April 27, 2007
It was a chaotic but entertaining time as dozens of gamers piled into an Xfire chat room to witness and participate in a very timely debate on video game censorship.Guests included ECA head Hal Halpin, California Sen. Leland Yee, Russ Pitts of The Escapist, Dan Isett of the Parents Television Council and Matteo Bittanti, who studies game culture. Oh, and yours truly.
Transcripts are available from Xfire. Some of GP's favorite moments:
Sen. Yee most definitely did not blame the Virginia Tech massacre on video games, saying:
While clearly what happened at Virgina Tech is quite disturbing, we clearly cannot blame all real life violence of video games.
Yee and Hal Halpin also sparred a bit over the Senator's California video game legislation as well the interactive quality of games and whether that makes them more influential than other forms of media when it comes to portrayals of violence.
The censorship debate was part of Xfire's Debate Club feature.
Comments
"Online games that include user-generated content (e.g., chat, maps, skins) carry the notice "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" to warn consumers that content created by players of the game has not been rated by the ESRB." Bottom of the page.
I suppose maybe they should take out the word online. But really, how many PC games aren't online these days?
The current review and rating system is fine. If you are shown the -worst possibly content in the game-, you don't need to play through it at all.
It was brought up that R-rated move ticket sales to minors occur at a frequency roughly equal with M-rated game sales, but nobody went any further with that idea. It would have been great if someone said, "Do we need to have laws regulating move ticket sales, since -clearly- that system is failing too?"
oh well. There's always next debate.
I just did not like that guy from the ptc, he was a little rude if you ask me, yee was great, though instead of legislation I think yee should meet with representatives of the industry and discuss how they can deal with the M rated problem here, such as launch a campaign teaching parents how to use the tools at their disposal.
Thanks again dennis, next time I won't be such a goof and miss the event.
My only disappointment was Yee's insistence that the evidence supporting game's effects on children was more concrete than tobacco's link to lung cancer. Lung cancer links have been studied over the course of decades, to see how they are linked to tobacco use. Games' effects are studied for an average of what, 5 minutes after the game is finished? That's hardly conclusive.
So if they shot three cops in Grand Theft Auto, they can be done with it? They never would have found Hot Coffee (not that they would of anyway, but for the sake of argument, stick with me here).
It is impossible to play through each game. You can't play through Madden, because lets say a disgruntled programmer inserted a porn scene if you win the franchise mode in year 26. That would mean the ESRB would need to play every year, and win, in order to find the content. When exactly do you "finish" Madden?
MMOs are another beast. How long before a full review is truly a "full" review? These games could go on for a lifetime.
Aside from San Andreas since the ESRB would have had to look for content outside the main game, which would be ludicrous if made standard.
The idea that the games are too long to be reviewed is absurd. First, most games aren't that long. Second, games are actually very repetitive. You don't need to review all 100 hours of FFVIII. Third, that's why there are ratings and descriptors. I applaud any parent who actually wants to watch every movie and TV show, read every book and play every game that their kid does, but that's truly unrealistic. That's why there are ratings. Trust the ratings. The ratings are good. Even the incidents of "spectacular failure" of the ESRB (GTA: SA) are not valid arguments about the validity of the system. Leaving aside that it was only one game, the idea that Hot Coffee was the part that made the game inappropriate for kids is ludicrous.
The "anti"-game people don't seem to offer much that's useful to the US debate. For them it seems to be all about some regulation that keeps the games away from kids. That just won't happen in the US. They need to realize that and come up with a new solution. The best one, as always, is education. Educate parents about the games and the ratings. Hell, criticize the ratings and offer your own point of view to parents. Don't look to the government to save you. That's not the principle your country was founded on.
Also, both Danisett and Yee seem make some pretty specious arguments. Dennis pointed out the problem with Brownback's bill (though no one countered his assertion that the 30 minute tape is *clearly* flawed), but no one really answered Yee's "if they do it, why oppose the law" argument. Lot's of things are a good idea. That doesn't mean they require legislation. There's no "brush your teeth" law, for example. But since people do brush their teeth, why not just make it a law anyway? Because over-regulation and micro-managing are stupid, futile, wastes of time and money. Is the sign in the right place? Is it visible enough? Is it the right size? The right colour? Did you brush for three continuous minutes?
I should point out, for clarity, that I'm Canadian and not personally opposed to the idea of giving ratings the force of law and holding retailers responsible for selling to minors (as happens here in Ontario with movies and games). I do think legislating signage is stupid. However, your courts have already decided that there is really no way for the US to give ratings the force of law. I accept that. It's sad that some Americans can't.