Sen. Leland Yee Offers Holiday Shopping Advice for Parents
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I wonder when video game companies going to start suing these yahoos for slander and for actively encouraging people not to buy their games. I don't see any politicians telling us not to bring our kids to certain movies because of their age ratings.
"There is significant evidence demonstrating ultra-violent videogames have negative effects on children, and can cause real behavioral changes."
Anytime anyone makes a claim like this they should immediately be asked to show their sources. More often than not they can't come up with any better than "reading it in an article on a website this one time."
Anytime anyone makes a claim like this they should immediately be asked to show their sources. More often than not they can't come up with any better than "reading it in an article on a website this one time."
I think we should listen to Senator Calumon. Everyone loves cakes after all.Jack and Calumon said:
OT: I agree with others who've said that he does give a few good pieces of advice. Though most of them are pretty 'duh' in nature. Getting to know the game and checking it's rating are pretty obvious but good pieces of advice. Now if only he wasn't so obsessed with bashing video games and acting like a general arse he might be able to get something accomplished.
Common Sense isn't much better, honestly. Granted, their game reviews are relatively balanced -- if heavily focused on "objectionable" content -- but have you ever watched any of their more general videos on parenting, children, and the media? They're entertaining in the way, say, Reefer Madness is entertaining. My cable system actually carries some of their videos on one of the free on demand channels, and it's what I watch when there's absolutely nothing else worth watching.RatRace123 said:
Edit: More on topic, he's right about one thing: parents need to be aware of what the games their children are playing contain. Unfortunately for him, that's an argument in favor of adding an R18+ rating, not one in favor of blocking it. For that matter, I wish the US had an MA15+ rating, like the ones in Europe and the one Sega of America had in the 90's; there is no way that Halo deserves the same rating as Grand Theft Auto, but since the American system doesn't have anything between T and M, and a videogame T is for some reason limited to the kind of content that would be at the upper end of a PG rating in movies, instead of a PG-13 rating, that's the way it works.
Edit: Better example: There's no way Halo deserves the same rating as Left 4 Dead, the original of which is the most brutally violent game I've ever played, and the sequel to which is one of the more cartoonishly violent games I've ever played, yet all three games are rated M in the US, and R15+ in Australia. Really, Halo should have a 15+ rating in both countries, while the L4D series should have a 17+ rating in the US, and an 18+ rating in Australia (18+ is reserved for pornography in the US, while other countries use it for anything they don't want minors seeing.)
Final Edit: Derp, I just remembered that Leland Yee is the sponsor of that bill that prevented minors from buying violent videogames, and not some crackpot Attorney General from Australia. Ironically enough, the arguments I put up still pretty much apply, since the bill would have ultimately ended with stores having a hard time stocking M-rated games in California stores, effectively making T the new M. Fortunately for American gamers, we have the first amendment to tell politicians like that to stick it where the sun don't shine. There was never any question of whether or not the law would be struck down. The real question was how it would be worded, and what the implications would be.
Those first four points are common sense but those last two are just full of the BS that each people trying to pass this "law" keep spouting out.
Heck, the latest Harry Potter clone didn't involve killing /anything/, and it was a pretty straight Gears of War clone. For that matter, Ken's Labyrinth, Faceball 2000 and Super Noah's Ark 3D are all very early examples of the genre, and they're all either completely non-violent, or so abstract with the violence that it's tough to call it violence so much as a game of ranged tag. Granted, non-violent shooters are almost non-existent today, but the genre is defined by game mechanics, not by the art direction. I mean, if you think about it, traditional death match based shooters are /literally/ just overgrown games of tag, and the more complicated game modes you see these days are usually variations of things like capture the flag, a real life game. The conceit that you're actually killing people is nothing but window dressing.Gmans uncle said:
That reminds me, my favorite game when I was 3 was Duke Nukem 3D.
Good times.
I think since I was young enough it didn't really get to my head about all the sex and violence, I thought it was cool to run around with a bazooka and jetpack mostly.
Good times.
I think since I was young enough it didn't really get to my head about all the sex and violence, I thought it was cool to run around with a bazooka and jetpack mostly.
Depends on the age and maturity of the child in question. If they're old enough to adeptly answer the question "when do guns solve problems?", then it's a moot point. Not buying something like Saints Row the Third for a nine year old makes sense--contextualization of the perverse violence is near impossible. But, for someone who is able to compartmentalize that, for something that's not to be taken seriously, Saints Row the Third allows that tempting tabloid bait kind of over-the-top absurdity that almost physically cannot be taken seriously. And in all honesty, that seems perfectly fair. I wouldn't buy something like that for a kid who couldn't understand the context of the game (which is ludicrous). His list, while most of us can safely say we love at least one game on that list, makes sense for children. Unconcerned killfests, dudes stabbing dudes in creative ways, and frequent casual murder are the staples in these games--It's the same reason six year olds aren't shown Scarface or Saw often. You ween them up to the heavy stuff. Were I a parent, I would want to know that I find it suitable for them to see/play. His advice is fair, if a bit condescending. But then, we're not his target audience, being already informed of such things.
I love video games. I am even writing an English literature thesis on interactivity's affect on storytelling, but Leland Yee is right. There are mounds of studies that clearly show that violent media increase aggression, and we are not just talking short-term. The long-term effects are, in fact, even more detrimental. Also, we are not just talking about correlational studies here, but solid experimental evidence. Albert Bandura, the man who founded social learning theory, built much of his career off of the most famous of the experiments in question (His 1961 "Bobo doll experiment"). At this point the only thing still up for discussion amongst psychologists is how extensive the effects are.
Children and adolescents should not be playing violent video games, and parents are not all going to know what is right or wrong for their child. I would say that many if not most parents are not aware of the contents of the video games their children play, and before anyone jumps to the conclusion that they are simply bad parents, keep in mind that being a parent is extremely difficult and time consuming. The California law that was proposed would have simply made it to where it would be required by law that the purchaser of an M rated game be an adult. My only problem with the law was that it did not cover all types of media. Video games should not be singled out in that sense. They, however, do warrant some special attention, because it is a form of media that parents are less likely to be knowledgeable about.
By all means enjoy video games, but realize that doing so does not mean that you should defend them from all criticism. Some criticism is warranted, and one bit of criticism will not doom the whole medium. We should, in fact, take criticism as an opportunity to improve the medium. My personal cause in this sense is the rampant militarism in video games. I cannot even name one video game that sends a clear anti-war message. Movies have also been developing a problem with this since Top Gun (just look up "military entertainment complex"), but there are a great many anti-war movies at least. I have had a bit of time to ramble, and hopefully this will generate some thought and perhaps a few good comments.
Children and adolescents should not be playing violent video games, and parents are not all going to know what is right or wrong for their child. I would say that many if not most parents are not aware of the contents of the video games their children play, and before anyone jumps to the conclusion that they are simply bad parents, keep in mind that being a parent is extremely difficult and time consuming. The California law that was proposed would have simply made it to where it would be required by law that the purchaser of an M rated game be an adult. My only problem with the law was that it did not cover all types of media. Video games should not be singled out in that sense. They, however, do warrant some special attention, because it is a form of media that parents are less likely to be knowledgeable about.
By all means enjoy video games, but realize that doing so does not mean that you should defend them from all criticism. Some criticism is warranted, and one bit of criticism will not doom the whole medium. We should, in fact, take criticism as an opportunity to improve the medium. My personal cause in this sense is the rampant militarism in video games. I cannot even name one video game that sends a clear anti-war message. Movies have also been developing a problem with this since Top Gun (just look up "military entertainment complex"), but there are a great many anti-war movies at least. I have had a bit of time to ramble, and hopefully this will generate some thought and perhaps a few good comments.
You think that a 15 year old should not be allowed to purchase and read books like All Quiet on the Western Front or Fight Club? Perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to look at paintings by Goya or listen to music by Wagner? I disagree, sir.mjp19xx said:
As to the rulings, the US takes an all or nothing approach to free speech; you can literally say whatever you like and the law cannot restrict this in any way. The implication of the California law was that games were not speech; just like pornography isn't speech. As it turns out, the supreme court ruled that games are speech, and thus the government cannot restrict in any way the expression of any person, group, or company through this medium. I'd say that's a net positive result even if the occasional kid gets his hands on M rated games.
It also must be said that the evidence for violent games being a cause of aggression (not violence, mind) is conflicted at best. We simply do not know yet what effects violent games have on developing minds. It would be fatuous to make wild assertions in absence of a more sound understanding of the science. Personally, I'd like to see a comparative study of the effects of violent games versus the effects of participation in rugby on aggression levels.
So...basically, he's telling people to check the ERSB ratings. Hm! if only someone would have told me this sooner, I wouldn't have mistakenly bought Dead Island instead of Harvest Moon! If only the game had some sort of graphic warning, or even a small, quick description of the game's contents! Or even something brief that told me the recommended age for kids to play said game!
Curse you, video games, and your sneaky ways! Now I'll perpetually buy the wrong kind of games! Woe is me...
Wait, hold up..
*Reads list of prohibited games*
HA! There is nothing in there about GTAIV or Saints Row 2! Or MW2 or Oblivion! OR! Mass Effect and space boning. Check and mate, my Eastern fiend! Do your homework completely before telling me what to do.
EDIT: At this point, whoever buys a game and is honestly surprised about its contents is either a dumbass or blind. A game like, let's say, Battlefield, has a picture of a guy holding a gun. Turn the game around and it has pictures of stuff being shot. What does that tell you? That you'll probably end up shooting a LOT of stuff throughout the game. Still not convinced? Look closer; there's a giant M on both sides. But what's that? 17 and older? Boy, that's good to know! My kid is only 2 years old! Man...so should I get that one game with the rotten corpse on the cover instead? Hmm...
Believe me, I've sold a good share of M rated titles to people at work. I ALWAYS have to either sell the game to someone who's 17 or older (And has an ID if they look younger than 30) or get the parent's approval. In the case of the latter, parents couldn't care less about the M rating; they just nod boringly and dismiss it. Only around 10% of them change their minds.
So truly, Mr. Yee (HEAR YEE!), your advice is irrelevant.
Curse you, video games, and your sneaky ways! Now I'll perpetually buy the wrong kind of games! Woe is me...
Wait, hold up..
*Reads list of prohibited games*
HA! There is nothing in there about GTAIV or Saints Row 2! Or MW2 or Oblivion! OR! Mass Effect and space boning. Check and mate, my Eastern fiend! Do your homework completely before telling me what to do.
EDIT: At this point, whoever buys a game and is honestly surprised about its contents is either a dumbass or blind. A game like, let's say, Battlefield, has a picture of a guy holding a gun. Turn the game around and it has pictures of stuff being shot. What does that tell you? That you'll probably end up shooting a LOT of stuff throughout the game. Still not convinced? Look closer; there's a giant M on both sides. But what's that? 17 and older? Boy, that's good to know! My kid is only 2 years old! Man...so should I get that one game with the rotten corpse on the cover instead? Hmm...
Believe me, I've sold a good share of M rated titles to people at work. I ALWAYS have to either sell the game to someone who's 17 or older (And has an ID if they look younger than 30) or get the parent's approval. In the case of the latter, parents couldn't care less about the M rating; they just nod boringly and dismiss it. Only around 10% of them change their minds.
So truly, Mr. Yee (HEAR YEE!), your advice is irrelevant.
I am, in fact, questioning that very "all or nothing" approach. I also never said that we should ban children and adolescents from consuming violent media. I simply said that they probably shouldn't consume it, and if they are going to consume it, their parents should have to obtain it for them. This is not censorship. Adults should be able to consume whatever media they want as long as it was produced legally (e.g., Others were not harmed in its production and other such obvious caveats). A child's mental capabilities are vastly different from an adult's. One may criticize the rigidity of Piaget's stages, but the underlying principles are obviously true. The research is clear that violent media leads to increased aggression. the only issues up for debate is the magnitude of the effect and long-term impact.It is, however, not clear whether media violence leads to negative outcomes, unless increased aggression on its own is considered a negative outcome. Long-term impact could be more of an issue with regard to desensitization to violence, which I think may be an even bigger cultural issue that I think could be connected to increased militarism.Speakercone said:
Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait!!!!!!!!
...six year olds shouldn't be playing Duke Nukem Forever? Stop the freaking presses!
And I think parents should be arrested for not getting their children Skyrim.
...six year olds shouldn't be playing Duke Nukem Forever? Stop the freaking presses!
And I think parents should be arrested for not getting their children Skyrim.
My Holiday Shooping advice:
If your Child wants a violent videogame, buy him Rayman Origins instead.
If your Child wants a videogame for kids, buy him Rayman Origins instead.
If your Child wants Rayman Origins, buy him the Collectors Edition.
...I don't care if it involves playfully slapping each other in the face, the game doesn't get enough love, so just buy it.
If your Child wants a violent videogame, buy him Rayman Origins instead.
If your Child wants a videogame for kids, buy him Rayman Origins instead.
If your Child wants Rayman Origins, buy him the Collectors Edition.
...I don't care if it involves playfully slapping each other in the face, the game doesn't get enough love, so just buy it.
M'kay.
So, looking at that list, that basically restricts, well, about every single major release title for the PS3 and the 360.
Fortunately, I am also a Kirby fan.
So, looking at that list, that basically restricts, well, about every single major release title for the PS3 and the 360.
Fortunately, I am also a Kirby fan.
Your point is well made, sir. As you say, the long term effects of exposure to violent media are unknown. To me this means that any legislation is premature in the absence of evidence for the negative effects of the thing legislated against. All we have now is that short term exposure to violent media tends to make people more 'aggressive' in the short term. I consider aggression to be a neutral personality trait which is equally present in violent criminals and also in businessmen, doctors, soldiers, and lawyers. This is to say that I respect your views on the subject and after a certain point it comes down to personal preference. I personally prefer the law to err on the side of individual rights. I still disagree with you, but I think we understand each other.mjp19xx said:
I seem to recall seeing research that said that watching cartoon violence on TV, say, involving Bugs Bunny or the Roadrunner had a similar effect to more explicit violence, and that there really wasn't much of a difference between explicit movie violence and explicit game violence. I'm not saying these things don't have effects. I'm just saying that if someone objects to, for example, Lord of the Rings: War in the North video game, they should also object to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King movie. Of course, none of them say that if they do object to it, because the ship sailed on movie and TV violence years ago, but it leaves them looking a little hypocritical and single-minded.mjp19xx said:
As for anti-war statements, I personally think, especially in RTSes, that the more they push for realism, the better an anti-war statement they make, but the player has to be receptive. The strongest feeling like that I ever got was actually from Total Annihilation, way back when, because the adaptive music (brooding when there's no shooting going on) conspired with the salvageable wrecks to play what felt like an impromptu funeral dirge for the fallen since I had to scroll across the evidence of my losses to go retrieve my next wave of units. (I never said I was good at the game!) I think there's plenty of room for statements in games about war as waste and possibly even war as horror. The challenge is making a game someone would want to play anyway... and the problem with that is that it might have the opposite effect from the one you want, if people get used to working against the mechanics.