them uncensored, regardless of where they are from. (They are, however, rated.)

    3. Drugs?
    Vancouver has several Amsterdam-style [bluntbros.com] cafes. Come on by.

    4. Censoring Porn/Illegialities crossing borders
    They do this in the US too. You can create all the porn, cracking info, etc. you like. But if you send it across a border, the Man gets involved.


  • Adding to the appeal... (Score:4)

    by TheOutlawTorn ( 192318 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2001 @12:32AM (#352659)
    This reminds me of the hoopla regarding those "Explicit Lyrics" stickers added to albums. When they first came out ('86 or so), the stickers actually added to the appeal of purchasing the album, since, if you were a teen, you were "dangerous" for having such "edgy" material in your possession. Now, after approx. 15 years of having these stickers, nobody pays attention to them. Think these new ratings will follow the same cycle?
  • Vancouverite here.
    The only dominant retailer of computer games here in BC is Electronics Boutique. They specialize in console games, computer games and... toys, surprisingly. At my local store, almost 1/4 of the floor is covered with action figures and yes, pikachus. There is the standard seperation of video games such as the new from the old, but no system that seems to be influenced by an accredited rating system. I can buy plenty of games that are rated for Mature Audiences and they won't bother carding me (i'm under 18).

    Truthfully, I don't think any of this will materialize. Censorship was never really a hot issue in this province... like, to my knowledge, libraries use filtering software on their own accord.
  • I do tend to agree that a rating system is a good idea but to suggest that it won't affect anything except for giving parents more control is naive. Producers are constantly cutting scenes from movies so they escape the dreaded R rating. Not only do kids not see these scenes but no-one does. Same would happen in video games but to a higher degree if an enforced rating system were to be put in place. Since kids are such an important money making market there will be more preasure from the publishers to get games just under the illicit rating. And I assume that games designers aren't as defensive about the purity of their work as directors are (I might be wrong; I've never met a game designer.) The insanly violent games will probably continue to stay violent but the moderatly violent ones will probably pull back a touch. This might be a good thing. It would mean less violence in video games without actually censoring any one (except for those who censor themselves)
  • There is a problem with your proposed system, though. Industry, if left to their own means, would only implemement a ratings system that would increase sales. Stores would carry whichever games sell the best, ignoring the ratings unless they increased sales.

    So you'd end up with some small, unadvertised, and cryptic code on the box that only the kids knew about, designed to entice them into buying more games.

    I'm not a big fan of government intervention, but I'm less of a fan of unrestricted industry.

  • It's called a Responsible Parent.

    This system sits down and reviews the content BEFORE the child accesses it. The system then accesses an internal database of classifications ratings, also called "judgement", to determine whether the content is suitable for the child's consumption. The parent then stands by while the child plays the game / watches the movie / whatever and answers questions and provides guidance. THIS is an effective Ratings System; a parent that cares for its child and keeps a careful eye on their development.

    DOOM is not responsible for Columbine and similar tragedies. The modern belief that institutionalized child care and upbringing is somehow effective is at fault. Children spend their early years in "day care" centers where they're usually just plopped down in front of a TV with no one to talk to, nothing to learn, and no one to love them. Then they go home to be ignored or even beaten by their parents, more and more of whom are having children younger and younger and are thus incompetents at the tough job parenting is. In their high school years, when they're most confused and trying to chart a tough course between learning to be good or evil, is when their parents are still not there for them and not interested in spending time with them. These children need their parents to BE there for them and notice when they're hurting, and they're not.

    But, as someone once pointed out to me on /., no politician ever got (re)elected by telling his contituents they were bad parents. So it's little wonder the government is willing to waste resources so disgustingly, just to pamper parents' need to escape their responsibility: the parents are the voters, after all, and generally choose their own leisure over expending effort at parenting. The reason DOOM and such games are blamed for Columbines is because few parents would blame themselves. I place the blame nowhere else.

    Feels like an episode of "Sick Sad World". =/

    -Kasreyn
  • The mayor of Indianapolis has been working for something similar to this, as well. I believe it got knocked down by the courts, and the state legislature is trying to draft something up.
  • "Come on now... your child playing violent video games does not cause him/her to become a killer/rapist. Bad parenting/lack of good parenting is a much bigger factor"

    That is the / cause of all the problem with kids these days: most partents aren't worth a shit anymore. Parents either by necessity (thanks to the record tax burden), or by choice (gotta have not one but TWO BMW's in the garage) are both working and that means kids don't get the supervision they used to.

    Naturally parents don't blame themselves, even though they are at fault. It is 100% the parents fault for basically abandoning kids to be raised by TV and video games. Is it any wonder that kids are more succeptable to influence by media now than ever before?

    Parents shift the blame to TV, video games, the Internet, etc (the very things they abandon their children to be babysat by). Why? First to pass blame. Second, for convienience.. To them, its perfectly acceptable to place restrictions on EVERYONE ELSE'S liberty to gain the convienience of not having to supervise their own children.

    The consequence of 20 years of bad parenting (my generation and my parents generation have to be the WORST parents in the history of the world) will be a set of laws that have no effect on the kids at all (laws restricting my access to things never stopped me when I was a kid from getting what I wanted to see, though there weren't many inthe 80's) but they WILL have a chilling effect on free speech and expression on those kids when they become ADULTS.

    Unfortunately, I can guess as to what the next phase will be. I'm sure somewhere, some unprincipled lawyer (oxymoron) in allaince with some brainless Soccermom group is getting ready to try to sue the video game industry out of existance.

    It's time to quit harming the rights of adults to protect children. Children will become adults someday, it's a biological fact.

    As each year passes and another hysterical Soccermom group gets another law passed, the children of today are going to be less and less free as adults tomorrow.

  • It's not about censorship... (Score:5)

    by jbjornson ( 63982 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2001 @12:45AM (#352682)
    I don't understand why this is such a big issue. British Columbia Attorney General Graeme Bowbrick is not suggesting that the video games be banned, he is suggesting that there should be a rating system for the games ("government sponsored classification system").

    I love playing video games myself, but I have played a few that I would deem unsuitable for children of certain ages. There are issues such as violence, foul language, etc.... I wouldn't want my 12 year old child (supposing I had one) going to a restricted movie, just as much as I wouldn't want him playing a graphically violent video game.

    I don't think that the BC Attorney General is suggesting that we start the equivalent of a book burning club, just that we provide more information for the consumer. The ability to make a more educated decision about the product that you are purchasing is a bonus in my mind. As long as the rating are consistent, then I can see no harm in this proposal.

    For all of you crying violation of civil rights, get a life. Not everybody buying these games is old enough to understand the contents of them, nor understand the effects of the contents. Let the parents and those of us that are over the legal voting age make these decisions...and kudos to those that want to help us do this (and provide us with the necessary information to be able to make educated decisions about it).

    It's not about censorship, it's about awareness.

    Sincerely,

    A Canadian from British Columbia
  • Why should I be made to feel like some kind of dirty old man or psycho-path by having to venture into the "adult section" of a store just to pick up that copy of Quake X or SOF or whatever other harmless game gets slapped with this absurd rating? All this is going to do is flag games with a, "Look at him/her! They're disgusting for buying such titles."

    For a province that wants to attract high tech business at their new "Tech Park [www.tech-p...argetblank]" they're not sending a great message to any of those publishing type companies out there who just might want to venture out this way. "Sureeee comon out! Setup shop, but we'll red flag all your titles due to a few specs of blood."

    The NDP party of British Columbia.. NDP no longer stands for "New Democratic Party" it's "No Damned Progress".
  • If they have so many as three seats, I will be severely disappointed. An all-Liberal government for three to four years is the price we must pay to destroy the NDP as Social Credit was destroyed.

    --
  • it was like big news about a few weeks ago. The classification for TV in fact just started on the 17th of march (for movies it was the 22th of february). The classification system itself distinguishes 4 different age groups (AL: for all, MG6: 6 and up (parental overlook might be necessary), 12: 12 and up, and 16: 16 and up) and has 4 pictograms that can be added (for sex, violence, ...). There was quite a lot of international media attention since this was the first system covering the entire audiovisual industry (games, movies, TV). more information (int dutch) on http://www.kijkwijzer.nl [kijkwijzer.nl]

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close