October 14, 2007 -
From the New York Times on down, newspapers and bloggers - including GamePolitics - have had a field day recently with the news that some Christian youth ministers are using Microsoft's best-selling Halo series to attract teens to church.The major point of contention for critics seems to be that, since the Halo games are rated M (17 and older) by the ESRB, they are inappropriate for use by church youth groups.
The problem with that logic is that the M rating encompasses too wide a variety of games, including some military shooters as well as other titles with clear good vs. evil themes, like Halo.
Also included in the M's broad swath are games with less lofty ideals such as the Grand Theft Auto titles, the ridiculously gory Manhunt series, and controversial offerings like last year's 25 to Life, which featured violence against police officers.
When you look at it like that, it's hard to blame those who criticize bringing Halo into sacred space. For the most part the critics are not gamers and have no concept of the vast difference between Halo and GTA. All they know is that the games share a common M rating, a designation assigned by the game industry itself, theoretically for the protection of impressionable youth.
For the uninitiated it's only logical to assume the content must be of a similar character as well. As somone who has played both, I'd argue that there is a world of difference between Halo and GTA. In fact, as a parent I saw Halo as digital cops-and-robbers with the player in the role of the good guy. I let my sons play it at 12 and 13. Anecdotally, I can say that a lot of their friends were allowed to play at that age as well.
On the other hand, GTA was always verboten. I never wanted to expose my kids to the pretend hardcore criminality. And Manhunt? Fuhgeddaboudit...
Now that they are older, I'd be okay with GTA, but so far there's no interest. World of Warcraft and Neverwinter Nights 2 are the games of choice lately at GP HQ.
So what's the solution?
There are those who have called for an AO (18+) rating that means something other than a de facto sales ban. Under that scenario, perhaps GTA is an AO while Halo is an M.
On the other hand, M is currently the most serious marketable rating, but leaves in its wake a four-year gap to the next lower step, T (13 and older). As any parent can tell you, from 13 to 17 is a huge span, developmentally.
There are those who argue for something similar to the U.K.'s 15+ rating. Would the critics object if church youth leaders were exposing their young congregants to a game cleared for 15-year-olds?
They might, but probably with less force. And, they'd be making their case without the industry's own flawed rating system to back them up.
As the differences between games become increasingly nuanced, the ESRB really needs to look into fine-tuning its system to better meet the needs of those who must make game choices for adolescents.
Comments
True, although I'm actually inclined to agree with Jack. Church is spiritual time, and if you want to play Halo 3 you can wait until you get home.
What he fails to realizes is that children don't want to sit in church all mornings on a week day, they dont want to listen to an old man "prattle on" they want something interesting to do. In a world where every 3rd child is probably on ritalin because the parents are too afraid to discipline their children fearing state reprisals, if they're not going to obey they're parents, children are as sure as hell not going to listen to a stranger. The church is growing to adapt to the youth of this generation. Pity Jack wont...
Church is about religion. Its not really a place for computer games. Especially using them as some sort of bribe to bring someone into religion. You are either religious or you aren't... You shouldn't wave Halo under someones nose then whilst there eyes are fixed on the game, fill their ears with preaching.
Very well Jack, by that logic, church groups should not organize baseball games, soccer matches, BBQ's, or any other get together that doesn't involve reading the bible and prayer. Now, it may have been a while for you, but most pre-teens and teens I know don't want to spend their weekends being taught about damnation and hell fire (an extreme example mind you).
You say that video games teach people to kill. The same thing can be said for groups that do things such as martial arts to teach troubled kids self respect and self discipline. Yes, they are fighting techniques, however there is more to them than just learning to throw punches and kick, or what not. The most valuable lesson I learned when I was a Civil Air Patrol Cadet is that the group cannot exist with the individual, and without the group the individual cannot support themself. This lesson was learned the hard way on a military confidence course that required us to work as a team and put aside any petty squabbles we may have had.
Much of these gathering have one thing in common, and that is the feeling on comradery. Whether it's a karate dojo, a fencing salle, a boxing ring, or a lan party you feel like part of something, joke around with people, and in the end respect them even if you lost.
The simple fact is that people like Jack Thompson are so deluded in their own self-righteousness that they fail to see the good before them, because it doesn't fit in the mold of their narrow perception. The fact that an event like this brought together people who may have never know one another before, let them have a good time, laugh, celebrate and make friends says more than any half-baked theory that this Florida lawyer may conjure.
It's not stupidity or insanity that Jack suffers from, its an even worse disease; petty narrow mindedness.
2. Halo 3.. Believe.. in Christ.
3. Rated H for Holy.. Will see as much use as the AO rating.
4. Newflash: Church intended for sinners, not saints.
5. This is just like modern sex ed.. The adults should be embarrassed to talk about it, since the kids have much more experience than they do.
Oh yeah, there's a flip side to my statement..
I would be more inclined to see Halo like star wars, and Manhunt like Saw, in the movie world, one is pg(-13), and the other is R, in the game world, they share the same rating? I don't get it.
They are All PG with the exeption of Episode 3. the violence level in halo and star wars seems about equivalent to me (maybe slightly more, but not a lot)
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/SearchClassifiedWorks/?SearchView&Query=(%20[Title]%20contains%20%22STAR%20WARS%22)%20and%20((%20[TypeOfMedia]%20contains%20Film)%20OR%20(%20[TypeOfMedia]%20contains%20Video))&SearchMax=50
Yup, in the UK most of them were rated U.
Go to BBFC.CO.UK and search for Star Wars ;)
Of course, this works the opposite way too and with probably even worse ramifications- a parent will see their child play a game like Halo or Time Splitters and assume that all M-rated games are similiar, then go out and buy their kid Grand Theft Auto or Manhunt without looking into the games any further. A ridiculous number of my friends' parents did this.
I would say that a good solution would be to add an OT 15+ category in which less violent and/or morally unsound games would be taken from M and added to, and change M to simply 17+ in order to distinguish it from current M-rated games, which would encompass the new OT games as well. I would not be opposed to a law requiring license in order to purchase a 17+ game.
Why am I here all by myself? It's lonely here in the middle.
The trouble is defining that one title is or isn't as bad as a GTA and its ilk can be quite trying at times. Not too mention some games are either underrated, or (more frequently) overrated in terms of content classification.
Personally, I never understood why the Longest Journey and its sequel Dreamfall (the latter of the two being one of my very favorite titles) ever got the M rating. The former was rated M exclusively for swearing. EXCLUSIVELY. The sequel had swearing (though not nearly as much) and a bit of violence too, which was about as far removed as the goriest M games could ever manage to give you.
Clearly we need more room for distinction
excellent comment and i agree with most of it. the only problem i have is that i would oppose any kind of government involvement, but there is already a retailer standard in place (at least here in the U.S.) that requires an ID check at the point of sale for games rated M or higher. call me paranoid, but imo, any kind of government involvement and/or regulation is a stepping stone to a chilling effect and possibly even censorship.
But in my opinion, a clear difference must be made between the different contexts in which violence occurs : is it fantasy ? Sci-Fi ? Historic (WWII, medieval) ? Or modern urban ghetto ? Plus, a better difference could be made between the different kinds of violence : does the context fully justify this violence ? (for instance, in WWII games) Isn't the context enough to justify it ? (for example, in "Soldier of Fortune") Or does the context simply aggravate it ? (for example, crime in GTA-like towns, or Mahunt-like executions)
These differences between different violences and different contexts could be made in rating system. But above all, the public must be able to perceive them.
Step 2) Make a 15+ rating
Step 3) Start gloating about your improved system
And that's how to fix the ESRB. As it stands now it is a flawed system.
apart from the legal backing, 18/15 is the same as our setup here in the UK, I find its a good bracketing distinction.
and for reference, I'm pretty sure Halo 3 did make 15.
It may be an industry standard, but since it's not legally binding many workers at big-chain retailers don't take it seriously (not so much the major game-specific retailers, who will at least warn and often fire an employee for selling an M game without a license) This is a major point of video game critics like Jack Thomson, and an industry-supported law requiring ID would show that the industry is serious about this issue, as well as allowing politicians a chance to jump on the "protect-the-children" bandwagon without harming people who are old enough to make their own decisions.
Halo3 is rated as 16+, while a game like Manhunt is rated 18+. But here is the thing: Why is the ESRB being seen as the best way in rating games, while the console producers do not want AO rated games on their system. Yet, PEGI list pretty much any game that features gore as 18+.
I think console makers should stop using their stance against the AO rating, and allow these games on their consoles.
But I do agree that there are many kinds of M.
Hl2 would be on in the middle. halo near the M boardering Teen, And The darkness would be closer to A.
岩「…I can see why Hasselbeck's worried about fake guns killing fake people. afterall, she's a fake journalist on a fake news channel」
Now that I'm done ranting, I think that rather than a tiered rating system, the real key is those content descriptors. Why tell parents their children aren't old enough, when you should tell them what they'll be exposing them to and let them make the decision themselves (in most cases, including you GP, they already do). Full frontal nudity and sex, religious themes, exorbitant gore and violence, and others would be in red ink instead of black, and require ID to buy them. It'd be more similar to how books are checked (reading difficulty and theme) and give more power to the parents.
Just my $3.25 worth.
Case in point: A parent goes out to a video game store and sees Halo 3 and Manhunt 2 on the shelf. Halo 3's case states a battle of good versus evil, a battle were humanity's last hope must protect the Earth against aliens (I don't know if that is the actual plot, never played the games, so bite me if I'm wrong) whereas Manhunt 2 has a deranged serial killer murdering people as its selling point. Now, in an ideal world, the parent would use this newfound device, COMMON SENSE, to decide whether either title is suitable for their child.
However, in the real world, parent is stupid and buys games clearly not intended for children for their kids and then bitches when it turns out the game revolves around killing people with graphic violence.
Someday I wish to pioneer this common sense both in America and around the world and hopefully, we can live in a world where people will use common sense in making obvious day-to-day decisions, such as not buying unsuitable material for kids, not doing up their laces in a doorway, and, perhaps, if we're lucky, not vote Republican, although case studies have shown that incredibly stupid people are unable to grasp common sense, so we might have no hope whatsoever on that last point.
There are ratings for music: non explicit lyrics and explicit lyrics.
@ las, attorney
Given the political climate, common sense wouldn't have you voting either Republican nor Democrat. They are both just as bad as the other. Given the fact that Hilary will get the nomination for Democrats, I'd rather vote Republican, especially if its Ron Paul (hell, if he gets the nomination for Republicans, I would vote for him no matter what).
Those are descriptors, they don't tell you how old you should be to listen to them, just what they have.
In Florida, don't know if this nationwide or just store policy, but you couldn't buy explicit lyric CDs unless you were 16.
I don't understand that. Your saying that games like GTA should be banned because they're for 18+?
That's fair, stores always have the right to refuse service. No one will argue that. But the fact of the matter is that an explicit lyric descriptor doesn't say what age they have to sell towards. The problem with an age specific rating system is in person-to-person maturity. I know a lot of teenagers that listen to music with explicit content. It's up to personal opinion whether or not they were old enough, but as far as I know they aren't acting on things they see and hear in music and movies. With specific age ratings however, it isn't up to personal opinion. A group of people decided that this game, movie or show is for people THIS old. In reality, only select things should be censored to specific age groups, and that's things we know should only be viewed by adults... we're talking enough nudity to be porn and enough blood to be snuff. Otherwise it should be up to the parents, and the parents alone to decide what's right for their kids at what age.
But if that was the case, there would be so much less rhetoric to spew, wouldn't there?
And we can't have that now, can we?
If the US adopted the 15+ rule then M17 could be treated like a R and not a obscure PG17............