They tried to do it in America and failed multiple times through its unconstitutional nature. In England, however, there is nobody to stop the government from applying compulsory ratings on videogames, with legal ramifications for those who sell so-called "violent" titles to minors. With the Byron report coming soon, it is now fully expected that the government is going to step in and take some control over what content can and cannot be purchased.
In addition to this, Parliament is also expected to start handing out advice to parents, telling them to keep consoles out of kids' bedrooms and in the main rooms, lest they dare be playing that horrible, horrible Resident Evil when nobody's looking.
While this in no way affects the majority of gamers, who are above legal age anyway, and the BBFC's ratings already have legal implications, it is still worrying to see government take such a hands-on approach with peoples' lives. In no way should we be ruled over in such a manner, but it seems that it's going to happen, and that's one slippery slope. Furthermore, I believe that this focus on shielding children from the "evils" of games and movies is only going to do them more than harm in the end.
By all means, raise a child in a bubble and smother it in kid gloves, but as humans they are already inherently violent, and videogames can be a most positive outlet for one's pent-up aggressive instincts. I just don't think it's wise, at all, to pretend that violence doesn't exist, or that this type of entertainment is something that junior is not "ready" for. If it's kept hidden from a child for most of its life, when the time comes that it can finally choose for itself to indulge in "forbidden" entertainment, it will do so in abundance, and maybe not be able to handle it simply because he was never given a chance to. By banning a kid from certain games, we only make those games more romantic in its mind. I think these game restrictions will have the opposite effect than their intended ones, in the end.
Contest:
9:59 AM on 02.11.2008
| 
Please, don't ask for "sources" for one of the most obvious human flaws (if it even is a flaw) in the history of our evolution. If you don't believe we're a naturally violent and conflict-driven species, then you clearly must be one of the ones raised in a social bubble.
You nailed it with that line especially the bolded part. It's proven throughout history how violent humans are. Government trying to save us from our very nature is just fucking stupid.
Well that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying we're all KILLERS or anything, but as a species, we are aggressive. We live in a generall peaceful society now however, and we need an outlet for the instinctual aggression that we all have. Some people play sports, others go out hunting. Some play games.
It's all about finding a positive use for the violent nature that exists in everyone whether they admit it or not. There are good outlets for natural aggression, and gaming is a great one.
....
@ picture
That makes me feel like playing Crackdown.
BTW, I don't think studies will find that. At most, I think there is an exacerbation of those tendencies in people who already have moderate to severe impulse control problems. But I think it is an interesting question.
Even with all this crackdown on regulation and penalties for selling the games to minors, the extreme cases will never die down. Ever. Like Jim said, it's human nature, and we have to deal with it properly and maturely like humans.
However, the fact that nobody here has ever choked a child to death (that I know of) is enough to tell me I'll never be convinced of a need for games regulation.
The only regulation we need is self-regulation. It's not the government's place to tell us what we can and cannot do if it's not causing direct harm. If it harms none, do as thou wilt.
sometimes, this leads to genocide, others, to the scientific method...
Ultimately, I think the best society is not one where information is hidden and banned, but one where people are taught to make decisions based upon rational thought instead of instinctual emotions like fear and hate.
filtering the dissemination of media into a society is the antithesis of a functional democracy and smacks far too much of the dark ages where me burned some of our greatest minds at the stake.
I wish people in places of authority would consider this, but since the ultimate goal of a politician is to deftly manipulate the masses....
@slapme7times: My life experience has led me to believe that most people follow their instincts; for some those instincts are to be rational. So as another instinct, being rational is really nothing to gloat about. It's just one necessary piece of the puzzle that is human endeavor, and susceptible to error like the other pieces.
General statement not direct at any specific poster.
Dying of old age used to be a luxury, not an expectation. But now we think any behavior that unnecessarily risks or shortens life is terrible. And as an interconnected society, we also increasingly recognize that people's decisions very rarely affect only themselves. If you don't belt in a child, for example, and that child becomes disabled in a crash that kills you, the state bears the heavy cost of caring for that child for the rest of its life.
But in general I tend to agree that freedom is increasingly being redefined as the freedom to live a life without fear, rather than the freedom to choose one's own course.
On a serious note I think it's too early to tell whether this will be a good or bad thing in the end.
The PEGI system is a pile of wank. I used to work at hmv and 90% of people buying games didn't even know there was a games rating if it didn't have a BBFC rating and the truth is they probably don't care and that's when we get into "games are corrupting the youth of today" arguments.
Video games need a legal classification system. Of course it should be down to the parents to regulate what their kids are exposed to but we all know that they will just plead ignorance when they see their kid pwning someone in the face with a crowbar and blame the games industry. This new classification system could remove that scapegoat.
I think the purpose of the new classification system is more to do with educating parents rather than stopping kids playing violent murder simulators. Although the government is probably just responding to public sentiments rather than proposing a new system to help the games industry, however in the eyes of the public this will surely give games more social standings.
But I guess time will tell how conservative the new BBFC gaming body will become...
@Maxvest: That's so true and isn't it the governments job to allow you live without fear? which in this case is what they're trying to do right? and then as a parent you can choose what is suitable for your child with aid from the government....in an ideal world anyway
how often have we seen in british rags some chavtastic parent stating that "I thought it was just a game, but it is horribly violent" or something to that effect (completely ignoring the fact that she's probably violent to her kid anyhow)? If a legal classification system is in place, it means that this finger pointing can't be as high profile as the blame will lay squarely on the parent.
I find it really hard to argue with your logic, but still something doesn't sit well with the government regulating games. It feels like a violation of rights regardless of the end result.
The blame probably won't shift, you'll just hear in the news about "ILLEGALLY OBTAINED" and "INAPPROPRIATELY RATED" games. If it's one thing we've learned, parents will refuse to acknowledge that their child acted without influence. Parents will always push the blame onto the developers/stores. In that, legislation could get tougher and tougher until they've banned M games entirely.
It's a slippery slope that we as a community don't even want to start down. While I acknowledge the possibility of it benefiting us in the short run, I fear the possibility of it get worse far outweighs the benefit.
But, as a parent myself, the way I see this is that it enables responsible parents to use a system they know well already to make a decision as to wether their child is mature enough to bare witness/experience the content within the title itself.
the problem with the current British system is that we use two classification systems, the BBFC only steps in if PEGI deem to game to be requiring of a 15 or 18 classification, other than that, PEGI classify the games themselves and from various stories I've heard or read, most parents view PEGI's system (which is basically a grey/white box that says 16+, 12+ etc) on it as a difficulty rating (i.e. this game is challenging for a child over 12 years of age) rather than a reccomendation of the age that the game is deemed appropriate for, and the best way to get rid of this, and the stigma that games are kids toys, is to have a unified classification system.
According to the BBC The woman doing the report for the Government, Tyra Byron, seems to prefer the PEGI ratings system, and whilst I agree, seeing as it was set up with vidoegame classification in mind, its not a recognised classification system, whilst the BBFC have been going for a very very long time and are recognised throughout the country.
Let's not forget, many games do get BBFC ratings already, titles such as the first Manhunt, the GTA games and Gears of War (plus many others) already carry a BBFC 18 rating which means it should not be sold to anybody below the age of 18 years old by law, the store selling the product to someone in that situation can recieve a hefty fine, as can she sales assistant, the same goes for movies. But if every game carries these ratings, right from U for Universal through to 18 then it enforces the whole idea that videogames aren't just for kids, therefore kids shouldn't have easy access to certain ones.
If we lived in a perfect world, where people took responsibility for their, or their childs, actions and took responsibility for what their child experienced and self-regulated efficiently, we wouldn't need these systems.
The problem is, we don't live in a perfect world, and a large portion of people can't seem to do any of the above, so with that in mind these systems have to be put into place in order to aid that lack of ability to self-regulate.
@Luigi takes over: You're right it's a slippery slope that could go horribly wrong but although you'll hear news stories "about "ILLEGALLY OBTAINED" and "INAPPROPRIATELY RATED" games" this shows it's the fault of the government and not the games industry which means that tougher legislation won't get through the house of commons (well hopefully)...in the long run we've got to accept that the game industry is making it's way into the big leagues of entertainment with music and film and if it's going to sit at the table then it needs to be treated the same as the others... recognition is something we've wanted for a long time now right? It's too early to say this is a bad thing
Not only are games like GTA and Gears of War getting 18+ ratings and Halo3 getting a 15+ rating but Mass Effect has a 12+ BBFC rating (on a side note CoD4 has no BBFC rating...how does that seem fair and/or fit in?)
Who says that the new rating system will be exactly like the BBFC cinema rating system anyway?
CoD4 probably didn't have a BBFC rating because games currently have to be submitted to PEGI first, if PEGI bthen have anything they're unsure about, it then goes to the BBFC who give it a legal classification, CoD was deemed alright by PEGI it seems, whilst Mass Effects arse shot was probably the deciding factor for it going to the BBFC, who quite rightly awarded it a 12, the same as pretty much every bond film (which I'd say is roughly right, similar level of violence, similar style of "sex" scene)
We can die in an instant for no reason in an infinite number of different ways, and we should spend less time worrying about it than it took to read this post and just fucking live.
But that's just my opinion and I respect yours.
That being said, I always expected tyrannical dictatorship trends to begin here in "The Land of the Free"
I'm impressed that the UK beat us to it, you uppity shits.
I guess that CoD4 not getting a BBFC rating and Halo 3 getting a 15+ highlights the need for a new classification system.... and that's true about Mass Effect it's just the first time I've ever seen a game with a 12+ rating.....and kudos for saying "arse" not "ass" lol
@ Saxiums
I don't think it's fair to say the government is trying to control how we think. If anything they are just responding to how the public feels about games right now. I doubt they would care less about video games if there wasn't so many uproars recently.
I'm English, Ass isn't a word ;)
@Syn,
Thats an extreme case of sheltering and I doubt anybody sane would shelter their child to that extent, any decent and responsible parent knows their child to a degree, knows what their child understands and what they are mature enough to deal with.
The Government ]aren't trying to stop the sale of violent videogames, they're just trying to prevent minds that maybe aren't mature enough to deal with certain content getting hold of a product that contains that content, if I as a parent already feel that my daughter (who is 3 right now) is mature enough when she's, say, 14 years of age to play the latest BBFC 18 certificate game or watch the same rated film, then that is my responsibility.
What this is about is trying to tackle the irresponisbility of some people in the only way the Government can really do it.
You can't stop someone from getting something that they really want; alchohol, tobacco, porn, kids are going to get their hands on it either way. Government interference is no substitute for good teaching.
no, you guys have the ESRB, this is Great Britain where this is happening, the BBFC already rate some games, this is just going to give them the ability to rate every game released so theres not that much difference anyhow as those that qualify for an 18 rating already have them.
I'm fully aware people will get things they want regardless of what the Government states, I've drank under age, I've done drugs (admittedly only weed, but that was before it was reclassified in the UK), bought DVD's and games I shouldn't have, but this is the Governments move to remove the blame away from themselves and the videogames industry and onto the parents and the retaillers who sell a product to somebody thats under the required age.
Nobodies saying that Government interference is a good substitute for good teaching/parenting, where have I in particular stated that? The point is that a large proportion of parents couldn't give a shit about their kids now days, and when they do do something, its always something else thats to blame, videogames, music videos, films, never their parenting skills in monitoring just what the fuck their kids are upto.
Now I'm not saying you can watch your kids all of the time, as I stated in this very comment, I got upto stuff behind my parents back, all kids do, but I would never, ever of pointed the finger elsewhere, and neither would my parents because they instilled responsibilty into me.
Tell me if you notice a resemblance.
I also fully believe that kids should not get their hands on a game where you beat homeless people to death with a metal pipe but it should be the job of the parent to make sure that the kid doesn't see it. Unfortunately since most parents still don't seem to realise that video games have evolved slightly since pac-man then this is the only way to stop them from getting such games.