Wii Video Games Blamed For Rise In Effeminate Violence
WASHINGTONConcerned parents are again blasting the Nintendo Wii for an incident of effeminate violence following a 13-year-old boy's limp-wristed attack on three of his classmates at a Cleveland-area middle school Tuesday.
The incidentthe sixth of its kind in as many monthshas left parents searching for answers and struggling to comprehend the dainty assault, which left the necks of two sweaters severely stretched out and countless fingers stubbed.
In other news, Britain's government finally wises up. Their ratings board, the BBFC, had previously refused to rate Manhunt 2, a notably violent game, due to the incorrect linkage between the original title and a murder several years ago. By not rating the game, it was effectively banned from the UK.
Yes, this kept the game out of the hands of children. However, it also kept the game out of the hands of everyone else. Not a fair compromise for the large number of mature, adult gamers.
In comes the UK government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
"The classification of Manhunt 2 is a matter for the BBFC and the Video Appeals Committee," said a spokesperson, after today's news that the VAC had reaffirmed its decision to back Rockstar in an appeal over the BBFC's refusal to certify the game.
"It is important to note that there is no conclusive evidence of any link between playing computer games and violent behaviour in real life," the spokesperson continued. "Our concern is to make sure that inappropriate material is kept away from children."
We don't want kids to have these games either, but allowing NOBODY to have them is excessive.
In similar news, Minnesota's "games as porn" bill was defeated again, in appeal.
The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld a ruling from 2006 stopping a Minnesota bill which attemped to fine minors $25 for trying to buy M- or AO-rated games. The Star Tribune reports a three-judge panel concluded that violent video games fall under First Amendment free speech protections and therefore the law can only hold if it is proven as "necessary to serve a compelling state interest and ... is narrowly tailored to achieve that end." The state introduced evidence, but could not prove a causal relationship between violent video games and aggressive behavior in children. Massachusetts politicians should probably take note, as they drive eyes wide open into a similar legal wall.
In a statement sent to Joystiq, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) stated it is both "pleased and encouraged" by today's ruling. The organization believes a combination of parental choice and oversight is the "only legal, sensible, and most importantly, effective way to empower parents." Expect a bill for the court fees soon enough, Minnesota.
The problem with these bills is that they're putting games in the same classification as pornography, not R rated movies and Parental Advisory music where they currently sit and belong. Its a good thing that high profile politicians like Elliot Spitzer support legislation like this.
The gaming industry currently uses a rating system that is similar to the voluntary peer rating system used by the MPAA and the RIAA. Yes, these are all voluntary, peer rating systems. They can not be legally enforced, as they have no government oversight. The ESRB's rating system is, in my opinion, better than any of the others. It has a 7 level rating system that clearly states who the game should be marketed to, and what age ranges. (E for everyone, as well as a E 10+ for games that are more mature than a 2 year old should see, but not so mature that a 10 year old can't). It displays these ratings clearly on the game box, and all ads for the game, as well as a list of every determining factor that caused the rating to be what it is. Some examples:
# Alcohol Reference - Reference to and/or images of alcoholic beverages
# Animated Blood - Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of blood
# Blood - Depictions of blood
# Blood and Gore - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts
# Cartoon Violence - Violent actions involving cartoon-like situations and characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted
# Comic Mischief - Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor
# Crude Humor - Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including "bathroom" humor
The ECA's Hal Halpin agrees (from Gamepolitics):
Many of the industry's greatest critics can (usually) agree on one thing: The [ESRB] is the best rating system for entertainment products
Hal writes that the ESRB system blows away that of the RIAA, which simply slaps "Parental Advisory" stickers on music, with no explanation. And while he finds the MPAA's system for movies to be better, its content descriptors can't compare to those of the ESRB.
So, why is this a perfectly accepted method of preventing minors access to movies and music, but not games? Why do games have to be classified as obscene, next to pornography, in order to protect children from them?
