The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have this morning seen GMTVs disgusting attempt at journalism when trying to blame videogames for violence and various other problems and attempting to talk about bringing in a new age rating system for games like Bioware, Mass Effect and most likely titles like GTA and Manhunt.
Surely the government should be reviewing the rating of Nintendo's videogames.
Sure, Super Mario Bros and the various titles that have followed may look harmless...but when you consider Mario gains strength from 'Magic Mushrooms,' you've got to wonder if Nintendo are secretly promoting drug use.
Super Mario World 2 on the SNES (or Yoshi's Island on the GBA) features a level called 'Touch fuzzy get dizzy' to which a rather strange intoxication overwhelms Baby Mario when he touches floating fuzzy creatures.
Then we must consider Nintendo's approach to animal cruelty. In Mario Bros, the aim of the game is to score points by killing turtles and crabs. Pokémon sees humans training small animals to fight each other with brutal torturing attacks such as electricution, poisoning, and even in some cases seduction before making them feint. In the Mario Strikers football game, as well as the upcoming Mario Kart game, you throw turtle shells at each other to hinder your enemies play (as well as the above mentioned usage of Magic Mushrooms).
Some websites even suggest Mario promoted communism!
Ofcourse, what I have just said is a load of rubbish, but just goes to show how someone can interpret games in such a way to make a point and attempt to use them as a way of blaming society for its wrongs.
Remember that boy Stefan Pakeerah who was murdered by Warren Leblanc. GMTVs good friend Gordon Brown was recently in talks with Stefan Pakeerah's parents (according to C&VG) whilst this report was being prepared for feedback on violent videogames because of the link between the original Playstation 2 Manhunt game which was blamed for the murder. However, (again, according to C&VG) it was not the murderer that owned a copy of the game...it was instead the victim.
Age ratings are already on games - though from what I've seen in my past experience both as a sales assistant for one of UKs top videogames retailers and since then as a customer is that parents see the current PEGI system (And the old ELSPA) system as difficulty ratings. Parents are ignorant as to what age ratings mean and that's very concerning.
When I was a sales assistant, I was trained to be fully aware of who I could and could not sell age rated games (every single one) to. Games had BBFC ratings which were law. Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City were the most difficult as kids wanted it because their friends parents had bought it for them. I don't think I've ever seen so many IDs in a videogame store before. However it was also my employer's policy not to sell advisory rated games to those who are too young. That meant that if I suspected a child wasn't old enough to purchase a 12+ game, I would ask to speak to their parents. If the parents were with the child buying the game, I was not allowed to take the money from the child - it had to be from the parent. I'm sure most retailers are responsible like this, though I can't speak for them, I think it is mainly the adults buying the games for children that cause the biggest concern.
How many children were playing Grant Theft Auto 3 when that came out? And how many parents bought the game for their children knowing that the 18 rating was there, however resigned to the fact that their kids were playing the game when they visited their friends anyway?
Age ratings only work if everyone plays their part. And as much as I am in favour of anything that protects the customers, the retailers and also important, the developers and publishers, I can't see that a new age rating scheme, especially the one Gordon Brown mentioned, making any significant difference.
But the most important point I would like to make today is that games aren't the cause of violent deaths; Games aren't the cause of traffic accidents; Games aren't the cause of binge drinking and drugs; Games aren't the cause of violent attacks or rape; Games aren't the cause of Wales winning the Six Nations Grandslam. Games are an interactive entertainment like DVDs, music, books or board games. No, they're not the cause of the world's problems...they're just the scape goat.
Surely the government should be reviewing the rating of Nintendo's videogames.
Sure, Super Mario Bros and the various titles that have followed may look harmless...but when you consider Mario gains strength from 'Magic Mushrooms,' you've got to wonder if Nintendo are secretly promoting drug use.
Super Mario World 2 on the SNES (or Yoshi's Island on the GBA) features a level called 'Touch fuzzy get dizzy' to which a rather strange intoxication overwhelms Baby Mario when he touches floating fuzzy creatures.
Then we must consider Nintendo's approach to animal cruelty. In Mario Bros, the aim of the game is to score points by killing turtles and crabs. Pokémon sees humans training small animals to fight each other with brutal torturing attacks such as electricution, poisoning, and even in some cases seduction before making them feint. In the Mario Strikers football game, as well as the upcoming Mario Kart game, you throw turtle shells at each other to hinder your enemies play (as well as the above mentioned usage of Magic Mushrooms).
Some websites even suggest Mario promoted communism!
Ofcourse, what I have just said is a load of rubbish, but just goes to show how someone can interpret games in such a way to make a point and attempt to use them as a way of blaming society for its wrongs.
Remember that boy Stefan Pakeerah who was murdered by Warren Leblanc. GMTVs good friend Gordon Brown was recently in talks with Stefan Pakeerah's parents (according to C&VG) whilst this report was being prepared for feedback on violent videogames because of the link between the original Playstation 2 Manhunt game which was blamed for the murder. However, (again, according to C&VG) it was not the murderer that owned a copy of the game...it was instead the victim.
Age ratings are already on games - though from what I've seen in my past experience both as a sales assistant for one of UKs top videogames retailers and since then as a customer is that parents see the current PEGI system (And the old ELSPA) system as difficulty ratings. Parents are ignorant as to what age ratings mean and that's very concerning.
When I was a sales assistant, I was trained to be fully aware of who I could and could not sell age rated games (every single one) to. Games had BBFC ratings which were law. Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City were the most difficult as kids wanted it because their friends parents had bought it for them. I don't think I've ever seen so many IDs in a videogame store before. However it was also my employer's policy not to sell advisory rated games to those who are too young. That meant that if I suspected a child wasn't old enough to purchase a 12+ game, I would ask to speak to their parents. If the parents were with the child buying the game, I was not allowed to take the money from the child - it had to be from the parent. I'm sure most retailers are responsible like this, though I can't speak for them, I think it is mainly the adults buying the games for children that cause the biggest concern.
How many children were playing Grant Theft Auto 3 when that came out? And how many parents bought the game for their children knowing that the 18 rating was there, however resigned to the fact that their kids were playing the game when they visited their friends anyway?
Age ratings only work if everyone plays their part. And as much as I am in favour of anything that protects the customers, the retailers and also important, the developers and publishers, I can't see that a new age rating scheme, especially the one Gordon Brown mentioned, making any significant difference.
But the most important point I would like to make today is that games aren't the cause of violent deaths; Games aren't the cause of traffic accidents; Games aren't the cause of binge drinking and drugs; Games aren't the cause of violent attacks or rape; Games aren't the cause of Wales winning the Six Nations Grandslam. Games are an interactive entertainment like DVDs, music, books or board games. No, they're not the cause of the world's problems...they're just the scape goat.
Page:
Edgy wrote:
> But the most important point I would like to make today is that
> games aren't the cause of violent deaths; Games aren't the cause
> of traffic accidents; Games aren't the cause of binge drinking
> and drugs; Games aren't the cause of violent attacks or rape;
> Games aren't the cause of Wales winning the Six Nations
> Grandslam. Games are an interactive entertainment like DVDs,
> music, books or board games. No, they're not the cause of the
> world's problems...they're just the scape goat.
Sorry for a second post but just re-read this bit. You are correct.
I expect if somebody ties someone up and chainsaws them to death - games would get the blame, although basically it is in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Dawn of the Dead is the inspiration for Dead Rising - so anything that has been blamed for should go back to the movie. Corination Street now has a plot of arson to claim insurance - so that can no longer be attributed to just videogames. Emmerdale has domestic violence and alcohol problems - as well as bullying, so don't blame Rockstar's Bully. Eastenders, although I don't watch it, everytime you flick over and it's on there is an argument and/or fighting. Yet Daily Mail readers like to watch that - which in all fairness is no different to videogames or horror movies (on which critics watch and write about in these newspapers). Maybe this new rating system should apply to our TV programs then, as well as games?
And my final point (yet anyway on this) is why does the BBFC certificate change it's meaning when stuck on a game rather than a film? Everybody knows the "PG" "12a" "15" etc rating system when watching or buying films, but somehow parents think the same certificate means something different just because it's different media.
My final word - blame the parents. People over the age of the certifcate are (usually) responsible - so why ruin it for everyone.
> But the most important point I would like to make today is that
> games aren't the cause of violent deaths; Games aren't the cause
> of traffic accidents; Games aren't the cause of binge drinking
> and drugs; Games aren't the cause of violent attacks or rape;
> Games aren't the cause of Wales winning the Six Nations
> Grandslam. Games are an interactive entertainment like DVDs,
> music, books or board games. No, they're not the cause of the
> world's problems...they're just the scape goat.
Sorry for a second post but just re-read this bit. You are correct.
I expect if somebody ties someone up and chainsaws them to death - games would get the blame, although basically it is in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Dawn of the Dead is the inspiration for Dead Rising - so anything that has been blamed for should go back to the movie. Corination Street now has a plot of arson to claim insurance - so that can no longer be attributed to just videogames. Emmerdale has domestic violence and alcohol problems - as well as bullying, so don't blame Rockstar's Bully. Eastenders, although I don't watch it, everytime you flick over and it's on there is an argument and/or fighting. Yet Daily Mail readers like to watch that - which in all fairness is no different to videogames or horror movies (on which critics watch and write about in these newspapers). Maybe this new rating system should apply to our TV programs then, as well as games?
And my final point (yet anyway on this) is why does the BBFC certificate change it's meaning when stuck on a game rather than a film? Everybody knows the "PG" "12a" "15" etc rating system when watching or buying films, but somehow parents think the same certificate means something different just because it's different media.
My final word - blame the parents. People over the age of the certifcate are (usually) responsible - so why ruin it for everyone.
I stopped and listened to the report on the radio last night. But what was interesting (and very true) was the fact many parents believe it to be a difficulty rating.
This makes me lugh when there are pictures on the box cover with someone missing half his head weilding a huge gun above the 18 certificate and the mum goes, "well my Johnny is a little genius - he's four years ahead of his age so it won't be too difficult for him." and then return with the game immediately after little Johnny has cut his first zombie torso in half with a chainsaw. "You didn't tell me it was gory! Or Violent - give me a refund".
All game ratings are explained, the PEGI and BBFC bthhave ways of explaining the content and reason behind the certificate - PEGI have symbols and the BBFC have written warnings next to the rating, i.e. "Contains strong bloody violence".
I saw it all my time whilst working for Game and parents are usually the ones to blame for not taking responsibility. Where did you work Edgy?
This makes me lugh when there are pictures on the box cover with someone missing half his head weilding a huge gun above the 18 certificate and the mum goes, "well my Johnny is a little genius - he's four years ahead of his age so it won't be too difficult for him." and then return with the game immediately after little Johnny has cut his first zombie torso in half with a chainsaw. "You didn't tell me it was gory! Or Violent - give me a refund".
All game ratings are explained, the PEGI and BBFC bthhave ways of explaining the content and reason behind the certificate - PEGI have symbols and the BBFC have written warnings next to the rating, i.e. "Contains strong bloody violence".
I saw it all my time whilst working for Game and parents are usually the ones to blame for not taking responsibility. Where did you work Edgy?
Edgy wrote:
> Remember that boy Stefan Pakeerah who was murdered by Warren
> Leblanc. GMTVs good friend Gordon Brown was recently in talks
> with Stefan Pakeerah's parents (according to C&VG) whilst
> this report was being prepared for feedback on violent videogames
> because of the link between the original Playstation 2 Manhunt
> game which was blamed for the murder. However, (again, according
> to C&VG) it was not the murderer that owned a copy of the
> game...it was instead the victim.
>
I made that very point on these forums at the time.
> Remember that boy Stefan Pakeerah who was murdered by Warren
> Leblanc. GMTVs good friend Gordon Brown was recently in talks
> with Stefan Pakeerah's parents (according to C&VG) whilst
> this report was being prepared for feedback on violent videogames
> because of the link between the original Playstation 2 Manhunt
> game which was blamed for the murder. However, (again, according
> to C&VG) it was not the murderer that owned a copy of the
> game...it was instead the victim.
>
I made that very point on these forums at the time.
I have this morning seen GMTVs disgusting attempt at journalism when trying to blame videogames for violence and various other problems and attempting to talk about bringing in a new age rating system for games like Bioware, Mass Effect and most likely titles like GTA and Manhunt.
Surely the government should be reviewing the rating of Nintendo's videogames.
Sure, Super Mario Bros and the various titles that have followed may look harmless...but when you consider Mario gains strength from 'Magic Mushrooms,' you've got to wonder if Nintendo are secretly promoting drug use.
Super Mario World 2 on the SNES (or Yoshi's Island on the GBA) features a level called 'Touch fuzzy get dizzy' to which a rather strange intoxication overwhelms Baby Mario when he touches floating fuzzy creatures.
Then we must consider Nintendo's approach to animal cruelty. In Mario Bros, the aim of the game is to score points by killing turtles and crabs. Pokémon sees humans training small animals to fight each other with brutal torturing attacks such as electricution, poisoning, and even in some cases seduction before making them feint. In the Mario Strikers football game, as well as the upcoming Mario Kart game, you throw turtle shells at each other to hinder your enemies play (as well as the above mentioned usage of Magic Mushrooms).
Some websites even suggest Mario promoted communism!
Ofcourse, what I have just said is a load of rubbish, but just goes to show how someone can interpret games in such a way to make a point and attempt to use them as a way of blaming society for its wrongs.
Remember that boy Stefan Pakeerah who was murdered by Warren Leblanc. GMTVs good friend Gordon Brown was recently in talks with Stefan Pakeerah's parents (according to C&VG) whilst this report was being prepared for feedback on violent videogames because of the link between the original Playstation 2 Manhunt game which was blamed for the murder. However, (again, according to C&VG) it was not the murderer that owned a copy of the game...it was instead the victim.
Age ratings are already on games - though from what I've seen in my past experience both as a sales assistant for one of UKs top videogames retailers and since then as a customer is that parents see the current PEGI system (And the old ELSPA) system as difficulty ratings. Parents are ignorant as to what age ratings mean and that's very concerning.
When I was a sales assistant, I was trained to be fully aware of who I could and could not sell age rated games (every single one) to. Games had BBFC ratings which were law. Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City were the most difficult as kids wanted it because their friends parents had bought it for them. I don't think I've ever seen so many IDs in a videogame store before. However it was also my employer's policy not to sell advisory rated games to those who are too young. That meant that if I suspected a child wasn't old enough to purchase a 12+ game, I would ask to speak to their parents. If the parents were with the child buying the game, I was not allowed to take the money from the child - it had to be from the parent. I'm sure most retailers are responsible like this, though I can't speak for them, I think it is mainly the adults buying the games for children that cause the biggest concern.
How many children were playing Grant Theft Auto 3 when that came out? And how many parents bought the game for their children knowing that the 18 rating was there, however resigned to the fact that their kids were playing the game when they visited their friends anyway?
Age ratings only work if everyone plays their part. And as much as I am in favour of anything that protects the customers, the retailers and also important, the developers and publishers, I can't see that a new age rating scheme, especially the one Gordon Brown mentioned, making any significant difference.
But the most important point I would like to make today is that games aren't the cause of violent deaths; Games aren't the cause of traffic accidents; Games aren't the cause of binge drinking and drugs; Games aren't the cause of violent attacks or rape; Games aren't the cause of Wales winning the Six Nations Grandslam. Games are an interactive entertainment like DVDs, music, books or board games. No, they're not the cause of the world's problems...they're just the scape goat.
Surely the government should be reviewing the rating of Nintendo's videogames.
Sure, Super Mario Bros and the various titles that have followed may look harmless...but when you consider Mario gains strength from 'Magic Mushrooms,' you've got to wonder if Nintendo are secretly promoting drug use.
Super Mario World 2 on the SNES (or Yoshi's Island on the GBA) features a level called 'Touch fuzzy get dizzy' to which a rather strange intoxication overwhelms Baby Mario when he touches floating fuzzy creatures.
Then we must consider Nintendo's approach to animal cruelty. In Mario Bros, the aim of the game is to score points by killing turtles and crabs. Pokémon sees humans training small animals to fight each other with brutal torturing attacks such as electricution, poisoning, and even in some cases seduction before making them feint. In the Mario Strikers football game, as well as the upcoming Mario Kart game, you throw turtle shells at each other to hinder your enemies play (as well as the above mentioned usage of Magic Mushrooms).
Some websites even suggest Mario promoted communism!
Ofcourse, what I have just said is a load of rubbish, but just goes to show how someone can interpret games in such a way to make a point and attempt to use them as a way of blaming society for its wrongs.
Remember that boy Stefan Pakeerah who was murdered by Warren Leblanc. GMTVs good friend Gordon Brown was recently in talks with Stefan Pakeerah's parents (according to C&VG) whilst this report was being prepared for feedback on violent videogames because of the link between the original Playstation 2 Manhunt game which was blamed for the murder. However, (again, according to C&VG) it was not the murderer that owned a copy of the game...it was instead the victim.
Age ratings are already on games - though from what I've seen in my past experience both as a sales assistant for one of UKs top videogames retailers and since then as a customer is that parents see the current PEGI system (And the old ELSPA) system as difficulty ratings. Parents are ignorant as to what age ratings mean and that's very concerning.
When I was a sales assistant, I was trained to be fully aware of who I could and could not sell age rated games (every single one) to. Games had BBFC ratings which were law. Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City were the most difficult as kids wanted it because their friends parents had bought it for them. I don't think I've ever seen so many IDs in a videogame store before. However it was also my employer's policy not to sell advisory rated games to those who are too young. That meant that if I suspected a child wasn't old enough to purchase a 12+ game, I would ask to speak to their parents. If the parents were with the child buying the game, I was not allowed to take the money from the child - it had to be from the parent. I'm sure most retailers are responsible like this, though I can't speak for them, I think it is mainly the adults buying the games for children that cause the biggest concern.
How many children were playing Grant Theft Auto 3 when that came out? And how many parents bought the game for their children knowing that the 18 rating was there, however resigned to the fact that their kids were playing the game when they visited their friends anyway?
Age ratings only work if everyone plays their part. And as much as I am in favour of anything that protects the customers, the retailers and also important, the developers and publishers, I can't see that a new age rating scheme, especially the one Gordon Brown mentioned, making any significant difference.
But the most important point I would like to make today is that games aren't the cause of violent deaths; Games aren't the cause of traffic accidents; Games aren't the cause of binge drinking and drugs; Games aren't the cause of violent attacks or rape; Games aren't the cause of Wales winning the Six Nations Grandslam. Games are an interactive entertainment like DVDs, music, books or board games. No, they're not the cause of the world's problems...they're just the scape goat.
Page: