As if to prove my point about the mature "themes" in COD being a contributing factor to it's "M" rating, this article was published in The Boston Herald this morning.
Nina Huntemann, the article's feature, is a professor at my alum, Suffolk University (well, it's where I attended law school). Not only does she bring up the point that there are potentially harmful attitudes and themes in COD 2 (such as Americans being on the "right" side of the fight, and reinforcing war as an effective way to solve global conflict), but also that, when choosing a game for their children, the ESRB rating is a "good place to start." She goes on to say: '“Parents should learn what these games are about by reading reviews beforehand and then asking to see games demonstrated on store kiosks,” Huntemann added. If they do buy a game, she said, parents should be prepared to learn how to play it, even if in a rudimentary way.'
I won't elaborate any more because I do like readers to give traffic to the source site, but I would highly encourage you to read both the article and her work "Joystick Soldiers." I'm going to see if I can track down an email address for Ms. Huntemann and find out more about her work.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Re: Dante's Inferno Proves Corrupt ESRB
I am writing this blog in response to this article, which was posted on PS3center.net on 12/19. I would highly encourage you to read that article first, and for your own opinions and conclusions about the ESRB. I had a few thoughts on both the article and the ESRB that I would like to address.
First of all, Dustin (the author of the article), you do make a good point - complaints, potential lawsuits and all kinds of other PC shit (and I mean "politically correct, not PC game/games. Please don't strangle me with your LAN cords. Yes, I stole that from The Guild) muddle the standards by which games are judged. Nowadays, it seems that you have to be between the ages of 2 and 4 to enjoy an "E" rated game, when even a few years ago there were plenty of "E"-rated games that were "fun for the whole family," if you will. For example, look at one of my favorite SIM-type games of all time: Viva Piñata. It was rated "E," but the majority of gameplay was spent trying to get the animals to do the nasty and make tiny piñata babies. Granted, it all revolved around a mini-game where you collected hearts, but anyone over 4 would understand what the unicorns were doing when they went into their magical tent.
My point? It's all about perception. In ratings, it matters how you present sex and violence. And on top of that, the ESRB appears to "prioritize" sex and violence; i.e., I would argue sex and nudity are more likely to get you and "M" or the dreaded "AO" than violence alone. I mean, it's kind of tough to play ANY adventure, platformer or RPG without killing everything in sight. What matters is whether they just disappear when you kill them (ala Final Fantasy), or end up in a bloody messy at your feet with your character covered in blood (ala Dragon Age... which I love, btw. I want to WEAR my victories!! MUHAHAHAHAH!). In contrast, because six isn't considered "necessary" to most video game story lines or gameplay, I (personally) believe if it judged more harshly.
To that same end, any "combination" of language, sex & violence can get you an "M" rating. Dustin pointed out that while he may let his younger brother play COD, he probably wouldn't let him near Dante's Inferno. COD has plenty of violence, but there are other more "practical" adult themes at play her - namely, war. In COD, you theoretically are killing your fellow man; another human being who feels differently than you do. That theme is arguably much more controversial than killing demons from hell. In contrast, the sheer VOLUME of violence and sex in Dante's Inferno won it it's "M" rating. I think people operate under the false assumption that all "M" games are created equal, and that is simply not the case. You can't just say, across the board, all "M" games are fine for my kid (or younger brother). There are a myraid of factors that got that game there, and there's not substitute to doing a little research.
Is it a pain in the ass? Yes. But it works the same way with movies and parental advisory stickers - there's a committee, somewhere, that (for better or worse) is trying to tell you something. They can't write a novel on the back of the game giving a play by play of each bit of questionable content. But I believe that, at the end of the day, the ESRB is a "warning" system, not a babysitter. If someone has personal morals that forbid their kids from exposure to certain kinds of adult content, it's up to that person to find out which games are offensive in that manner. And I think that overall, the ESRB does that better than any other entertainment rating system out there.
Please don't get me wrong; I'm not bagging on Dustin or holding up my flag for the ESRB. I'm simply pointing out that all "M"s are not created equal, and it's dangerous to operate under that assumption.
For more information on the ESRB and it's rating system, please visit esrb.org.
First of all, Dustin (the author of the article), you do make a good point - complaints, potential lawsuits and all kinds of other PC shit (and I mean "politically correct, not PC game/games. Please don't strangle me with your LAN cords. Yes, I stole that from The Guild) muddle the standards by which games are judged. Nowadays, it seems that you have to be between the ages of 2 and 4 to enjoy an "E" rated game, when even a few years ago there were plenty of "E"-rated games that were "fun for the whole family," if you will. For example, look at one of my favorite SIM-type games of all time: Viva Piñata. It was rated "E," but the majority of gameplay was spent trying to get the animals to do the nasty and make tiny piñata babies. Granted, it all revolved around a mini-game where you collected hearts, but anyone over 4 would understand what the unicorns were doing when they went into their magical tent.
My point? It's all about perception. In ratings, it matters how you present sex and violence. And on top of that, the ESRB appears to "prioritize" sex and violence; i.e., I would argue sex and nudity are more likely to get you and "M" or the dreaded "AO" than violence alone. I mean, it's kind of tough to play ANY adventure, platformer or RPG without killing everything in sight. What matters is whether they just disappear when you kill them (ala Final Fantasy), or end up in a bloody messy at your feet with your character covered in blood (ala Dragon Age... which I love, btw. I want to WEAR my victories!! MUHAHAHAHAH!). In contrast, because six isn't considered "necessary" to most video game story lines or gameplay, I (personally) believe if it judged more harshly.
To that same end, any "combination" of language, sex & violence can get you an "M" rating. Dustin pointed out that while he may let his younger brother play COD, he probably wouldn't let him near Dante's Inferno. COD has plenty of violence, but there are other more "practical" adult themes at play her - namely, war. In COD, you theoretically are killing your fellow man; another human being who feels differently than you do. That theme is arguably much more controversial than killing demons from hell. In contrast, the sheer VOLUME of violence and sex in Dante's Inferno won it it's "M" rating. I think people operate under the false assumption that all "M" games are created equal, and that is simply not the case. You can't just say, across the board, all "M" games are fine for my kid (or younger brother). There are a myraid of factors that got that game there, and there's not substitute to doing a little research.
Is it a pain in the ass? Yes. But it works the same way with movies and parental advisory stickers - there's a committee, somewhere, that (for better or worse) is trying to tell you something. They can't write a novel on the back of the game giving a play by play of each bit of questionable content. But I believe that, at the end of the day, the ESRB is a "warning" system, not a babysitter. If someone has personal morals that forbid their kids from exposure to certain kinds of adult content, it's up to that person to find out which games are offensive in that manner. And I think that overall, the ESRB does that better than any other entertainment rating system out there.
Please don't get me wrong; I'm not bagging on Dustin or holding up my flag for the ESRB. I'm simply pointing out that all "M"s are not created equal, and it's dangerous to operate under that assumption.
For more information on the ESRB and it's rating system, please visit esrb.org.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Buy Your Tix Now! Vid Game Exhibit in Smithsonian in... Wait... 2012?
In what can politely be called an "early announcement," the Smithsonian American Art Museum recently published an announcement that it will host a 6-month exhibit on the evolution of video games, beginning in March 2012.
First of all, this is sure to be a completely bad-ass exhibit. I honestly wish I had kids just so I could take them and show them just how far video games have come since "War Games." (Do you remember that? Ah, nerd memories...) Alas, it will likely be just me and my fiancé nerding out with all the other adults that proudly wear their gamertags on their sleeves. But no matter.
The exhibit is sure to have its high and low points. For example, not only will the exhibit take a comprehensive look at every console system (big positive there and yes, I'm bias to consoles), but there will even be a demonstration room where visitors can play games.
Wait, a demo room? Cool in concept? Yes. Execution? Hmm... I'm afraid that the Smithsonian Directors may underestimate the power of a gamer, especially under the influence of an energy drink or one too many cups of coffee. And I know I would fuel up before taking on that exhibit. In mean, the line to play Wii at Best Buy is annoying enough... can you imagine the hoarding when there's thousands of game enthusiasts in one place, scrambling to get their moments of reminiscence with an Atari system? I shudder to think. You know people that live in the DC area will visit that exhibit multiple times just to hang out in the that room. And the adults are sure to be worse than the kids (aren't they always?)
Either way, I know I'll be heading down to DC sometime during 2012. In other news, I've recently discovered The Guild. How the hell did I miss this??
First of all, this is sure to be a completely bad-ass exhibit. I honestly wish I had kids just so I could take them and show them just how far video games have come since "War Games." (Do you remember that? Ah, nerd memories...) Alas, it will likely be just me and my fiancé nerding out with all the other adults that proudly wear their gamertags on their sleeves. But no matter.
The exhibit is sure to have its high and low points. For example, not only will the exhibit take a comprehensive look at every console system (big positive there and yes, I'm bias to consoles), but there will even be a demonstration room where visitors can play games.
Wait, a demo room? Cool in concept? Yes. Execution? Hmm... I'm afraid that the Smithsonian Directors may underestimate the power of a gamer, especially under the influence of an energy drink or one too many cups of coffee. And I know I would fuel up before taking on that exhibit. In mean, the line to play Wii at Best Buy is annoying enough... can you imagine the hoarding when there's thousands of game enthusiasts in one place, scrambling to get their moments of reminiscence with an Atari system? I shudder to think. You know people that live in the DC area will visit that exhibit multiple times just to hang out in the that room. And the adults are sure to be worse than the kids (aren't they always?)
Either way, I know I'll be heading down to DC sometime during 2012. In other news, I've recently discovered The Guild. How the hell did I miss this??
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
BU Student Ordered to Destroy Files, But Can't Be Silenced
Unless you're a totally copyright nerd like me, you may not having been following the case of Joel Tenebaum, a Boston University student that was order to pay $675K to four labels for downloading 30 songs.
Yesterday, BostonChannel.com reported that the judge presiding over the case order Tenebaum to destroy all of the infringing files, but would not grant the RIAA's request that Tenebaum be prohibiting from speaking out against copyright laws and his belief in file sharing, based on this wacky, old federal law call the First Amendment. Those nutty judges.
I don't have too much to say about this case except that the amount of "damages" is clearly over-the-top, and that you can't get blood from a stone. To me, the spirit of statutory damages clause in the Copyright Act (allowing up to a $150K fine for one violation) was meant to stop commercial pirates and widespread distributors of materials covered by copyright; not grad students. Perhaps I am mistaken. The judge in the case, Nancy Gerter, urged Congress to consider changing the copyright law. I have mixed feelings about this myself; arguably, the courts have discretion to interpret the Act for digital distributions. On the other hand, have written law covering P2P and other new methods of file sharing could be helpful, but only if Congress truly digests how people are distributing music online and what truly violates not only the text, but the spirit of copyright protection. I'm not sure that Congress is there yet.
Tenebaum's attorney said they would be submitting a motion for a new trial by January 4th. God's speed, my friend.
Yesterday, BostonChannel.com reported that the judge presiding over the case order Tenebaum to destroy all of the infringing files, but would not grant the RIAA's request that Tenebaum be prohibiting from speaking out against copyright laws and his belief in file sharing, based on this wacky, old federal law call the First Amendment. Those nutty judges.
I don't have too much to say about this case except that the amount of "damages" is clearly over-the-top, and that you can't get blood from a stone. To me, the spirit of statutory damages clause in the Copyright Act (allowing up to a $150K fine for one violation) was meant to stop commercial pirates and widespread distributors of materials covered by copyright; not grad students. Perhaps I am mistaken. The judge in the case, Nancy Gerter, urged Congress to consider changing the copyright law. I have mixed feelings about this myself; arguably, the courts have discretion to interpret the Act for digital distributions. On the other hand, have written law covering P2P and other new methods of file sharing could be helpful, but only if Congress truly digests how people are distributing music online and what truly violates not only the text, but the spirit of copyright protection. I'm not sure that Congress is there yet.
Tenebaum's attorney said they would be submitting a motion for a new trial by January 4th. God's speed, my friend.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Apparently the Film Industry Isn't Learning from the Music Industry's Mistakes
A 22-year old girl who recorded 3 minutes of Twilight: New Moon could face 3 years in prison. Oh yes, you read that correctly. While in the movie, the young woman took out her video camera to capture moments from her friend's surprise birthday party... and a bit of the movie as well. As the theater has a "zero tolerance" taping policy, they called the police and the woman spent 2 nights in jail, and Illinois law permits up to 3 years, should the person be convicted of infringement.
Will this woman serve 3 years? Probably not. Will she even be prosecuted? Maybe. But only as an example and scapegoat designed to scare movie pirates just like the RIAA did for the music industry a couple of years ago. Dear Film Industry: it didn't work then, and it won' work now! The music industry, even stepped out as the guinea pig and PROVED that to everyone. Piracy is not down, suing doesn't work, yet this hard line is still being taken. This is unbelievable.
Do you think serious pirates are ever going to let you catch them?? Of course not; they're much more savvy, and would never deliver a shitty 3-minute clip of the movie. Duh. I mean, if anything, this girl was just a shitty pirate. I have a better idea - why don't you let this girl hone her craft, since she's obviously working on a big operation here, and go after her when she's got a couple more infringements under her belt. As least it would justify the cost to the taxpayers. Learn to properly scapegoat, for Christ's sake.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't be so sarcastic. The naivety just really irritates me. It's time to smarten up, think out of the box, and figure out a way to monetize film (and music) in a way that consumers will embrace. And in this specific instance, a little public policy goes a long way. This movie has made millions upon millions of dollars already. A 3-minute clip, even if uploaded and downloaded millions of times, is not going to take away or even replace that.
Will this woman serve 3 years? Probably not. Will she even be prosecuted? Maybe. But only as an example and scapegoat designed to scare movie pirates just like the RIAA did for the music industry a couple of years ago. Dear Film Industry: it didn't work then, and it won' work now! The music industry, even stepped out as the guinea pig and PROVED that to everyone. Piracy is not down, suing doesn't work, yet this hard line is still being taken. This is unbelievable.
Do you think serious pirates are ever going to let you catch them?? Of course not; they're much more savvy, and would never deliver a shitty 3-minute clip of the movie. Duh. I mean, if anything, this girl was just a shitty pirate. I have a better idea - why don't you let this girl hone her craft, since she's obviously working on a big operation here, and go after her when she's got a couple more infringements under her belt. As least it would justify the cost to the taxpayers. Learn to properly scapegoat, for Christ's sake.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't be so sarcastic. The naivety just really irritates me. It's time to smarten up, think out of the box, and figure out a way to monetize film (and music) in a way that consumers will embrace. And in this specific instance, a little public policy goes a long way. This movie has made millions upon millions of dollars already. A 3-minute clip, even if uploaded and downloaded millions of times, is not going to take away or even replace that.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Report Says Vid Game Industry Best for Empowering Parents
Apparently I've got a theme going this week. I'll admit, sometimes I tend to get on my high-horse about video game content because I know the educational tools are there for parents to understand what they're kids are playing, and that the Video Game Industry gets a bad rap for no reasona. And I'm not the only one that thinks that, so HA!
Unlike movie rating systems, the ESRB ratings systems is optional. But how many games do you see without ratings? Um, a whole lot of NONE. Even "E" (for Everyone) gets plastered on the most family-friendly games. The article I cited earlier states in part:
"The computer and video game industry leads all others in ensuring its products are marketed appropriately and is the gold standard for others to follow," said Michael D. Gallagher, president and CEO of the ESA, the U.S. association representing computer and video game software publishers. "Today's FTC report is a strong acknowledgement and validation that industry-led self-regulation efforts are the best way to provide parents and retailers with the resources and support they need to keep our kids' entertainment experiences suitable."
There are some other fabulous nuggets and hard facts about how well the gaming industry and its retailers self-regulate. You know that, I'm not going to elaborate.. I've only got two words. BOO. YAH.
Unlike movie rating systems, the ESRB ratings systems is optional. But how many games do you see without ratings? Um, a whole lot of NONE. Even "E" (for Everyone) gets plastered on the most family-friendly games. The article I cited earlier states in part:
"The computer and video game industry leads all others in ensuring its products are marketed appropriately and is the gold standard for others to follow," said Michael D. Gallagher, president and CEO of the ESA, the U.S. association representing computer and video game software publishers. "Today's FTC report is a strong acknowledgement and validation that industry-led self-regulation efforts are the best way to provide parents and retailers with the resources and support they need to keep our kids' entertainment experiences suitable."
There are some other fabulous nuggets and hard facts about how well the gaming industry and its retailers self-regulate. You know that, I'm not going to elaborate.. I've only got two words. BOO. YAH.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
