This column restricted to 17 and
older... -
February 15, 2001 - 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.
...because I figure criticizing the ad regulations is just as bad
as seeing the ads themselves.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
Reading through the story on Sega and Nintendo working on a game
together struck home a point that I'd never really understood before -
that everything in the gaming world can and inevitably must
change. If Sega and Nintendo can talk about combining their characters and
game worlds in an RPG, then anything is possible. Square will publish for
Nintendo again, Sakaguchi and Yamauchi will get drunk at a company
party and sing karaoke together. Dragon Quest will embrace FMV, Final
Fantasy will go back to 2D, tile-based environments. The X-Box will be
huge success and Microsoft will hire Janet Reno as a spokesmodel for Halo.
The CD-I will rise from the grave and become the hottest system on the
market, and Vibri will surpass every other major gaming mascot combined in
public recognition.
I'm not sure if this is paradise or the Apocalypse I'm describing, but
what a time to be alive.
Onward.
| Point by point |
| The Chris,
Okay. The IDSA made some interesting decisions. Let's evaluate them individually, shall we?
Print ads restricted if 45% of the readers are under 17. Well. I guess that means we won't be seeing ads for mature rated games in any gaming magazine ever again. Gee, smart move there, eh? While we're at it, why don't we just make the same restriction on pg-13 through R rated movies? Yeah, cause I didn't see any kids at the last Jurassic Park movie, honest.
TV ads restricted if 35% of the audience is under 17. Well, I guess that means the only place we'll see ads for the next Resident Evil game will be on the History Channel. Yeah, that must mean that kids under 17 don't watch shows like NYPD Blue or Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Internet ads restricted if 45% of the viewers are under 17. So, does that mean that all those free Internet porn sites that are so easy to access even if you only know how to click a mouse won't have ads for Shenmu 2?
Cross promotions restricted if the target audience is under 17 (I'm vastly summarizing). So, does that mean no more cans of Coke in RE games? I can live with that. But no more RE tee-shirts at Marilyn Manson concerts?! That's not fair! I mean, a fifteen year old kid goes to a show where a guy wearing women's underwear sings about Satan killing babies, and he can't get a video game tee-shirt?! That's just not right!
But I suppose it's good they dropped the provision on in-store promotions. That way, Wal-Mart can advertise the latest instalment of MGS while selling a teenager a shotgun.
All E-mail marketing has to have an explanation about the game's rating and a description of it's content. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same thing as a commercial? Gee, thanks for the free advertisement, there, guys!
Product-testing and focus groups restricted on M rated games to those under 17. Well, this one just cracks me up. How else are you going to know if it's not for kids? Product test groups are there to help you decide who will play the game and who won't. By only giving it to adults, you've already answered your own question. Plus I love the little side note of "This reflects the agreement reached at the end of our last call, although I know some of you were gone by then." Well. Way to make a decision without the other members of the team! Why, you don't even need the rest! You can make those decisions on your own, you holy god of righteousness, you!
Action figures and other licensed products must have a label that indicates what game the item is based on, and what it's rating is. So, does that mean we aren't going to see any more Spawn figures and Sleepy Hollow dolls? Oh, wait, those were for movies, right, I keep forgetting that that's completely different....
All in all, I have to say that these decisions were made by intelligent
and well-informed men and women, who deserve exactly what is coming to
them.
-Banjax, loading his shotgun, and waiting. |
What else is there to say? The system sucks... and the odd part is, the
ones screwing the developers over are the developers themselves. They don't
have to do this, there's no real legal pressure on them, despite
those congressional hearings, and by most standards, they've done far
better in providing content guidelines than any other media out there. So
all this is essentially a self-inflicted wound on their part, and it's one
they'll likely come to regret, because in their mad quest to make games
safer for the young 'uns, they're ignoring a vastly richer and more
numerous audience - the rest of us.
| He's back! Praise be! |
| Hm. Bit early to tell how it'll all turn out, but I'll go out on a limb
and dare to say that I doubt all parties involved will be happy with the
implementation and the results.
The only thing I can really do at this point is express how I think and
feel about the current news. I wouldn't roll my eyes if my younger
brother wasn't allowed to buy Metal Gear Solid 2 by his lonesome because
he was under...Thirteen? Even fifteen. Sure, I'll walk into Software Etc
with him so he can pick up MGS2 because he's only ten. Fine, whatever,
no biggie. Just like an R movie. Not like he can drive down to the mall
on his own anyway.
But seventeen...? A whole year before he's old enough to drink, smoke,
buy porn, and drive? Hopefully not all at the same time?
~Ian P.
|
I have to disagree with you, Mr. P, sir, because I think all parties
involved will be satisfied - the lawyers, the parents groups,
and the PR departments from the developers who put this thing
together. Of course, they kinda forgot to invite any actual
gamers to the table, but why worry about such trivial details?
| Things you're better
off not knowing |
| Howdy.
In my opinion the IDSA is overstepping it's bounds with this new system.
Consider the following scenario:
Some people start a new gaming magazine, and they intend to cover
mostly games of a more mature variety, most of which are rated M.
Consequently, most of the advertisements they get are for M rated games.
Subscriptions come in, and, lo and behold, about half their audience is
under 17. Now, although they never advertised their magazine to kids
under 17, and although they make it quite clear that mature games are
reviewed inside, the magazine is forced to either reject ads for certain
games (even if said games are covered in the same issue), or cancel the
subscriptions to some of those kids under 17.
In both cases, I think, we've gone from rating games and informing
people about what they are buying, to either forcing people not to
review certain games or forcing certain people not to read about certain
games. I've always supported the idea behind the ESRB, because I feel
that it's important for parents to know what games their kids are
playing, and also for any consumer to know the contents of the product
he is purchasing. However, if this goes through, we'll have moved from
passively informing people about the contents of games (and in some
cases denying younger children from purchasing rated M games without
parental permission), to actively regulating the coverage and
advertising of games, parental permission or no. A far better solution
in my opinion would be to put ESRB content ratings on magazines
themselves referring to the range of games that they cover and have
advertisements for, and at most requiring that someone be 17 or over to
buy magazines including M rated coverage, or at have a parent buy it for
them.
-Arpad Korossy |
Your scenario makes a lot of sense, and you had me right up to the point
where you start talking about requiring
parents to buy magazines for their kids. Let's get one thing straight
here - magazines should not have to be responsible for who reads them,
within reasonable limits. As you say, it's one thing to describe the
content of something, it's something else entirely to require anyone else
but parents to limit who sees that content. More than that, such limits
inevitably harm the people who have legitimate use for them - am I gonna
be carded to buy a copy of EGM the same as when I get a pint of Guinness?
| As impenetrable a
barrier as wet tissue |
| CJ,
About six months ago, I would have called that the stupidest thing that was
ever devised. But now that I've turned 17, and hence "legal", I could really
care less.
But really, I'm not that worried about them "regulating" M rated games. I
mean they still sell Hustler and other pornography six magazines over from
Pokémon in my local bookstore. If that's not a double-standard, I don't know
what is.
-Red Raven
|
And on the other hand, I'm probably overreacting, since most other
barriers to things like R-rated movies have never been that strictly
enforced. And if they're not a barrier to people under 17, they really
shouldn't be a problem for people over 17.
| It's the retailers'
problem! |
| Hey Chris!
So, a magazine with 54% of its readers OVER the age of 17 can't have ads
for M-rated games?
I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times : just compel every
retailer in the country to enforce the damned ratings! If a parent's OK with
their nine-year-old playing Resident Evil, that's their business, and they
can still buy the game for their kid when the ratings are enforced! Just
make sure the ads themselves aren't in any way offensive, and LET them be
placed in any publication on the surface of the planet!
There are times when I think the US government will blame the Pope for
teen violence before they crack down on the weapons industry...
Sir Farren, safely in Europe. |
I dunno if game ratings should be enforced at purchase time, but even I
gotta admit your argument is a little disingenuous - if you figure an ad
for an M game is really cool, and it's placed in a place where 12 year olds
will see it on a regular basis, then some of those 12 year olds will
manage to get by every safeguard devised and get that game. But even so,
there's a big difference between that and putting a Metal Gear Solid ad on
Futurama or something, which is where these guidelines kick in.
As for retailers having to enforce the guidelines, let's hear the
opposition party's response...
| No, it's not. |
| As not only a gamer, but a retailer and an intelligent human being, I must
say that the IDSA's ideas simply disgust me. Instead of fighting back and
telling the FCC all of the mistakes they made (yes indeed, Toonami is
watched by a majority of <17 year old kids.. whatever), they will simply
roll over and say "oh we're bad, let's change guys."
I don't necessarily just blame the IDSA... I blame the American people.
This country, where someone can sue for getting cancer by smoking a stick
that clearly says on the box "Surgeon General's Warning: Inhaling this
product can kill you, moron!", and where the blame lies with everyone but
ourselves. The problem is that people have decided that taking
responsibility for their actions is now "uncool." It's "society's fault."
I "didn't know it could hurt me."
"Doom made the child kill."
Why does the government insist on asking that question, instead of "where
was the parent while the child was playing Doom?" Or even "where did the
child get $40 to buy Doom?"
And why does the IDSA think that the only option is to roll over and let the
government kick them some more?
This is BS. Complete and utter BS. To this day, as a retailer, I REFUSE to
card "kids" coming in to buy a game. It's not my job. You want to pay me
$20 per hour, per child to babysit your children? Sure, I'm game... but as
things are now, I refuse. Raising your children is simply not my
responsibility... it is yours. And if you're not willing to raise your
child, then you need to take responsibility for the mistakes s/he
makes.
As soon as the IDSA, and the American people as a whole, realize what
they're doing wrong, this world could be much happier.
----
Brad Williams |
I dunno if I completely agree with the idea that, say, tobacco companies
are completely blameless when it comes to marketing harmful substances,
but you make a good point. Thank you, sir.
| I knew Eidos was going
too far... |
| Chris,
The limitations on advertising are high idiocy. What next, a
suggestion that M-rate games must be kept in a backroom separate from other
games? If one believes that mere advertisements corrupt children, than
surely it is unacceptable to have the game boxes (which are themselves
advertisements) in plain sight. Personally, I think Fear Effect 2's risque
(by videogame standards) advertising campaign is the trigger for this latest
action. Which is stupid, because, objectively, it wasn't that bad. All FE2
did was show two women in bikinis and imply that they were lovers. This is
orders of magnitude less disturbing than the widely publicized Starr Report,
a graphic chronic of sex acts which politicians and the media thought
everyone alive needed to be aware of. Besides, when confronted with a given
advertisement, some magazines, rather than risking offending their audience
(who would then cancel their subscriptions), decline to run said ad, while
others accept the ad and the revenue it brings in, betting their audience
can deal with it. So under the existing system you have people on three
levels (game publishers, magazine publishers, and consumers) using their own
judgement to determine what is appropriate. But censors believe that
everyone else is less intelligent than they are, and that they have a moral
duty to herd all us sheep in the right direction.
There is also the small question of how much sense it makes to ban an
ad for an M-rated game (lets say a MGS clone) which merely features a man
standing in a darkened hallway but allow an ad for a E rated game (let's say
a football game) showing a man driving his shoulder into the solar plexus of
another man. If one feels an irrepresible need to censor something, it makes
more sense to regulate the content of ads rather than the content of games.
But hey, I'm just a consumer, so what do I know?
- Mark |
I see where you're coming from, but again, it's not what's actually on
display in the ad as much as the extent to which it'd make someone want to
go out and buy it. I don't remember any of the original FE's ads being all
that bad, but the game itself was something that was very legitimately in
the M category, which makes the associated ads also something I'd want to
limit exposure to. But, again, just for venues that are explicitly for kids - EGM, say, should have every
right to run such an ad.
| It's not my problem any
longer |
| Yo Chris,
Maybe two or three years ago I may have complained about this issue in
a lengthy, manner, but not anymore. Since I'll be 18 in a little more than a
month, this doesn't apply to me.
However, even when I think about it now, maybe it's for the better.
When I see ten-year old kids quoting South Park (expletives and all), I feel
rather disturbed...I was never such a punk at that age. Yet 17 or 18 seems
too old. I think that mature games should be set at 15 and up, because
there's not much of a difference once you enter high school.
I bought Mortal Kombat on the Genesis when it first came out, but that
violence never made me want to hurt someone. That's not something that
rational people do. I'm just glad I'm not Joe Lieberman's kid, otherwise I
would've had to have waited until this year to play anything in the MK series
or the oh-so-smutty Parasite Eve.
--The Steve |
I was hoping somebody else would make mention of this, but the other
link of interest in yesterday's Penny Arcade was this
article on a study trying to link violent games to violent acts. And
as can be plainly seen, unless you grow up playing Doom from age 4 (and
maybe not even then) these games probably aren't gonna have much effect on
you. I think the way games are currently ranked is legit, but I also think
that this study suggests that maybe we need to revisit the issue - perhaps
it's time for that M to be dropped down to 14 or 15, as The Steve suggests.
| Sure, go ahead, rub it
in... |
| I think what they are doing about the marketing of
mature-rated videogames is great! I'm all for it!
I live in Japan, by the way. |
Were I the kind of person who gets obsessed with the minutia of the US's
relationships with other countries, I might suggest that this is all part
of some vast plot to leave our youth at a competitive disadvantage with
Japan when it comes to graphic video games... but then I remember that, at
least when it comes to violence, Japanese game regulations are far more
restrictive than here in the US, and I shut the hell up.
Closing Comments:
Didn't have a reader suggested topic yesterday because I really
wanted to discuss that document, but somebody sent in a good one, and
that's what we'll use for tomorrow. Monday's always a free topic day
anyway, just save your tangential rants until then. Catch you tomorrow.
-Chris Jones, gets so mad
about censorship of violence that he could just shoot someone
| Topic for Friday,
2/16/2001 |
| I admit it. I'm a gaming addict. So are most of the people who read this
column, I expect. If I'm not careful, I will lose track of or just ignore the
time and spend an entire day (on the weekend) or 3 to 4 hours in an evening
playing a game, suffering from the "just one more level/dungeon/fight"
syndrome. Add to this the fact that most games that I play are RPG's, and I
can easily lose 2-3 weekends going through it. Luckily, I have this spare time
right now, but I know that I won't forever. As has been said in this column
several times before, we are a minority of the game players and an even smaller
fraction of the rest of society.
And now to the question:
Sports games aside, how do you feel the amount of time to play through a game
affects the potential acceptance and embracing of gaming by current non-gamers?
Are games like Metal Gear Solid 2, with it's reported play time of 15 hours,
the direction things will move as the gaming industry tries to expand it's
audience by catoring to the less obsessive and more time-constrained people out
there? Majora's Mask, not a niche RPG, took me about 35 hours to complete and
I just don't see myself having the time for that 10 years down the road. Will
I be forced to play a few select games per year as I grow older and other parts
of life take precedence? Will games always be a hobby limited to the young and
those older people who still have large amounts of free time?
Chris Wright
- who actually expects that he'll just play games with the kids
"When I was a kid, I had to play games in 8-bit with only two buttons! In the
snow!" |
|
