Boxed Up Briefs

Why does everyone jump to the conclusion that performing an action in a game has a different impact on a player than seeing an action on screen (such as in a movie)? You are guilty here of the same presumption that I see Jack Thompson making on a regular basis.

It seems like one of those false-logical statements that seems like it should make sense, so everyone spouts it off as fact. Does shooting someone in a game REALLY have a different effect than watching someone get shot in-game (or in a movie)? I don't think this has been demonstrated, yet everyone critical of games assumes this to be the case. Assuming that actions in a game translate in a different way than TV or movies is a really statement with far-reaching implications and people shouldn't be so quick to make this assumption without really thinking about it.

Think back on the movies that you have watched, the violent games you have played, and the violent cutscenes you have witnessed. Which ones stand out?

Chris, I've got to say I disagree with you in regards to the Manhunt 2 rating by the ESRB. Can you read http://wii.ign.com/articles/792/792012p1.html and really say that it doesn't deserve to be rated AO?

The real problem here is the lack of a workable adult rating in the US. There is no legitimate reason that stores shouldn't be allowed to sell items meant only for adults and companies shouldn't be able to create and market those items, but certain groups see it fit to try and prevent such items from being sold or marketed in anything mainstream. Both the movie and game industry have the same problem, and everybody is worse off for it. Is it really better for children that games and movies to aim for the absolute limit of the more permissive R and M ratings when doing so will only make it easier for kids to get a hold on those games?

Now I'm truly playing devil's advocate here, but might it be a good idea to have a game like this restricted to an Adults Only title? I was surprised when I googled video game violence and this article from the APA came up, describing some of the links between aggressive behavior and video games.

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

I played many a violent video game from quake 1 and quake 2 onward, but I do think is a line drawn with a horror-like video game versus a pseudorealistic shooting game. Its the same difference in violence that I see in between the Reservior Dogs "stuck in the middle with you" torture scene and a shoot-em-up movie like True Lies - one is viciously and gleefully violent (with artistic merit I believe) but the other generally doesn't focus on the violence nearly as much and it is more in line with the storyline.

Thoughts? Comments? I know I might not make the front page with the article, but at least I'd like to start a discussion... I'm not for self censorship or over-restriction of all violent video games, but putting the player in the middle of a horror movie as the protagonist doesn't sound like a good idea for the psychological health of a child...

I hate having to click "Read More" for boxed up briefs. Why can't we just have the whole news item? At least when you click "Read More" let it open up like expanding the comments instead of going to a new page.

This kind of criticism seems rather misplaced, considering that, even as a member of the gaming press, you most likely do not have all of the details regarding the content of Manhunt 2. For all you know, it has a hidden mini-game somewhere in it where you kill naked prostitutes with chainsaws while having sex with them. The ESRB is perfectly within reason to give the AO rating to a game which meets the necessary criteria for that rating.

The real issue here is the line where a game becomes AO. I think it is currently in a pretty reasonable place. The reason this is different for games, than, say, movies, is obviously the factor of interaction. Having a 17-year-old watch someone beg for their life and be shot, versus watching someone beg for their life and then shoot that person themselves, obviously does have very different psychological implications when speaking in broader terms. We may still be struggling to define a reasonable place to draw these limits when considering that factor, as well as other factors that come along with the medium, but that is something which is ever-changing in all forms of media simply due to an ever-changing society. As for the 17 to 18 age factor, it's the same for any ratings system. That one year is usually not going to make any difference, but it's all entirely subjective, and a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Does this article say "No Comments" for anyone else? Though I can see many comments.

I'm just going to say it, Saga looks like a huge steaming coiler on the front lawn of life.

I didn't realise C&C for the consoles is actually out, how is it?

Hope to see more mini-editorials Remo.

Also, is it possible to start getting Shackreviews for XBL Arcade titles similar to the ones for Wii VC reviews?

I disagree with your evaluation of the Manhunt 2 scenario, Remo.

Now I'm not here to take the side of Jack Thompson, obviously, but it is conceivable that:

-A mass-market game has finally been made that's violent and depraved enough to really merit the rating, like what Showgirls (as a mass-market movie, not porn) did to titties.
-Rockstar, of all possible game publishers, actually jumped the shark in making a game that's sure to garner negative publicity.

Put those two together and what's happened today becomes a pretty plausible scenario.

The first two HALO games had a four-tiered difficulty system, and my money says that HALO 3 also has a four-tiered difficulty system. BUNGiE simply doesn't give achievements for "Easy".