« Trent Lott Kills Accountability | Main | McKinney Hits Cop »
March 29, 2006
Gaming Stuff
Here is a decent article on the violence in video games from National Review Online today by Adam Thierer:
In particular, clips from games like Grand Theft Auto and 25 to Life are often shown on TV or during press conferences when critics are advocating government regulation of the video-game industry. In fact, it wouldn't be at all surprising if those two games are mentioned during Wednesday's hearing on the regulation of violent video games in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.
But those games are the exception to the rule. The vast majority of video games sold each year do not contain intense violence or sexual themes. The Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB), the video-game industry's self-regulatory labeling body, places ratings and numerous content descriptors on almost every game sold in America today. These ratings and descriptors are remarkably detailed and displayed prominently on all game cartons, making them easy for parents to evaluate.
Of all the games that ESRB reviewed in 2005, less than 13 percent were rated 'Mature' (M) or 'Adults Only' (AO), the categories that contain the sort of violence critics are concerned about. In fact, less than 1 percent were rated Adults Only. Thus, around 86 percent of all games sold in 2004 were rated either 'Early Childhood' (EC), 'Everyone' (E), 'Everyone 10 and older' (E10+), or 'Teen' (T). Moreover, the Progress & Freedom Foundation recently compiled the ratings for all of the top-20 video and computer games between 2001-2005 and found that over 80 percent of the most popular games were rated either 'E' or 'T.' If one removes from the count the various 'Grand Theft Auto' and 'Halo' titles (there have been multiple best-selling versions of each game), the percentage of 'M' rated games drops even further.
I just checked my collection and own no games with an AO or M rating. The real issue with games is not the violence (which I doubt is that bad most of the time), but rather are they good for you. Do they make you smarter? The GTA series may be morally bad, but it has very complex maps. I played the first one for the PS2 for a while and while it was fun, the world is huge and I was constantly getting lost. HALO is not that intellectually challenging and while fun at times, got boring for me fairly quickly. Also see this article in Slate about the Game Design Challenge:
The challenge is the brainchild of Eric Zimmerman, the CEO of gameLab and the author of several scholarly books on video games. Each year, Zimmerman asks three pre-eminent designers to build a game around some ridiculously ambitious theme. This year, he tasked them with dreaming up something that could win the Nobel Peace Prize. Zimmerman takes games very seriously, and his contest encourages his colleagues to do so as well. But the loftiness of this challenge is also a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the burgeoning field of didactic interactive software for schools, government, and the military. These new titles are known collectively as "serious games," a sobriquet that reveals a lot about what game developers think of themselves. They're quick to defend their medium against the opportunists, windbags, and senators who dismiss games as "murder simulators." They also feel a bit guilty that their product, unlike movies or books or music, is only expected to deliver mindless fun.
Japanese game designer Keita Takahashi was one of the competetors. Although Katamari Damachi is one of the most creative games ever, his ideas for the competition are rather lame.
Posted by Pete at March 29, 2006 09:20 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.petetheelder.com/mt-tb.cgi/771