| Adios, Austin - August 8, 2000 - Chris Jones Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the
participants and the moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is
coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. "Email me, and may actually
get into tomorrow's column?" Looks like grammar got the better of me too. Don't say
we didn't warn you.
Got a little announcement for y'all - by this coming Friday evening, I will be gone
from my home of nearly 6 years, Austin Texas. I'm leaving town and my job to head up to
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for graduate studies in computer
engineering. There's no doubt in my mind that Austin's just about the coolest city on the
planet, and there are some great friends I'm gonna hate to leave behind. But I'm looking
to expand my horizons, so as great as Austin is, as great as the people at work are and as
enjoyable as the job has been, I gotta pack up and move on.
So how does this impact the column? Hopefully, not too much. I'm taking about a week
off to pack and clean and move my gear up to UC, and in the meantime the legendary Brian Glick will be covering. I should be plugged in by next Wednesday (8/16) although it's possible I
might take a little longer to get settled. At any rate, you will be hearing from me again.
On the other hand, my priorities are gonna be changing a bit. Work here was never more
than a 10 to 6 job, which left me plenty of time to get in a column and even have
something of a life. Grad school, on the other hand, can be anything from a 0 hour a week
job to a 100 hour a week job, and I don't know to what extent I can keep up with the
column. Hopefully it won't make any difference, and I'm gonna do my best to keep up with
things, but if push comes to shove it's gonna be my GPA that comes out on top, so be
forewarned. However, you should be getting at least a month or two's worth more of columns
out of me, so don't worry (or celebrate) too much.
In other news, we've got a donnybrook of a column for you today, as the readership
mulls over this whole games-as-politics issue. Hair is pulled, eyes are gouged, egos are
bruised, and the Charmin is squeezed. Life is good.
Onward.
| Getting everyone on the same page |
| I'm not an American but American politics do affect Canada especially if
they have an impact on the media (video games being one). However, most games we play are
made in Japan where such mature attitudes towards violence and sex are accepted in
mainstream culture. The only possibilities would be enforcing the rating system via a
video game assocation similar to the MPAA, or by government laws restricting the sale of
certain games to minors (as it is with adult entertainment). Of course, this could lead to
censorship if a game publishing company or system manufacturer wanted to lower the rating
of a game by deleting parts or altering them from their original Japanese versions. I
don't really think these issues will be adressed at all during the campaign because as you
said, they have more important things to worry about. Movies, which are much more
mainstream (at least with the voting population) than videogames are rarely adressed by
politicians especially when the presidency is at stake. Unless a game is determined to be
adult material (this happened in Canada recently with some computer game) then the rating
system would have to be self inforced. I think the main thing we want to avoid here is
censorship even if it is self imposed. This may happen in the future if a gaming
equivalent of the MPAA is formed and would restrict stores from selling games outside
their rating range. FLIGHT |
There seems to be a fair amount of confusion as to Senator Lieberman's actual
relationship with gaming, and even though FLIGHT's something of an extreme case (hint:
there already is a game rating board) now's as good a time as any to get our history
straight.
Way back in the dawn of time (1994) there were games like Night Trap (Sega CD) and DOOM
(PC) without any kind of warning labels for parents. The US had until then lived a fairly
sheltered existence, because the great and powerful Nintendo was quite vigilant in making
sure that nothing even vaguely controversial got put up on the screen. It wasn't 100%
successful (crosses got turned into boomerangs, but Duke Togo could kill people and have
all the sex he wanted) but by and large grandparents could pick up a newfangled video game
for little Timmy and be reasonably sure that Mario wasn't gonna knock over a 7-11 for drug
money. However, with the growing popularity of the relatively unrestrained Genesis, this
was no longer the case.
People like Senator Lieberman likely meant well when they started talking about
controls on games - they likely couldn't quite see the over-the-top humor value in having
Dana Plato battle evil vampires via low-res video. But ratings they wanted, and ratings
they got, thanks to the industry's Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) proposal,
which game developers saw as a way to appease concerned parties and protect their
multi-billion dollar industry. Lieberman and co. were pleased, game companies were
pleased, and we, the consumers, got stuck with those little white boxes on the front of
games.
Since then, Lieberman's seemed fairly satisfied with what the ESRB's done, giving the
industry an A in a joint report card with the National PTA. And despite the lingering
grudge that many gamers hold against him, he doesn't seem to involve himself with games
much longer. As for the ESRB itself, it's probably worth perusing their website, if only to know the face
of the enemy. (For instance, I found their description of "three raters randomly
chosen from a pool of over 100 demographically diverse individuals from all walks of
life" very interesting - apparently a semi-literate 63 year old janitor has just as
valid an opinion on DQVII as a 31 year old Japanese culture professor.)
| Reveling in men's death throes, and kicking
puppies for fun |
| Don't be so quick to judge. I beleive he's partially correct. (Hears boos
from crowd, one "yay!", followed by a gunshot) Hey, not so fast! I said
PARTIALLY! Videogames themselves can not cause violence or commit mass murder. Heck, the
majority of video games have little or no graphic/suggestive content. Just take a look at
the Mario Brothers series. If that isn't clean, what is? However, that game can influence
children to think that decapitation, explosives and the like are daily occurences and it
is "okay" to commit such acts in real life. The problem is that most children
can not determine the difference between fantasy and reality, and therefore have their
psychological profiles altered as such, considering that the first ten years of a human's
life formulates and influences a majority of their thought process, ethics, and the like.
The same could be said about other forms of media, such as television, movies, etc. I do
not believe that liability or fault rests with t he video gaming industry (hears a
collective sigh of relief), but rather with the parents of these young video gamers. After
all, a six year old child can't afford games such as Perfect Dark, House of the Dead,
Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, etc. Furthermore, I doubt they could comprehend the plot,
bright as some children are. All they know is they get praise for killing men and reveling
in said men's death throes. And the parents are the ones footing the bill for such
programs! If parents could make more of an effort to get involved with seeing what
children play and do with their time, become knowledgeable in the area, maybe even afford
a little competition every once in a while, they'd notice, "Hey, my kid's doing a lot
of killing here. Is this right?" I have a feeling that when the generation of people
who have been brought up with video games become parents themselves, we will see a change
for the better. Until then, I believe that parents should just keep a stricter eye on
their child's selection of game and on their own wallets, as they may be doling out the
dough just a tad freely. AS for the Internet Tax also proposed by Leberman, I think that's
insanity. No one, and I mean NO ONE, could regulate the Internet. It's just not feasable.
To summarize: Leberman's got it mixed around. It's not the games, but where they go and
who gets to play 'em that can cause such things. The same could be said for television,
movies, yadda yadda yadda, thank you, and good night. Grandson of a foreign Cabinet
member signing off,
Aleksandrs Bomis |
I've made my argument against this point before - parental involvement is well and
good, but there's nothing wrong with offering some kind of guidepost to the people who
actually make the decisions. It's certainly a good idea for parents to know if their kid
is playing Quake III or Mario Kart, but in many cases technologically clueless parents
won't know the difference between the two without a ratings sticker. Arguing that they
need to get more educated is pointless, because they simply lack the tech savvy their kids
have, and they don't have the time/energy/ability to get it. In that case, the ESRB makes
good sense, I simply question if it's as accurate as it should be.
| We've come a long way, baby |
| Yeah other than the gaming issue, Lieberman's a great guy. However, being
a big gamer myself, that's probably my only issue right now and will be for the next four
years. A man like Lieberman could only do more harm than good to the gaming industry.
Bush? Hah. I wonder if he's even played games. At least Lieberman acknowledges that there
are "good" educational games out there. Bush doesn't even give the gaming
industry the attention it deserves. Even though I don't agree with his views, I support
any mention of video games in our national congress. -Fares |
I'm sure it would have amused my dad no end to read this column - the Nintendo
Generation has finally come of age, and chief among its worries is the censorship of its
favorite hobby. Still, the more I think about it the more I tend to think this debate is a
good thing - even if reaction to Lieberman's nomination is somewhat overblown, it's
encouraging to see that so many people are willing to stand up for a mode of freedom of
expression that's highly important and meaningful to them. It's all in how you look at it
I guess.
And I agree that Bush probably hasn't played any games, so nobody blow it and expose
him to Galerians or something, okay?
| Generation X speaks |
| Chris What can I say about video games as a political issue?
*Yawn*
...
...
*Blink*
...
Ummm... go local sports team!
Justin Freeman |
Insightful as ever, Mr. Freeman. Moving on...
| Euro-liberals for Bush... |
| Chris, I am a liberal (in the European sense) who was leaning towards
Gore before he picked Lieberman, but now find myself reconsidering the wisdom of my
decision. I think it preferable for parents to screen what their children watch or play,
as opposed to the government screening the media (thereby reducing all media content to
that appropriate for whatever age group is deemed in need of protection). I agree that the
issue is not likely to come up, but if it does, I am seriously going to consider switching
my vote.
- Mark |
Not much to say here, except that as much as I love video games, nearly any stance
Lieberman takes on games (short of actually destroying every single US copy of Chrono
Cross) isn't going to register among all the other considerations I have for picking a
candidate. It just ain't that big a deal, compared to everything else on the table.
| ...conservatives for Lieberman... |
| The gaming news sites tended to exaggerate what Lieberman and his fellow
congressman were trying to do, and it seems those exaggerations are now believed as truth.
Lieberman was not out to ban, or in any way regulate violence in video games, nor was he
advocating a ratings system. He was critizing the game industry for the same thing that
others have critized the tobacco industry for - marketing an adult product to kids. For
example, Resident Evil has a mature rating, however walk into a Toys R' Us and you might
find some RE toys. Sure, some adults like to collect action figures, but that's what hobby
shops are for, not toy stores. Metal Gear Solid is another game with an action figure line
that can be purchased in toy stores, and yet it too has a mature rating. And pay attention
to game commericials. The rating of the show and the rating of the game should match -
teen games shouldn't be advertised on children's shows for example. Most gamers in
their infinite wisdom like to say "it's the parents job to raise the kid, if they
don't do it, too bad." but that kind of talk offers no solution - government can
hardly mandate good parenting.
But you're right about this issue not really mattering. I mean, I'm a conservative and
here I am defending Lieberman. The fact of the matter is that he is a fantastic veep pick
with an almost flawless record, democrats are lucky to have him. |
Aside from being a conservative, you've pretty well nailed my opinion about the matter.
MGS action figures don't bother me too much, since by themselves, as figures, there's
nothing particularly "mature" about them, any more than the G.I. Joe action
figures of my youth. Other than that, good call.
| ...and Seinfeld characters for brooding
loners! |
| Personally I think Squall Leonhart would make a Great President. I mean
look at the leadership he displayed when put at the helm (or what ever you would like to
call it) of the Garden. And just think of what would happen if a war broke out, I could
just picture it, Squall and his SEED colleagues storming into a battle field to take on
the entire enemy army. Do you think Bush or Gore would do that? "Squall's campaign
manager" Kramer |
It's not Squall I have a problem with, especially since he seems in a very committed,
monogamous relationship with Rinoa. No, my problem comes from the fact that he'd likely
appoint fellow party members to key positions, and while Quistis would probably make a
good Secretary of Education, and while I could tolerate Zell as a Supreme Court justice, I
couldn't stand to have Selphie anywhere near the Cabinet. Anyone with fashion sense that
bad would almost certainly mean the end of the Republic.
| Wonderswans and stolen gimmicks |
| Straight to the point: I don't think that games have much to do with
politics here; setting aside the media hype that surrounded the topic of videogames and
violence after the wake of the Columbine incident (and the news stories were little more
than overhyped puff pieces IMHO; and yes, I did sit through/read a few...), and that
influenced political interest in game ratings (ah, who couldn't resist soundbites...)
politicians are mostly out of touch with popular culture... Thus you're probably correct
in predicting they will not be an issue in this campaign (it's still Gore's campaign, not
Lieberman's, folks...). I think Gore's choice of VP candidate has more to do with taking
the moral high ground and getting some credibility... I hate to add to it, but I'm
compelled to: isn't it interesting how the Republican platform is going towards a
portrayal of "compassionate" conservatism, while the Democratic ticket is
pushing for a respectable "moral", "ethical" image, and is in fact
injecting a personality in the campaign by the choice of VP (Gore, despite all his
posturing, still can't convince anyone that he has one...)? It's as if both parties
figured out that swapping gimmicks wouldn't be such a bad idea... Bah, I'll be too busy to
care if either is elected, anyway... So it is probably best not to dwell on it too much...
On an unrelated note: I've been wondering what the hell happened to the Wonderswan
(yeech, love the idea, hate the name)... I hazily recall it would come ashore sometime
soon, but it was a while ago, and I haven't heard anything since. I'm more curious than
anxious about it, though...
Princess Jemmy, who's pretty sure that warning labels on music were pretty much Tipper
Gore's baby, by her own admission... |
I don't see the Republican and Democrat posturing as being so much a swapping of
identities as a common effort to appeal to the middle of the voting spectrum - they both
want to be morally upright, fiscally conservative, and general all around nice guys. If
anything, this and the fact that people see games as even vaguely being an election issue
underscores how really boring this election is, from an issues perspective.
There's nothing much out on the Wonderswan, near as I can tell, since Mattel put Bernie
Stolar in charge of Mattel Interactive, the division likely to launch Wonderswan. That was
back in January, so I'd look for something to happen soon if they want to get it out for a
holiday launch.
| Visual aids from the bald guy |
| Chris Here is a diagram of the billion dollar videogame industry vs.
the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
Videogame Industry Government
As you can see, the videogame industry is a lot bigger than the government can contain.
Thank you.
-Professor X "whoop, there it is" |
Works for me.
Closing Comments:
Before I go, gotta give a few props to some friends of mine here in town, regardless of
if they read this column or not. Daniel and Christine, thanks for putting up with me - I
won't forget it. (And yes, that translates into stock options.) John, Jason, Ashley, and
Vikas, thanks for making this a memorable few years, and to everyone at work, thanks for
tolerating my Dreamcast habit. Thanks to UT for seeing fit to give me a degree, thanks to
Rudy's for serving up such great barbecue, thanks to KGSR for providing the tunes, and
thanks to Austin in general for being Austin. I'll get back here sooner or later, count on
it. See you in a few.
-Chris Jones, moving onward |
|
|
|
|
