Post by: Glassjaw on May 16, 2007, 05:17:38 PM
It's Only a Wii Bit of Violence.
"Replace a gun with a hammer or a sword, and the actions the player must use to control the onscreen action are even more tangibly violent in nature. Suddenly, the Wii's propensity to make players more animated takes on a much more sinister connotation."
"Of course, it would be foolish to deem this emergent play dynamic universally bad. If a stable, well-rounded individual wants to step into the shoes of a gangster and pummel a virtual shop keeper by waving his fists around, surely he should be entitled to do so. The problem comes in rating this sort of content; will ratings boards such as PEGI, the ESRB and the BBFC soon have to factor the physical actions players perform into the classification process for Wii games?"
"More importantly, should graphically violent games with conventional control schemes be rated more leniently than games that are less graphically violent but offer a more tangible connection to the violence via the control method?"
"Games are the media's favorite witch, and the game industry needs to be absolutely above reproach, if it is to have any hope of rebuffing the spurious claims of the fanatical and vocal few. The Wii has enjoyed positive press so far, owing in large part to the undeniable personality and playfulness embodied by its unique interface. But the mainstream media is a fickle animal, and it will only take one game to instigate a backlash with lasting repercussions throughout the industry. The ratings bodies will have to move quickly, otherwise pundits will soon be bleating about how teens are learning how to beat up and shoot their schoolmates with their Wii. And the last thing they need is more ammunition."
Credit to:
Fraser MacInnes
My Take:
-Like the rest of you I believe games don't cause violence but he makes some good points. Sure the press loves the Wii right now but all it takes is one game to change that. The press loves building up people and then tearing them down. I think Manhunt will be the first game to potentially bring the bad press to the Wii. If the game requires people to perform stabbing motions I could see the press hailing the Wii as a murder simulator. Its one thing to press a button to stab some one but its another when you have to physically stab downward and twist the controller to cause "MASSIVE DAMAGE." Jack Johnson isn't going to be pushing his agenda by using the ps2 version he's going to go after the Wii version.
As for what’s more violent, realistic graphics or violent physical motions. I'm going to with the later. Movies have been pushing violence to realistic boundaries forever. Actually performing these motions connects the player to the act closer then any visual connection. Would you be more disturbed if you caught your younger sister or brother chainsawing someone in Gears of War or physically stabbing a character in Manhunt? They shouldn’t be playing either one but you know the press is going to eat Nintendo alive if it comes down to it.
My website: www.seanschleifer.com
Post by: Kairon on May 16, 2007, 05:49:00 PM
Some fanbois might welcome to shocking image change for Nintendo, eager to throw off the perception of "kiddy-ness."
As for me... I personally think stores should more strictly enforce the ESRB ratings!
Post by: that Baby guy on May 16, 2007, 06:40:44 PM
Post by: Smoke39 on May 16, 2007, 07:03:42 PM
I d'know if it'll be turned into a big controversy, but as long as the Wii remains popular I don't think many people will really care. I mean, GTA has to trouble selling in spite of how much it's vilified.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 16, 2007, 08:48:47 PM
The other day it attacked the neighbor's cat.
Just because.
Post by: ShyGuy on May 16, 2007, 08:56:56 PM
OTS, Strangling in the Godfather is a little scary in its realism.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 17, 2007, 06:05:47 AM
I think it makes sense to be a little more strict with the ratings if the player has to act out violent acts. Though I think it depends on the context. Punching someone in a boxing game is no big deal. Punching a clear "bad guy" that is threatening you when you're a clear "good guy" isn't too bad either and in that case I would base the rating entirely on how graphic the violence itself is depicted (ie: blood or not). Punching an innocent person is when things start getting scary and I think at that point an 'M' rating is a given. Something like Manhunt I would consider "AO". The violence in that game is intentionally gruesome to add to the theme of the film. Thus one could argue that the fun is not just based on killing people but HOW you kill them. That's getting pretty sick and a game like that should never be in the reach of children.
Violence should always be judged by intent. Although some people disagree, violence to defend oneself or others from someone else isn't a bad thing provided excessive force isn't used so if that is what is portrayed in a game it shouldn't be an instant 'M' rating. The only problem is some games allow the player a fair bit of control and they can choose to make their violence excessive (ie: shooting a dead body or killing in a game where non-lethal force is an option).
In Godfather you're a criminal so I would say that should be an instant 'M' rating even if the game had no blood.
Post by: Rhoq on May 17, 2007, 06:30:41 AM
Post by: Smoke39 on May 17, 2007, 06:41:37 AM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 17, 2007, 06:59:42 AM
This statement right here "The Wii doesn't make a game any more violent just because of it's controller." is where your whole argument is flawed. For me to move a joystick and then press a button to strangle someone is a whole lot different than me actually simulating the motions with the wiimote to get the same result. That by default makes the game more violent.
The minute you actually start acting out these acts of violence, even in a simulated way, makes the game more realistic and therefore more violent. The ratings on Wii games should be more heavily enforced, by the parents of the children and the store clerks thats are selling the games to them. I don't think the games should be rated any different than the same versions on other systems, as they have the same content, but ID's should definately be checked and rating should be enforced.
Post by: Pale on May 17, 2007, 07:13:51 AM
Violence in video games will be an issue until something else comes along to influence people. The fact is that the ESRB does do an exceptionally good job of rating the games most of the time, and parents and stores need to step up to the plate and pay attention to them. It shouldn't be the job of the government to raise every single kid in this world.
Firstly, kids should not be able to buy M and AO rated games by themselves.
Secondly, parents should be allowed to decide that it is ok for their kids to play these games, but in exchange they should be accountable when the rare occasion occurs where some insane kid recreates a situation in the game.
If a 14 year old rapes another 14 year old, and then we discover that parents have been showing that kid violent pornos since he was ten, shouldn't those parents be held accountable? You bet.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 17, 2007, 07:32:38 AM
I think if I'm actually acting out the violent act I'm doing it all becomes more realistic so the content of the game becomes less suitable for children. We kind of already acknowledge that the active participation of playing a game changes how suitable a game is. There are 'M' rated games out there that in terms of what they show would get PG-13 ratings as films but because we have some control over the actions of the game they are rated much stricter. It's practically if you have blood in a game you get an 'M' rating. Maybe that's not quite fair but that's the way the ratings work now so Wii games should follow the same pattern to be consistent. If active participation already results in a stricter rating then what one is required to act out for a game should affect the rating as well.
I am strictly against censorship. I love the rating system because it's a tool to fight censorship. In theory it puts control in the consumer. We can play whatever game we want and have a nice little indicator to allow us to avoid anything we personally don't feel comfortable with or want our children to play. It's when people are able to "stumble" into content they don't want to see that censorship gets brought up. "Stumbing" is when one watches the Superbowl on network TV and assumes everything is family friendly because there is no indication that it isn't and then suddenly Janet Jackson's boob pops out. Put that same content in an R-rated movie and no one cares.
Post by: Smash_Brother on May 17, 2007, 07:57:04 AM
Anyone here actually know what the ESRB does to rate games? The game company sends the ESRB a copy of the game along with the anticipated rating and a VIDEO of the content of the game.
In other words, no one at the ESRB will likely know that Manhunt 2 involves using the Wiimote as a knife to twist someone's guts out when they give it the M rating. Ergo, yes, I believe that the Wii definitely makes violence more real by involving the player a great deal more in the actual act instead of letting it happen with the press of a button.
I still think it's only a matter of time before we get a lawsuit against Nintendo because some kid stabbed someone with a knife after allegedly learning to use it via a Wii game.
However, there's no such thing as bad publicity. If the Wii gets labeled as the most violent console, it'll only help to sell more of them.
Post by: Rhoq on May 17, 2007, 09:00:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
I think Ian is right on this one "Violence should always be judged by intent".
This statement right here "The Wii doesn't make a game any more violent just because of it's controller." is where your whole argument is flawed. For me to move a joystick and then press a button to strangle someone is a whole lot different than me actually simulating the motions with the wiimote to get the same result. That by default makes the game more violent.
The minute you actually start acting out these acts of violence, even in a simulated way, makes the game more realistic and therefore more violent. The ratings on Wii games should be more heavily enforced, by the parents of the children and the store clerks thats are selling the games to them. I don't think the games should be rated any different than the same versions on other systems, as they have the same content, but ID's should definately be checked and rating should be enforced.
I see your point, but still, I disagree. Video games are fantasy to begin with. The Wii controls might help to make that fantasy more satisfactory by acting out real-world gestures, but at the end of the day it's not going to make you any more violent than you were prior to playing. Unless you are incapable of separating fantasy from reality, this shouldn't be a factor when it comes down to rating the game. Ratings should be based on content alone. Though, I could definitely see the Wii generating even more of a buzz if the other versions of Manhunt 2 (PS2/PSP) received an "M" rating and the Wii version was "AO" due it's controls. Then again just typing that made me realize how ridiculous this whole argument/proposal of a more rigid ratings system really is.
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
Rhoq, an AO rating is not censorship, it's rating a title.
Violence in video games will be an issue until something else comes along to influence people. The fact is that the ESRB does do an exceptionally good job of rating the games most of the time, and parents and stores need to step up to the plate and pay attention to them. It shouldn't be the job of the government to raise every single kid in this world.
An "AO" rating by the ESRB is the equivalent of an NC-17 or X rating by the MPAA in the US. These ratings are too taboo for most mainstream retail outlets and they usually refuse to stock content with these ratings, so yes these ratings are a form of censorship. Unless the game features graphic sexual content, rape or having to kill someone in a manner which involves hacking up the body parts, then I see no need for anything stronger than an "M" rating.
I'm also 31 years old and couldn't care less about kids playing a game that isn't intended for them. It's their parents' problem and quite frankly, if they want to play it bad enough I'm sure sure there will always be a "friend" who has it and they will be exposed to it anyways.
Post by: Pale on May 17, 2007, 09:06:58 AM
Post by: Rhoq on May 17, 2007, 09:20:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
Rhoq, to me that sounds like an issue you should take up with the retailers, not one with the people giving the ratings... but that's just me.
It looks like I'm in the minority here, but that's OK. I'm surprised actually. A lot of us had been bitching about the lack of mature games on the GameCube. We all wanted to see that change with the Wii. Now that we know the games are coming, everyone stops and says "Oh no! These game are too mature with the Wii controller! Let's slap an AO rating on the games and keep everyone from getting to play it!". When that happens, the game publishers will blame the piss-poor sales on Nintendo and say that there is no interest in mature content from Wii owners because it's "AO" rating meant that 90% of the major B&M retailers refused to stock it, so no one could purchase it without having to jump through hoops to find a store that carries these games.
Like typical Nintendo fans, we're never satisfied!
Post by: Kairon on May 17, 2007, 09:24:20 AM
Post by: Kairon on May 17, 2007, 09:29:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RhoqQuote
Originally posted by: Pale
Rhoq, to me that sounds like an issue you should take up with the retailers, not one with the people giving the ratings... but that's just me.
It looks like I'm in the minority here, but that's OK. I'm surprised actually. A lot of us had been bitching about the lack of mature games on the GameCube. We all wanted to see that change with the Wii. Now that we know the games are coming, everyone stops and says "Oh no! These game are too mature with the Wii controller! Let's slap an AO rating on the games and keep everyone from getting to play it!". When that happens, the game publishers will blame the piss-poor sales on Nintendo and say that there is no interest in mature content from Wii owners because it's "AO" rating meant that 90% of the major B&M retailers refused to stock it, so no one could purchase it without having to jump through hoops to find a store that carries these games.
Like typical Nintendo fans, we're never satisfied!
A little bit of hyperbole there, eh Rhoq? LOL. But I get your point anyways. Like I said, if the same sort of controversy that cemented GTA and the PS2 into the publics minds and wallets occurs, then Nintendo sales should actually increase!
Post by: Smoke39 on May 17, 2007, 09:40:09 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 17, 2007, 09:42:42 AM
Post by: Pale on May 17, 2007, 09:45:50 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
If Wal Mart refuses to put your product on the shelves of America, that isn't censorship... but it basically amounts to the same thing in certain situations doesn't it Pale? Like, for example, Germany... it is possible to stigmatize a product so much that it effectively amounts to censorship, even though the ESRB doesn't do anything even close to that level.
The end result is that it isn't carried by as many retailers and becomes harder to find. Everyone's morals are different. I think the ESRB does a pretty damn good job at staying consistant with their ratings. If Wal-mart wants to say that there morals are such that they don't even want to carry AO games and that pisses you off, it sounds to me like the problem is Wal-mart, not the ESRB. That's all I'm saying.
In the context of this discussion, I would be surprised if the ESRB would ever rate an identical game on one platform AO instead of the M it received on every other platform just because the controller is supposedly more immersive. They rate the content, not how it feels to play the game.
Post by: Rhoq on May 17, 2007, 09:53:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
If Wal-mart wants to say that there morals are such that they don't even want to carry AO games and that pisses you off, it sounds to me like the problem is Wal-mart, not the ESRB. That's all I'm saying.
Understood and I agree. Unfortunately though, this problem is much more widespread than just Wally World. Most retail chains in the US won't stock an "AO"-rated game.
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
In the context of this discussion, I would be surprised if the ESRB would ever rate an identical game on one platform AO instead of the M it received on every other platform just because the controller is supposedly more immersive. They rate the content, not how it feels to play the game.
Which is exactly how the ratings process should be handled.
Post by: Kairon on May 17, 2007, 09:55:51 AM
Post by: Ceric on May 17, 2007, 10:50:05 AM
Post by: Glassjaw on May 17, 2007, 10:51:46 AM
Post by: that Baby guy on May 17, 2007, 10:53:45 AM
Anyways, people need to realize, which most do not, is that the ESRB ratings are very comparable to movie ratings. Giving something an "AO" rating would indeed be censoring it by pressure, and that rating is reserved for very extreme things. In fact, I believe BMX XXX received only an "M," right?
The issue won't be the ratings, it'll be popular reception of the game, which, I think won't be too bad, considering no one is upset about boxing being rated "E," even though it could be used to train kids to beat each other up. Seriously, you practice beating up caricatures of people you know. It doesn't get too much more realistic than that, and no one cared.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 17, 2007, 12:24:34 PM
I honestly don't care about the content itself. I just want the videogame industry to do a good job of covering their ass so that the government doesn't step in and ruin videogaming for everyone. 'AO' is very rare rating and I disagree with GTA: San Andreas getting it because the objectionable content was only available by hacking the game and was pretty tame or at least nothing that was beyond an 'M' rating. I only suggest Manhunt as a potential 'AO' rating because with the gruesome content and motion controls it could come across as the closest thing to a "murder simulator" we could get. If the anti-gaming movement went insane over Hot Coffee, which really was a pretty minor thing to cause a moral panic, think how they'll react if the snuff movie game with realistic motion control comes out with the possibility of stores selling it to minors?
Rockstar's whole thing is making controversial games that usually glorify illegal activity. It seems to be a successful strategy for them but it brings all this sh!t on the industry as a whole. Legitimate game artists should be able to use the current freedom to create mature content but someone like Rockstar abuses that freedom and thus jeopardizes things for everyone else if they piss off enough people with government connections. So taking one of their more exploitive games and giving it an 'AO' rating may be what's best for the industry as a whole. Rockstar can still make their game and anyone over 18 can still buy it (and let's face it even if the game isn't at Wal-Mart several minors will likely be able to get ahold of it anyway. After all it would still be available online.) Meanwhile though Jack Thompson loses some of his ammunition.
Manhunt is a rare game anyway. Few games have content that shocking so it's not like I'm suggesting that tons of future 'M' games should be given 'AO' ratings instead.
The "explicit lyrics" sticker in the music industry can limit what stores an album appears in but the alternative was outright censorship. Yeah if I make a record that says "f*ck" all throughout it I am limited in what stores will carry it which in a way is a form of censorship. But at least I can still make the record I want to.
Post by: Smoke39 on May 17, 2007, 02:20:51 PM
People only care about violent games when some nut goes on a killing spree, in which case they vilify whatever games happened to be in the nut's possession for a little while then get distracted by other meaningless news and forget about it.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 17, 2007, 07:42:27 PM
Movies can show all kinds of violence down to the goriest of details as long as it not rape (cause thats sexual), but anything involving sex is what gets censored the most.
Show penetration..... AO
close up of genitals that everyone has one or the other of..... AO
Decapitate a human with a rusty spoon..... R
Puree someone in a giant blender and drink the results..... R
I believe that as long as the game gets an M rating on PS2, it'll get the same rating on the Wii.
But it should also have the rating restictions more heavily enforced (for the Wii version) at the point of sale and store clerks should definately inform parents of what they are purchasing for their kids beforehand.
There are way too many kids growing up nowadays that are just too desensitized to violence, and acting out some of these motion with the wiimote may trigger some real-life curiosities that may have never been triggered otherwise. I just think its good for everyone to cover their own asses like Ian said.
Post by: Kairon on May 17, 2007, 07:55:47 PM
*remembers whistfully dragging my Mom with me when I bought Conker's Bad Fur Day for the N64, and the cashier glancing at her cautiously as he took my money*
