Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:
Are you really comparing rap to video games?

A useful and easy example of how parental ratings are as marketing tool not a warning in the eyes of media producers.

Dreadwinter wrote:
I am of legal age and sound mind, why should I be penalized because a game I want to buy just so happens to be a little "crude" in another persons eyes?

What has that to do with anything. A box doesn't ask who picks it up, proliferation is pretty much inevitable. What can be targeted is the concept of soiling media content as a selling point.

Take the trailer for Bulletstorm everything about the gamer indicates marketing for a teen audience. It would not be the only game out there to be directly marketed at an age group technically prohibited on the cover. You cannot stop games from getting lewder or more violent but you can give incentives not to. Currently through ratings and low brow content the encouragement is to sink lower and lower. An accompanying tax scale with ratings would do more to clear up the media than anything else.

What does that have to do with anything? Absolutely everything about your argument, you are wanting to make it harder for people to put out content that I like. So that has everything to do with me. Me, being of legal age and sound mind. Not a minor. I would enjoy having these things.

Now, the way you are saying this, you are making it sound like every game studio is shooting for an M rating with max shock value. That is actually stupid, a lot of studios lose money when they get bumped up to M from a T or an E. A lot of parents are smart and wont buy their kids games that are not good for them. I cant help it if some parents ignore the warning signs on the box. Why should I be penalized for poor parenting?

sebster wrote:
The best option is to get parents to pay attention to the ratings system."

Alternatively, the best option is to allow parents to determine what their children do and do not view.

I say this because I'm not convinced that violent media is harmful to children. Were that the case I would have expected to see a steady rise in violent crime, particularly amongst juveniles, over the last 15 years, but the opposite had occurred.

dogma wrote:Alternatively, the best option is to allow parents to determine what their children do and do not view.

I say this because I'm not convinced that violent media is harmful to children. Were that the case I would have expected to see a steady rise in violent crime, particularly amongst juveniles, over the last 15 years, but the opposite had occurred.

Absolutely, and I agree about the noted decrease in violent crime (from what you hear society is a chronic state of demise and, possibly just to annoy the doomsayers things keep getting better).

But ultimately it's the parent's choice whether their child is exposed to violent media or not, so a ratings system that informs parents as to the content of the game makes good sense.

What I would like to know is, has there been an increase in the violence and brutality in games?

There is the potential for games designers to contsantly raise the ante of the shock value as a selling point. I understand that the games may appear more graphic than they used to given the ever increasing realism of the graphics.

Don't play computer/video games very often and stick to strategy when I do. Why frag zombies when world domination is so much more fun.

NELS1031 wrote:I can't wait to hear what they have to say about Duke Nukem Forever!

Ah...that takes me back to playing as Lo Wang, Shadow Warrior...

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:What I would like to know is, has there been an increase in the violence and brutality in games?

There is the potential for games designers to contsantly raise the ante of the shock value as a selling point. I understand that the games may appear more graphic than they used to given the ever increasing realism of the graphics.

I would say yes, absolutely. Though I also imagine that there's a threshold at which shock simply becomes irrelevant. For example, while I am pretty jaded, the idea that Bulletstorm is somehow uniquely offensive struck me as very odd. It doesn't seem any worse than any other FPS on the market, and actually appears considerably less "offensive", by way of cartoonish violence, than something like Modern Warfare.

Also, I remember reading another Lieberman comment about how Bulletstorm would encourage copycat crimes. My first thought was about how impressed I would be by a child that managed to develop an energy lasso in order to imitate the main character by tossing random bystanders into the air.

I played this game and I am now a rapist.

What do I do?

Shadowbrand wrote:I played this game and I am now a rapist.

What do I do?

Hmm...depends on how much you want to help/harm society.

I'd figure becoming a hand puppet engineer is your best course of action.

I actually have a show on youtube with hand puppets.

It's not Dakka safe by any means however.

Shadowbrand wrote:I played this game and I am now a rapist.

What do I do?

Burn you copy and repent! *splashes with water* REPENT I SAY!

Dreadwinter wrote:Burn you copy and repent! *splashes with water* REPENT I SAY!

And then go out and buy some more copies of the game, invite the local media, and burn them too! (the new copies of the games, not the local media)

SilverMK2 wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:Burn you copy and repent! *splashes with water* REPENT I SAY!

And then go out and buy some more copies of the game, invite the local media, and burn them too! (the new copies of the games, not the local media)

Bah! The local media can go on after the games! THEY MUST REPENT! *splashes more water*

Dreadwinter wrote:Bah! The local media can go on after the games! THEY MUST REPENT! *splashes more water*

You only burn the local media once the national media gets there.

Pft... have you never been part of a wave of hysteria before?

As someone who has always loved Looney Tunes I have never felt compelled to flatten, annihilate maime or blow people/animals/anything up as a consequence

There maybe some effect of games on some players due to their own psychopthic tendencies? Not entirely convinced that the games will turn everyone into raving mad axe killers.
Not entirely sure why poeple play these games either tbh. but I am a squeemish wuzz.

Is there a possibilty that games are a release for most people and short cut actual tendencies to chop up and decapitate in the real world?

If computer games really had that much effect on people, everyone in the 80's would have been running round in the dark popping pills and listening to electronic musi... damn...

dogma wrote:I would say yes, absolutely. Though I also imagine that there's a threshold at which shock simply becomes irrelevant. For example, while I am pretty jaded, the idea that Bulletstorm is somehow uniquely offensive struck me as very odd. It doesn't seem any worse than any other FPS on the market, and actually appears considerably less "offensive", by way of cartoonish violence, than something like Modern Warfare.

The people who complain about these games rarely actually play them, so they're not informed by the games content. They're informed by the games marketing campaign, and Bulletstorm has one that plays up the more graphic content.

It's like the contraversy over GTA, people kept citing things like the Hot Coffee thing, as though that was the worst possible thing about the game. I mean, the basic pick up and play game involves murdering people, stealing a car and trying to evade police pursuit. It took a while for me to realise that the reason their complaints about the game were so weird was because they had not only never played GTA, I'm pretty sure they didn't even understand what games are about.

All publicity is good publicity.

Watch 2 weeks after release of the game and then at some High School, some kid does a shooting and then the press blames Bulletstorm for the shooting.

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:What has that to do with anything. A box doesn't ask who picks it up, proliferation is pretty much inevitable. What can be targeted is the concept of soiling media content as a selling point.

Take the trailer for Bulletstorm everything about the gamer indicates marketing for a teen audience. It would not be the only game out there to be directly marketed at an age group technically prohibited on the cover. You cannot stop games from getting lewder or more violent but you can give incentives not to. Currently through ratings and low brow content the encouragement is to sink lower and lower. An accompanying tax scale with ratings would do more to clear up the media than anything else.

To make my point again, "If you give government a direct profit incentive, you'll quickly see them classifying all kinds of things as undesirable content. Creep is inevitable.


The best option is to get parents to pay attention to the ratings system."

I could think of worse things to tax, and the revenue is needed. I dont actually have a problem with it. As far as 'creep' is concerned, media could be properly scaled, now at least there is an incentive to do so.

Parents cant pay attention to the ratings system because a lot of the time proliferation is outside parental control. The above solution doesn't make parental control content more exotic or kewl, it just makes it taxable, this in itself will do more to clean up the industry than anything else.

Orlanth wrote:Parents cant pay attention to the ratings system because a lot of the time proliferation is outside parental control. The above solution doesn't make parental control content more exotic or kewl, it just makes it taxable, this in itself will do more to clean up the industry than anything else.

Parents should keep themselves aware of what they are buying their children. You can't buy rated games without prooving that you are aged appropriately for the game you are buying. Fairly regularly when I go into the various games shops in town there will be some kid (probably 10-13) leading their parent round, picking out 18 rated games, sometimes even saying "Wow - this one is so cool, you get to kill people and blow them up" (or similar). More often than not the parents will buy the game (assuming it does not cost too much, which is the most common negative comment I have heard).

It is very rare that I have ever heard a parent say a child is not getting a game because it is too violent/has adult themes/etc.

And judging by how many squeeky voices there in multiplayer on many 18+ rated games I play, there are a lot of parents who buy their kids games either without knowing what the game contains, or not caring. I would suggest that this is a far more common method of children getting hold of such media than children secretly running rated games through a schoolyard black market which is totally uncontrolled by any parents/adults.

And regards creeping taxation - I'm fairly certain that once the government gets hold of a new revenue stream, it will grab hold of it with both hands. I can see entertainment eventually being taxed to the same extent as fuel is now.

Which as has been pointed out is not in any way fair for those of us who are of age to play the games, or watch the films. Why should everyone be forced to watch/play tellytubby level TV/games just in case a child gets his hands on it? As has been pointed out, such entertainment does not automatically lead to cackling children standing over mass graves, covered in the blood of their victims.

GazzyG wrote:All publicity is good publicity.

This.

Often shock value is added simply to cause a marketing stir, or its reviewed in certain directions to cause.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:What I would like to know is, has there been an increase in the violence and brutality in games?
There is the potential for games designers to constantly raise the ante of the shock value as a selling point.

And This.

My prime personal concern is due to a decline in quality, in many media shock is turning from the exception to the norm, and it does the media no good, nor does it help society.

dogma wrote:
I say this because I'm not convinced that violent media is harmful to children. Were that the case I would have expected to see a steady rise in violent crime, particularly amongst juveniles, over the last 15 years, but the opposite had occurred.

I would like to know where you got those figures from, in the UK this is precisely what has happened. Though I would be reluctant to place the blame directly on the shock media it does have an effect. Outside of rare cases the problem is not a direct translation to violent crime the problem but more a detachment from any communal responsibility and the causes of this are far wider.
Humans pick up their moral values before they are 10, the media is dispelling innocence at far younger ages and the societal effects are very much evident. Every generation blames a cultural decay on its youth, but there has been a sea change in recent years with violent and anti social behaviour effecting younger and younger age groups. The last big youth revolution in the 60's and each preceding normally occurred in a much older age group,
I do not blame video games for this, I can see the influence of shock media in general, of which gaming is a very small part. Modern 'comedy' is far more a threat in this case, as with some games the shock value is there to mask reduced overall quality, raise publicity through controversy and thus raise capital. Fine a shock jock for breaching broadcasting standards and you have made his career jump, place a surtax on his materials and he will have a genuine incentive to clean up a bit.
The thing is you would have to do this across the board.

Bottom line here is that would there be a difference in a family setting that does not swear from one that is blue mouthed in terms of the values of the children raised. Time and again the answer appears to be yes, shock media and its prevelence all but ensures that the latter is all we can have.

Dreadwinter wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? Absolutely everything about your argument, you are wanting to make it harder for people to put out content that I like. So that has everything to do with me. Me, being of legal age and sound mind. Not a minor. I would enjoy having these things.

Taxes happen. Taxing shock media would reduce pressure elsewhere, both USA and UK are running at a horrid deficit and new taxes are needed, better this than something else. Media can avoid this though. Perhaps Bulletstorm can make itself 'kewl' by including some genuine wit in its dialogue than making comments about strap on dildos in a game evidently marketed for minors.

Dreadwinter wrote:
Now, the way you are saying this, you are making it sound like every game studio is shooting for an M rating with max shock value. That is actually stupid, a lot of studios lose money when they get bumped up to M from a T or an E. A lot of parents are smart and wont buy their kids games that are not good for them. I cant help it if some parents ignore the warning signs on the box. Why should I be penalized for poor parenting?

Unless the kids are never given any money they can go and get the stuff themselves, most kids with access to computer games have pocket money at one level or another. Now laws might prevent sale to minors, but there are ways around this. The only way to clear up is to make incentives not to.
Also most games are not going for a higher rating, you can have and do have adult themes in games without raising them, games need not and indeed should not be bloodless an accurate WW2 game should be classified differently than Bulletstorm, even if both include gore.


Lets be clear here I am far from advocating that a teen audience should be restricted to bloodless games.

SilverMK2 wrote:
Parents should keep themselves aware of what they are buying their children. You can't buy rated games without prooving that you are aged appropriately for the game you are buying. Fairly regularly when I go into the various games shops in town there will be some kid (probably 10-13) leading their parent round, picking out 18 rated games, sometimes even saying "Wow - this one is so cool, you get to kill people and blow them up" (or similar). More often than not the parents will buy the game (assuming it does not cost too much, which is the most common negative comment I have heard).

It is very rare that I have ever heard a parent say a child is not getting a game because it is too violent/has adult themes/etc.

And judging by how many squeeky voices there in multiplayer on many 18+ rated games I play, there are a lot of parents who buy their kids games either without knowing what the game contains, or not caring. I would suggest that this is a far more common method of children getting hold of such media than children secretly running rated games through a schoolyard black market which is totally uncontrolled by any parents/adults.

Bad parenting is much of the problem, but that is due to a general societal malaise. Shock media has its part in that too, and needs to be restricted to some degree.

SilverMK2 wrote:
And regards creeping taxation - I'm fairly certain that once the government gets hold of a new revenue stream, it will grab hold of it with both hands. I can see entertainment eventually being taxed to the same extent as fuel is now.

Maybe not as much a fuel and cigarettes but yes the tax would creep as dogma pointed out. I don't see this as too bad a thing though. The economy is fethed and we need to raise taxes to offset the squandering that has occured before, in the UK at least something has to give, this is a very good path of least resistance. Better than selling off the forests.
Either way it would help clean up certain media that badly need it.

SilverMK2 wrote:
Which as has been pointed out is not in any way fair for those of us who are of age to play the games, or watch the films. Why should everyone be forced to watch/play tellytubby level TV/games just in case a child gets his hands on it? As has been pointed out, such entertainment does not automatically lead to cackling children standing over mass graves, covered in the blood of their victims.

Its fair because it effects everyone, so noone is singled out, media producers can limit or even eliminate this tax burden by cleaning up, also shock media is not just a problem for kiddies. You mention bad parenting as being a cause, I agree. With the current generation of couldnt give a feth parents I wonder what is on their DVD rack. At 18 you have access to all non censored content, this much is fair, not all content is wholesome at any age. Again a tax would not force this stuiff from the shelves but would restrict access somewhat, as you said cost is a major issue.

Yes I would like to see a hearty surtax on Russel Brand 'comedy' DVDs, and other deliberate shock media. You can put the fether in a tribunal and he still wont change because shock is an easy way to money and publicity. Actually Bulletstorm and games in gerneral are way way down on the list.

However it all comes down to the four hundred billion dollar question. Is this justifiable, are people - of any age - effected by what they see in the media?
I call it a four hundred billion dollar question because that is roughly the amount of money spent in the US on advertising each year, on the grounds that people are..

halonachos wrote:Dead Space 2's 'yourmomhatesthisgame' campaign is a sign of that.

My bad, I forgot that all people over the age of 18 no longer have parents.

Goliath wrote:

halonachos wrote:Dead Space 2's 'yourmomhatesthisgame' campaign is a sign of that.

My bad, I forgot that all people over the age of 18 no longer have parents.

Yeah, the minute I turned 18, my parents just vanished into thin air.

Wolfun wrote:

Goliath wrote:

halonachos wrote:Dead Space 2's 'yourmomhatesthisgame' campaign is a sign of that.

My bad, I forgot that all people over the age of 18 no longer have parents.

Yeah, the minute I turned 18, my parents just vanished into thin air.

same! Also any references to parents now have no effect on me, it's as if I never had them, so obviously any references to parents in advertising have no effect on me whatsoever.

The UK government is once again considering granting tax breaks to the computer games industry.

Whilst I disagree with this, I also disagree with putting taxes on content. It is certainly pointless to do both at the same time.

A perfectly good system of rating already exists, which costs a lot to operate. The costs are paid by the videogame industry.

Parents should be fined for not following ratings.

Orlanth wrote:Its fair because it effects everyone, so noone is singled out, media producers can limit or even eliminate this tax burden by cleaning up, also shock media is not just a problem for kiddies. You mention bad parenting as being a cause, I agree. With the current generation of couldnt give a feth parents I wonder what is on their DVD rack. At 18 you have access to all non censored content, this much is fair, not all content is wholesome at any age. Again a tax would not force this stuiff from the shelves but would restrict access somewhat, as you said cost is a major issue.

Hey, I know! Lots of people die in road accidents every year, let's ban all motor transport! That way we will all live forever!

I grew up in a house with plenty of adult themed videos (no VCD's/DVD's back then ). Various horror/thriller/action films etc. What you seem to be suggesting is that entire generations of people are being turned into worthless individuals because they are exposed to violent, or otherwise "unsavoury" material.

Really?

Society has always contained people who are essentially "do nothing" parents. Children have been growing up for generations in this kind of environment. Entertainment has very little to do with it in my eyes. Go back a hundred years and look around a working class slum - kids everywhere doing pretty much whatever they wanted to and could get away with. It is common for streets of kids to essentially mob into gangs and take on other streets/areas.

I bet they were all exposed to too much sex and violence in the music halls!

All we have now is a modern expression of the same problem - kids filling their time however they want so long as the parents get a bit of rest.

I, as an adult (of over 18 years), with no children, living in a house where no children visit, present absolutely 0 risk to mentally or emotionally impressing on a child anything with the media available in my collection (which ranges from Disney movies to supergore^3!!!!1111pi and everything in between).

Why should I have to pay more for something because it has been deemed "too morally questionable" or because of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"? In what way is it appropriate to tax certain types of media because they display violence, or adult themes?

Warhammer allows players to commit genocide on a massive scale, historical games allow you to play as the Nazi's, or crusading knights... all topics that people could feel were "inappropriate" to expose children to. Should they be taxed as well?

How about books? Lots of blood and gore in fantasy books and science fiction. Hell, there is a lot in factual books about war as well. Should they be taxed on this entertainment taxation system as well? After all, they are entertainment, and some people may find them offensive, and some kid, somewhere in the world may be offended by their contents.

I just don't get any part of how such a tax would be fair or justified. The ratings system already provides protection for children. If anything, give more power to enforce that, rather than simply pricing innocent customers out of the market.

Yes I would like to see a hearty surtax on Russel Brand 'comedy' DVDs, and other deliberate shock media. You can put the fether in a tribunal and he still wont change because shock is an easy way to money and publicity. Actually Bulletstorm and games in gerneral are way way down on the list.

However it all comes down to the four hundred billion dollar question. Is this justifiable, are people - of any age - effected by what they see in the media?

Well, anything you experince any time of any day in any format will affect you in some way. The point is that taxing something for being "morally wrong" is not only extremely subjective, but extremely unfair for the exact reason that it is entirely subjective.

The ratings system currently in place in many nations establishes relatively agreeable limits as to what people can and cannot be exposed to at various ages. It allows someone to go into a shop with $25 and pick up that new childrens animated film, or the latest SAW, depending on their age and preferance. Someone wanting to watch SAW (though why you would I am not sure ) should not have to pay, say, $50 because "oh no there is blood and children might see it".

Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you really comparing rap to video games?

It WAS odd to single out rap since all those metal albums with stickers have them for the same reason: because the dudes in the bands thought it would make them look "more metal" if they swore, and because teens woudl want to buy it more because of said swears...

SilverMK2 wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Its fair because it effects everyone, so noone is singled out, media producers can limit or even eliminate this tax burden by cleaning up, also shock media is not just a problem for kiddies. You mention bad parenting as being a cause, I agree. With the current generation of couldnt give a feth parents I wonder what is on their DVD rack. At 18 you have access to all non censored content, this much is fair, not all content is wholesome at any age. Again a tax would not force this stuiff from the shelves but would restrict access somewhat, as you said cost is a major issue.

Hey, I know! Lots of people die in road accidents every year, let's ban all motor transport! That way we will all live forever!

I grew up in a house with plenty of adult themed videos (no VCD's/DVD's back then ). Various horror/thriller/action films etc. What you seem to be suggesting is that entire generations of people are being turned into worthless individuals because they are exposed to violent, or otherwise "unsavoury" material.

Really?

Society has always contained people who are essentially "do nothing" parents. Children have been growing up for generations in this kind of environment. Entertainment has very little to do with it in my eyes. Go back a hundred years and look around a working class slum - kids everywhere doing pretty much whatever they wanted to and could get away with. It is common for streets of kids to essentially mob into gangs and take on other streets/areas.

I bet they were all exposed to too much sex and violence in the music halls!

All we have now is a modern expression of the same problem - kids filling their time however they want so long as the parents get a bit of rest.

I, as an adult (of over 18 years), with no children, living in a house where no children visit, present absolutely 0 risk to mentally or emotionally impressing on a child anything with the media available in my collection (which ranges from Disney movies to supergore^3!!!!1111pi and everything in between).

Why should I have to pay more for something because it has been deemed "too morally questionable" or because of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"? In what way is it appropriate to tax certain types of media because they display violence, or adult themes?

Warhammer allows players to commit genocide on a massive scale, historical games allow you to play as the Nazi's, or crusading knights... all topics that people could feel were "inappropriate" to expose children to. Should they be taxed as well?

How about books? Lots of blood and gore in fantasy books and science fiction. Hell, there is a lot in factual books about war as well. Should they be taxed on this entertainment taxation system as well? After all, they are entertainment, and some people may find them offensive, and some kid, somewhere in the world may be offended by their contents.

I just don't get any part of how such a tax would be fair or justified. The ratings system already provides protection for children. If anything, give more power to enforce that, rather than simply pricing innocent customers out of the market.

Here here!

Also, do we tax "Romance Novels", with graphic descriptions of sex, because think of how scarring that would be to kids.

Viddya Games don't need taxes, we just need more parents who don't use Games, Any game I'm playing in particular, as a baby sitter for their annoying 6 year old......

I confess to having a vested interest in Bulletstorm, so am hoping it does well out of all this. I know it will.

Great review on The Register.

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/02/23/games_review_bulletstorm/

It sounds a brilliant game.