I read something on Adrenaline Vault that I thought was very true. It said that people who make games like Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt should be responsible enough to make their games with the fact that UNDERAGE gamers WILL PLAY them. The excuses that they are made for adults only doesn't really cut it, when the hype machine and focus of these games is to create enough controversy and feeling of transgression (ie. doing things you shouldn't) that kids want to play them. And every positive review (10/10 !) makes kids want to play them more too. So should games be made in a more responsible way?

Quote:

Original post by Ketchaval So should games be made in a more responsible way?

No. People are responsible for raising their own children as competent, responsible human beings capable of distinguishing fiction from reality.

If they are unable to do this, they probably should not be parents in the first place, and stopping/toning violent games won't make the slightest bit of difference to the number of screwed up people in the world.

That's my opinion anyway.

This is said article
http://www.avault.com/articles/getarticle.asp?name=durocher1&page=1


Quote
The coding wizards who come up with the products themselves are the first tier of the issue. It’s from this group that we hear the tired excuse, “These aren’t meant for kids.” That doesn’t fly, and ties directly into the problem. Ultra-violent titles might not be designed with kids in mind, but there comes a point when a reality check is in order. Children are playing these games. Publishers and developers can bury their head in the sand for only so long, parroting the freedom of expression mantra. /Quote

Just another pathetic attempt to lay the blame where it doesn't belong.

Quote:

Original post by DrEvil Just another pathetic attempt to lay the blame where it doesn't belong.

What blame? The Rockstar are greedy, and want teens to buy their stuff. Was Manhunt really targeted at adults? To me the excessive gore seems more as though it was exploitatively aimed at teens (who are into horror movies etc).

The blame that the game industry is somehow responsible for screwed up kids.

ANY business is greedy. Rockstar created an incredibly successful game franchise that made them alot of money. With success comes sequels for more money.

It's common sense that kids are going to play these games whether they should or not, just like it's common sense that kids get their hands on porn, cigarettes, beer,... Does that mean the creators of the content should stop creating it? Of course not. Taking some responsibility for your kids is the bottom line.

What are you expecting the developers to do? You should expect nothing from them. They make what sells, and violence sells, just like sex sells. Tens of millions of people play these games, and an insignificant number of screwup kids do stupid shit and people like you still find a way to blame games, sometimes going so far as saying the games should be altogether banned. It's rediculous.

I think many designers do take responsibility for their games, but they do so in a way that considers the target audience. If you are designing a game for a mature or Adult only audience, then the consumer who purchases the title is informed what kind of content the game contains because of the ESRB rating on the box.

If underage players play them, then they got to them in most cases either without the knowledge of the adult that put it on the machine, or, went against the parent or responsible adult's denial of consent when asking the adult to grant access to the game content. This is similar in some ways to underage men obtaining access to pornographic periodicals without the ability to purchase them, a phenomenon that is proliferate and with lengthy legacy going back decades.

It's really the parent's or responsible adult's responsibility to restrict access, and this is part of the resposibility rights and priviledges bring. Plenty of orgs and corporations provide ample and suitably effective technology to prevent them from getting access to adult themed (whether sexual or violent) content should they take the responsibility to do so.

What makes you think that the excuse that they are made for adults doesn't cut it?

Take a look at some of these statistics published by the Entertainment Software Association:

· The average American video game player is 30 years old. The average game buyer is 36 years old.

· Parents are involved in the purchase or rental of games 83 percent of the time, according to a September 2000 FTC report, and industry research in the U.S. shows that 90 percent of games are actually purchased by adults over 18. In other words, in an overwhelming majority of instances, parents are ultimately making the decisions about what games their kids acquire.

· Ninety-two percent of parents report that they monitor the content of the games their children are playing.

· Game players under the age of 18 report that they get their parent’s permission 83 percent of the time before purchasing a computer or video game.

· Computer and video games are rated by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) whose system includes age recommendations and content descriptors. Even entertainment industry watchdogs such as Senator Joseph Lieberman and the National Institute on Media and the Family, call the ESRB system the best media rating system in existence. In short, if people object to games that contain violence, the information is available so they can avoid buying them for themselves and their families.

· Just as there is a wide spectrum of movies, music and books available to consumers, the video game industry provides a variety of entertainment choices for people of all ages. In 2004, only 16% of games sold were rated “Mature (M),” as compared to the 83% of games sold rated “Everyone (E)” or “Teen (T)” [53% rated “E” and 30% rated “T”].

Although I agree with your basic assertion, Ketcheval, that games should be made in a more responsible way, the definition of responsibility is well defined from the industry accountability point of view and practice, precisely with devices like the ratings system, which has withstood some of the harshest scrutiny, and, responsibility legally ends a long way from the developer, as we have seen with Rockstar games as a case in point. Game development is legally protected First Amendment activity, just as pornography and music is.

What influence, beyond innovation does the game developer really have? Not all of us are as big, or are as tapped into consumer demand as Rockstar Games, which made half a billion dollars over two GTA titles, and can push Wal-Mart to capitulation when it comes to putting it's titles on store shelves nationwide at Christmastime? It was actually a good thing that Rockstar did for the game development and game publishing industry when it made the world's largest retailer wake up and realize moralism doesn't always work in the marketplace; and it's role has strict limitations legally that are protected.

Publishers and consumer market demands primarily determine what kinds of games are made, and game developers need to make a living like anyone else. Is a game designer to look at a publisher across the table and say, "I'm not going to put sex and violence into an adult title", when the FPS is the only thing the publisher is interested in funding?

And with respect to innovation, should a designer have such a great idea for a new game genre or design approach that does not contain violence or sex, even in the best case scenario where the designer, as part of their market research, has made a credible argument he can, with this new kind of title that does not contain sex or violence, still ship a major amount of units? The publisher is under no legal or moral obligation to innovate, they are under a legal obligation to create shareholder value or profits for the bottom line, and bears no responsibility for social changes a title they may wish to publish can have. This is unfortunately the reality in our age of corporate governance abuse, but once again, we have a clear demonstration of what some may consider what is right, and what some know is legal.

Where I believe the loopholes exist are not necessarily in the development of the games, but in the marketing, publishing and distribution process of the games industry. It is up to the individual consumer, and their responsible accountability to the legal handling of games once bought, that is another part of the problem here. People will just use the, "oh, he/she's old enough" rationale, which has a long tradition in other forms such as pornography distribution and gun access long before games were ever built, and we all know the tragic consequences of such ignorance. Even if a game has a mature or adult rating, the publisher, distributor or studio may advertize in a game magazine that is widely subscribed to by young people not legally permitted to purchase the game, yet, they get exposure, and we all have seen the eye candy in game industry magazines. Few don't get the picture.

Also, with respect to making games in a more responsible way, that very assertion and practice, if not movement within the industry was the very focus of the Serious Games Summit at the Game Developer's Conference this year in San Fracisco, and organizations like seriousgames.org exist in the first place.

I have long held, and invite your feedback, Ketcheval, that sex and violence in videogames is in it's simplest form, art imitating life, even though we tend not to look directly at it in a civilized society, it is fact that sex and violence has been around a long time, is prevalent everywhere, not just in games, and until the source - the behavior of human beings themselves in violent ways - is addresssed, violent video games are just the whipping post du jour. There is long practice in business of giving people what they want, and video games are just another format for the same of desire to consume this kind of content that has always existed.

You have pointed out quite correctly excuses exist, but I wonder where in the chain of responsibility and accountability the excuses are made? I don't think it begins with the designer in all cases, because not all games contain sex and violence. In the end, it always rests with the consumer, and their responsiblity in consuming wisely and responsibly. In fact, corporations have taken a strong role in advocating that responsibility does rest with the consumer. Examples of this progressivism are: the tobacco industry creating quit smoking programs when 400,000 people a year die from cigarette related disease, alcoholic beverage manufacturers advertising drinking responsibily and designated driver programs when drinking related fatality auto accidents are in the thousands or more.

The game ratings system, the fair warning publishers, distributors and retailers all particpate in proactively, will eventually get through to consumers, who are, hopefully, sobering up to the reality that the accountability for the responsible way is theirs. This will be the toughest road to hoe of them all.

IMO,

Adventuredesign

I think that all you should do is, care about your target audience. Don't put violence in games for pre-teen kids. If the game is for adults, you may do all you want but illegal things so you don't go to jail XD

You sayd, a reality check is in order, kids shouldn't be playing these games. I don't think that you should shield children from everything, since when they get their chances, all that time that you kept'em away from the things you tought harmful for them, they will take it an enjoy it even more. It's like when you get out of school and go to a college dorm, no more parents, you do all you couldn't do before.

However what I sayd is no excuse for giving a game like Manhunt to a 12yr old kid. Instead, I think that games for adults should only be sold to adults. If an adult gave that game to a kid, then it's that adult's fault it got there, it wasn't supposed to.

If you are against violence and sex after a certain degree of them in videogames for adults, you should also complain about that in movies, pictures, photos, news, books, TV, etc. If the problem is not the existance of these things but that they reach the kids, then it should be fixed by not giving them to kids, instead of eradicating'em.

Quote:

Original post by Ketchaval So should games be made in a more responsible way?

Yes. Designers are a bit too quick to say "we should be allowed to do whatever we like, and it's the parents' fault if the kid becomes a psycho". In the real world, no parent is capable of supervising a child 24/7/365.25. Kids visit their friends' houses, they go to school, they go out, etc etc. They mix with others and learn behavioural patterns that parents can't simply prevent or eliminate. Therefore it's important that society in general takes responsibility for what it teaches these kids. That's not the same as saying "ban everything that isn't suitable for children", but there needs to be less of the 'not my problem' attitude and more recognition of how the human mind actually works.

In the real world everyone is responsible for their actions ... and everyone's actions have consequences which they didn't intend.

But are you advocating that we all voluntarily give up our rights to live our lives how we want, creating and using the products we want to, when large numbers of people also want to do the same, because some set of people will be hurt by those product or do not want to use them?

Should people not be able to buy sexy clothes, because it might encourage underage promiscuity? Should beatifying very skinny people not be allowed because they might encourage eating disorders (what about those skinny people and the people who love them?) What about overly fat people, should they also not be presented to the populous in attractive ways (a way that accepts that this is normal) because it might encourage people to eat in unhealthy ways? Who decides what weight and body and lifestyle is ideal? Who decides what can and can't be glorified? If someone believes in legalizing marajana or prostitution and they go out of their way to create material which advocates these activities, in what way is that different than any other moral evangalism (trying to make others accept what you think they should accept and avoid what you think should be avoided).

As a living breathing human being I think I have the right to create anything and everything in my power to live as I see fit ... until a conflict between my rights and yours exist ... in which case I believe it is a very delicate tightrope we must walk to preserve freedom and yet still allow people's own lives to not be overly affected by the desires and lives of others. Now exactly how much affect is too much is a moving target.

Should I be able to make you not talk in public because it disturbs me reading? And yet I can make laws prohibiting very loud music for exactly the same reason ... its all about the degree and unavoidability of the impact your actions will have.

Since there exist ways to prohibit people from gaining access to things (or so we must think or else why is there a war on drugs for just such a reason) - then it is not the creators fault when the system is less than perfect. It is the fault of the system iteself, and / or those who knowingly or accidentaly breach it.