David Braben looks at the games rating system and if parents and devs are acting responsibly
I'm sure we have all seen it or heard about it; kids of 12 or so – or even primary school ages - playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.
Despite the obvious violation of the 18 rating, the real difficulty we have with this is a complex one.
Peer pressure at school means the kids want to play it, and the parents tend to cave in to their children’s demands.
Perhaps this is because those parents are comfortable with their kids watching the numerous war films on TV during the day at weekends (mostly rated PG or U) as they did at a similar age, where we see large numbers of soldiers gunned down throughout, and frankly a pretty casual attitude to death.
Many perhaps feel the CoD games are no worse, and the fact they are playing socially with their school friends (from which they would otherwise be excluded if the parent prevents them from playing), tips the balance.
I have just started playing the excellent Skyrim. At time of writing I am perhaps five hours into what I suspect is a 100-hour-plus epic, but again it is unclear to me why it got a rating as high as 15.
Yes, there is blood, swordplay, frightening beasts and death, but I have seen all of those things in PG-rated films. It is the same with Fable and many others.
Red Dead Redemption is another one – again a game with strong daytime TV parallels, and another one where the player cannot resist collecting flowers, even though the gameplay benefit is minimal.
I suspect the issue is one that it is possible to hog-tie people and the nature of some of the storylines is pretty seedy.
But does it really justify an ‘18’? In Fallout 3 – also an ‘18’ – OK, people can be sold into slavery, but this is the case in many PG films (and in Elite).
Now, the easy response for those in our industry, whenever a red-topped paper blames us once again for all the world's ills, is to point out the rating on the game, and blame the parents for letting them play it. But do we really agree with blanket ratings?
The nub of the issue I think, is the presumption that because the player is controlling what happens, this means it must have a much higher rating than if it is purely a passive experience.
Nevertheless, there is an argument the other way, too. If you are in control you can play the game the way you like. If you can be the hero, you can behave honourably.
It is all about expectation. Currently it is clear our ratings are not being taken seriously. Parental expectations are based on games they have seen before with a similar rating.
Parents themselves may have played through games like Fable (a 15) or even Red Dead Redemption (an 18) and found it fine for their 12 year old, so will assume other similarly rated games are also OK.
The trouble here is that there is no ‘headroom’ for when a game should get a genuine ‘18’ rating.
If a game is going to get an ‘18’ rating anyway, then there is little commercial pressure not to include elements that I personally think are unacceptable, like the airport massacre in Modern Warfare 2.
Its not a completely regulated system, nor is film or tv ratings for that matter, but it is open to interpretation and influence based on the viewers perspective.
An issue that occurs frequently in Australia, notorious for seemingly frivolous blocking of games, is that the panel members who determine how the content of the game is to be classified consists of essencially lobiests, and what is claimed to be a 'democratic' or majority rule, is able to be vetoed by an individual.
See stories on R18+ ratings for Australia to see the history on this.
The subjective nature of these measurements is further compounded by the fact that each parent feels differently on the matter, and this is where the whole system falls over. They make the choices to allow or disallow what their children see, in some cases, also allow or disallow what they allow other people's children see.
To further complicate the matter, stores do not always stop selling to a minor, i've seen stores sell games to kids obviously below the rating age, while cinemas will deny the sale of tickets.
Finally, ratings for games will logically be higher than that of non-interactive media, there is the interaction factor that needs to be considered. Sure Red Dead Redemption is merely an interactive Lone Ranger, but through interaction that 4th wall is degraded. A goal for interactive medias is to allow players to feel responsible or in charge of their actions, which in the case of Red Dead/Lone Ranger, you are responsible for killing the indians as equally as saving the maiden on the railway tracks, usually equally having rewards.
Encouraging the easily manipulated/influenced to believe these things are acceptable or reward worthy, could cause issues, this is what the whole anti-violent-games campaign hinges on. Whilst i do not agree directly with the entire campaign, i can see validity in some of their views.
i read other recounts on call of duty and they are all based on difficulty, in other words 18's-then drop down to 16's- then drop down etc.
other games are pruley cos of violence language .....
im 9 and like wanna play ittttt,ysee my freind plays it :(
