What makes me think that this game is for 15 year olds and above?

I was on holiday recently, visiting family in Glasgow. A lovely place with lovely responsible people. Whilst there, we had a day in town to look at some shops and keep my wee one occupied (we had already done Loch Lomond and the transport museum).As one does, we went into a shopping centre and low and behold we were in a store, which also happened to include a GAME. For our international readers, GAME is the largest specialist game retailer in the UK.

Somehow, I managed to get separated from my family and I found myself in the section which encompassed GAME. Finding myself with some vouchers and reward points to spend I perused the shelves for a second hand deal which, after some time, I found in the Xbox section. Anyway my buying habits aside, whilst waiting to pay along came a grandma with her grandson. He was holding a copy of some wrestling game (they are all the same to me), and handed it to Grandma to buy (lucky him).

Now the guy behind the desk did exactly the right thing (GAME management would be proud). He pointed out that the game was for 15 year olds or above (this kid was not near). The Grandma responded by saying ‘oh that’s ok’ in a kind of ‘whatever’ type way and went ahead and purchased it.

Perhaps like this Grandma the game was really for her and she was just too embarrassed to admit she was a gamer?

Over the last few years our industry has come under a lot of attack about not have clear signposting about the content within a game, but here is your typical example of what really happens on the ground floor. Should Mr Vaz be reading, lets go over the facts:

• The staff brought to the attention of the person purchasing the product (who was of age), that the age was deemed to be unsuitable for people under 15 years of age.
• The game in question was a Wrestling game. With a picture of big aggressive guy in spandex on the front of the box.
• It had a big 15 on the box too.

What other information would Mr Vaz, and those who come from the House of Vaz, have liked the staff to have presented? Mr Vaz you might argue that perhaps suspecting that the game was for the young boy, the store should have had a legal barrier on them from selling it anyhow. However take the boy out of the equation just for a moment as the point I’m trying to make is not how to tighten up the process, but how the weak link is the fact that many adults are quite stupid.

Even if the boy had not been there, the Grandma might still have gone and purchased the game. The same one. With the same angry man in spandex with a title relating to wrestling plastered across the cover. Indeed it would have had the very large box in the artwork with the number 15 in it. Having lived in a country where we have grown up seeing age ratings it can be assumed that rather than meaning the number of discs the game comes on, she would have taken it for granted that it was an age rating.

How is it so many adults do not seem to take the type of content in video games seriously? Perhaps the government and industry could do a TV and cinema campaign explaining it? That could be a good thing for the industry. They have tackled drink driving, not just by prosecuting people, but by making it socially unacceptable to drink and drive or be with people who do. Perhaps the campaign would focus on parents and not children, being run during evening television and across billboards, educating them as to how socially unacceptable it is to ignore the age ratings.

Part of the problem may be that some of the ratings are actually quite high. Higher, in many respects, than that of equivalent DVDs or TV shows. Wrestling, for example, is a daytime TV show; yet when it becomes a game, our understanding of how suitable for children it is changes for some reason. This can be seen as the game industry being more stringent and stricter than TV and film, which is possibly a good thing. However it has the potential to undermine the rating system as many adults, when they eventually see the game, wonder what the fuss was about in the first place. If the public see a disconnect between the rating and the actual content, images and gameplay experience then this will undoubtedly result in them ignoring the warnings.

It’s an old lesson, but if the industry and media cry wolf, then eventually people will stop reacting to the alert if the wolf always ends up being a King Charles Spaniel.

Yes - how threatening does this dog look to you? But if the Sun newspaper wrote about it you would think it was related to T-Rex.

What causes violence? If you are a fan of George Lucas then you know that ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to anger, and anger to violence. I ask this as currently we are going through the yearly attack on gaming, largely caused by Modern Warfare 2; but most probably an attack which would have attached itself to another game had MW2 not been released. It’s the time of year when everyone wants a game and hence gaming is big. It used to be films which were attacked at this time of year, but hey, compared to games they are so small fry.

It's the fault of these guys. If only they had gone by Easyjet and left the guns at home. Stag parties are getting too complicated these days.

Now whenever I see a news report discussing evidence of how games might make a player violent, I see quotes relating to how those who play games demonstrate increased adrenalin and hence are ‘pumped up’. I can accept that. I can also accept that the same symptom might be displayed by those watching or taking part in football, rugby, boxing, X-Factor, Crufts, ballroom dancing, viewing the news, horse racing, motor sports and, for those who get a kick out of it, fishing.

Are we suggesting we ban those? Of course those commentators who are either stupid or just set out to be, might argue that their point is that only games have you committing acts of violence. I would point out that the violence though has to be triggered through some kind of condition or state of mind. Adrenalin is an indicator normally associated with such a situation. There is little evidence out there of players actually going to commit violence having just played a game. The research instead relies on indicators which might lead to violence, such as adrenaline. Well doesn’t that mean many activities have the potential to turn quiet, peace loving individuals into maniacs?!

In a month where six pupils at a school almost poisoned themselves for copying a plot line from the the pre-watershed BBC drama Waterloo Road, it’s amazing that the industry that got attacked was gaming! Now Waterloo Road is popular, but in the big scheme of things many more millions of young and old people are gaming than watching Waterloo Road. I would suggest that perhaps gaming is less dangerous compared to other activities such as watching EastEnders, Coronation Street, or possibly Countdown. It’s certainly worth examining on that level – i.e. looking at its effect on behaviour proportionally to the amount of gaming content consumed.

What is even more amazing is that the media have no problem with allowing lies about games being circulated. They seem to feel that it is fair game to drop all journalistic training and principles when it comes to attacking gaming. Hence, we see repeated quotes about how MW2 allows you to play as a terrorist – most shockingly played out on Fox TV. For those that have not played the game I have something to say. No you cannot!! You play a CIA operative embedded into a terrorist cell. You witness an attack and, if you feel it’s part of the character, can take part in a massacre; but ultimately you are a bystander to such an attack with limited control over the game at that point. It is crucial to the plot and at the end (spoiler alert) you yourself are then shot dead. It’s dramatic and has been seen in countless movies before. So why the problem now? You even get the choice to skip the scene – ever been offered that by a TV show or movie?

Now this isn't potentially violent at all? He is actually a member of the National Association of Local Butchers

Perhaps it’s because we call them games? Games are meant to be fun, and for children – right? That’s another lie the media propagate of course. They continually allow commentators to remind us that most people buying or playing the games are children. For sure, some are – but most people playing these games are 18 or above, and many are 25 years plus.

In the USA we hear people say that even if a game is bought by and for an adult, if there is a child in the house then they are sure to gain access and play it. Perhaps they are right. However, if they are, perhaps they should start by not keeping handguns in their house! I’m thinking (and correct me if you feel I’m missing something here) that this may be a more immediate and dangerous problem. And you know, you can even lock out your kids from your console very, very easily if you choose to.

I’m not saying there are not games out there with bad taste, nor am I suggesting there should not be age limits or even some games banned. If you can ban a film, then you should be able to ban a game. However, there should be parity between the art forms. In the UK the BBFC initially banned Manhunt 2 and fought to try to stop it being released. Why?

Now, apart from the pictures of men in masks holding guns AND this picture of a fist, what actually IS there on the packaging to alert parents to the fact that some games might contain shooting and violence?

Their own research concluded that players do not think that events in a game are real. We no more think we are really scoring the winning goal in the FA Cup than we think that we too have three heads and live on the planet Zog whilst playing a fantasy game. Indeed, they found that the fact they are interactive and we have to push buttons often brings us out of the drama and narrative, reminding us they are only games. This is something movies cannot do, and we can get lost in them and become ‘pumped up’ in a sustained way without having a release until the end of the film. So, why oh why, when it comes to violent games, suddenly all that research goes out of the window? What is the logic and reasoning for this? When films like SAW and Hostel are released, why then fight to ban Manhunt? Are the individuals in charge of these organisations stupid?

"I see stupid people, they're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know they're dumb!"

I don’t think they are. Well, I hope they aren’t anyway. I think it’s far more likely they are running scared. Those that are in the industry and those that are associated with it, such as the BBFC, still lack the self confidence to describe and communicate what gaming is to those that do not yet play them, as we do. This is a huge problem as it allows the issue to be hijacked by the Keith Vazs of this world. There are people, often important and influential people, who latch onto these issues without first thinking them through. People who, fuelled by their own ignorance, let their own emotions get carried away, eating away at their fear until they explode violently against an industry, artform and past-time which contributes greatly, in a positive way, to millions of people’s lives.

Maybe George Lucas had it right all along.

Yesterday in the House of Commons, Labour MP rabble-rouser Keith Vaz launched an attack on games (again). He stated that the level of violence in games like Modern Warfare 2 was unacceptable and that the government should take extra steps to be certain that these kinds of games don’t fall into the hands of children. Which is fair enough really, but seems to ignore the fact that all games are rated by the PEGI board and have clearly stated age restrictions, retailers who sell these games to minors are breaking the law and are open to prosecution.

However another Labour MP, Tom Watson, took the opportunity to go on the offensive, accusing Mr Vaz of collaborating with the Daily Mail; “To create a moral panic”. Mr Watson believes that the government should instead be seeking to assist the British games industry and to that effect he founded a new pressure group on Facebook called Gamers’ Voice.

The blurb from the group reads; “Are you sick of UK newspapers and (my fellow) politicians beating up on gaming? So am I. The truth is, UK gamers need their own pressure group. I want to help you start one up.
I don’t know how it should work yet but please register your interest if you agree that gamers need their voice heard in the corridors of power.”

We here at Critical Gamer are sure Activision and Infinity Ward are are delighted with the free publicity they’ve been given from this whole fiasco.

Yup, this article is for over eighteens only! Get ready for some hot letter-on-letter action! Look at this letter e. Look at it just sitting there all innocently at the end of that sentence just waiting to be touched and awkwardly forced into another word using the full stop as leverage. That didn’t turn out as funny as I thought it would in my head. Never mind.

Today I’m moaning about age ratings. Well…no, not moaning. In theory I support that any form of media (games, movies, music and even books) should have adequate warnings on them to give the buyer an idea of what content they are going to be exposed to. I just think age limitations are a bit strict. Or are they? This is one of those subjects that I can see from both sides.

The thing that got me thinking about this more recently was talking to some under eighteens. They blather away occasionally after getting in touch about one of my videos on You Tube or similar and since we have absolutely nothing in common the conversation rarely goes away from games. This inevitably leads to one of us (always them) asking about the kind of games we like or play. Whenever I know the person is under eighteen I always ask how they were able to play a game rated for 18+, should one find its way into their favourites list. “Parents” was the reply every time. I don’t say anything else after that. I don’t scold them like maybe I should – not that it would change a thing.

To better explain, I guess I need to reveal now that I would be being a hypocrite if I declared that these age rating systems should be followed to the letter. When I was a kid I played games and watched movies that were meant for those over the age of eighteen and I can’t say for a fact that it had no effect on me because there’s no way to be sure. I’d justify it only like this: thirteen years ago, which was when I would be around the age of thirteen, you’d be talking about something like Resident Evil on the PS1 being a mature rated game (15+). If you never played it, go look at some screen shots. It could produce frights occasionally but that was it. There was no bad language and the blood just looked like three red pixels hurriedly stuck together.

It is only looking at modern generation games that I feel I can judge without total hypocrisy. M for Mature in the US, or 15+ and 18+ here in the UK, are far more meaningful today than thirteen years ago. Back then it was far more common to just have a PG (Parental Guidance) or X (as in Rated) classification actually. Now look at the modern mature games. Look at Killzone 2 swearing every other second, look at the gore in Prototype or the violence in so many games. These kinds of things I can’t deny should not be seen by younger players. But they do see them, of course.

Part of me thinks that only PG should exist as the single recognised rating that anything receives around the world. This Parental Guidance would incorporate symbols like the PEGI (Europe) and ESRB (US) use to provide full information on the content of the product. So a new game would have a big section on the back marked PG and then a list or collection of symbols indicating things like bad language, violence and so on. Maybe even incorporate the PEGI colour system so green means pretty safe and red means your console may start spitting blood. Then this information is given to the parent and the parent makes a choice.

You've probably seen a lot of these inside your game manuals.

The rating system we currently have is wholly ignored and I think that’s because parents don’t realize just how real games are now. But my global PG idea is no better than what we have. Not really. It would still be ignored or misunderstood (not to mention the clashes it would cause between different rules or regulations for any given country). Kids would still either just get their parents to buy them games they shouldn’t be playing or unethical shop assistants would just let them purchase things that they shouldn’t. A stand is being made in some retailers, but this is more just to cover their own backs for the sometimes terrible ramifications of letting minors play things they shouldn’t rather than a decision based on any kind of good morals.

What doesn’t help about the current system is that the ratings seem all over the place. One country’s 18+ rating could be another’s 15+ or the ratings could be the same but the content different. I remember reading an interview about one of the Halo games when it was brought to Germany for classification there and they asked questions about the motivations of Master Chief and why the war was being fought, so that they could wholly justify leaving in all the violence and death. Germany is also a country which saw blood in some Resident Evil games being replaced by purple dust.

Ever wondered why online interactions can’t be rated by the PEGI/ESRB? Largely it is because they can’t assume that you won’t have some angry kid screaming profanities at you, despite the game you’re playing being rated as E for Everyone or T for Teen or Z for Zach that lives under that bridge over there, but it is also so they cover their back internationally.

In the US, games recieve one of the above ratings.

This strikes me as one of those situations that has no solution. It’s one of those things that just has to carry on as it is because there’s no better option. Games and movies and whatever else have a suggested age rating based on the system in place for any given country that is supposed to be enforced by law, but these things can be circumvented ridiculously easily by child or parent alike and that’s just the way it is. It really shouldn’t be, but it is.

Despite everything I’ve said here that may make it sound like I strongly feel ratings should be more heavily enforced, I know that I broke those rules so many times when I was under eighteen and, even though I still believe the ratings are far more relevant now than they were then, I still feel like a hypocrite.