July 15th, 2009 @ The Hilton Metropole, Brighton
The Develop Industry Excellence Awards is the only event which rewards the work done by Europe’s leading games development companies.
October 27th, 2009 @ BAFTA, London
The London Games Conference will take place during the increasingly popular London Games Festival.
But show editor tells Develop that episode showing children playing 15-rated games is true to life
UK developers have hit out against a recent episode of Newsnight which featured a debate on games and violence, saying the BBC was wrong to show children playing games intended for ages 15 and up - but the show's editor has told Develop that the report merely reflected the truth about how children have access to adult-rated games.
Wednesday evening's episode of the news magazine show featured an examination of the legacy of media critic Mary Whitehouse, who regularly criticised UK broadcasters over supposed falling standards on TV.
The piece, by reporter Liz MacKean, asked what Whitehouse would have made of media in the digital age, and looked to the influence of games - and then showed two 13 year olds playing a 15-rated Mortal Kombat title.
"It's two people fighting each other to death," said one of the children playing the game, when asked to describe the on-screen content.
"It sounds kind of violent - does that bother you?" asked MacKean.
Advertisement
"Er... not really, no," the young participant responded.
"A couple of my friends, yeah... they just get addicted to [games] - and then become really violent," his friend adds.
"Really - actually violent?" asks MacKean.
"One friend, it effected them a lot - they used to be normal and really nice, but because of a game called Grand Theft Auto they got really violent and use a lot of bad language."
(The report then weighs up how the media has changed its attitudes towards violence and other content - you can see the whole episode here, the games report starts 20 minutes in.)
The report has not sat well with those in the industry.
"Newsnight filmed children playing an 18-rated game and allowed children to play it. Would they do the same with an 18-rated video nasty, sitting idly by whilst they watch? What parents would buy such 18-rated games for their children in the first place? Parents that allow children to play 18-rated games or watch 18-rated movies need to be educated as pointed out in the Byron report," commented James Brooksby of Kuju's Doublesix games studio.
"In addition, the program inferred that all games are identical in regards to their violent content. This is obviously not the case. The BBC should not need educating on the relevance of a rating system nor should Newsnight need to be told that it needs to give the industry an introduction opportunity to respond."
However, Newsnight editor Peter Barron told Develop that the item in the show merely represented the truth that children still find it easy to access games content intended for adults.
"In this item we aimed to show the reality that children are routinely playing games intended for older children or adults," he said.
"Obviously we wouldn't try and alter that reality - we simply asked to film and talk to some young people about their game playing habits, with their parents' permission. This was done in the same way as we would for example show the reality of under-age drinking."
But developers were still unhappy with the lack of wider context in the article.
David Millard, creative director of Kuju's NiKNaK studio - which specifically works on making games for children and youth audiences - commented: "It is the moral obligation of parents to help steer their children in the right direction, and this means self education about the ratings and content of games on all formats. The hard fact is that if a parent knowingly supplies their child with a game that contains unsuitable material, the responsibility and consequences lie with that parent, and not the existence of the game. The Newsnight article focused on two young children exposed to a violent game, but had nothing to say about who gave it to them. In fact, Liz MacKean came across as the person showing the game to the children for the first time, clutching the box as if she had walked in with it. Would a sensible adult show an 11 year-old an 18 certificate film and ask them what is going on? It's just another example of irresponsible journalism.
"The ratings are there to help message the kind of content the player/viewer should expect to see, but an increasing number of people seem to get stuck at the concept of the word 'game', thinking that this means a harmless piece of fun. Some parents still seem to think that a game is always safe for any age group, and are perhaps under the false impression that there cannot be realistically violent content that could in anyway harm their child. We seem trapped in a circular argument when it comes to video game violence, claiming that it is disgusting and depraved to expose children to it, forgetting the simple fact that it must be exposed to them in the first place. Would you give you child a knife and leave them alone in a room with it? It's done with violent games all the time."
Is it me or do the the young participants sound coached?
*off camera* "Just read this article I've cut out from the Guardian, then when I ask you a question give me the answer you remember..."
Wow. I see what the guy from Newsnight is saying - and it is true that adult games are available to kids when they shouldn't be. But that in itself is a very important issue something like Newsnight should explore. I wonder if the Games Up? campaign will use this as proof that the media still needs to understand games properly?
If kids see an 18 rated movie with violence and sex, it doesn't make all movies bad... why tar games with the same blinkered brush? It's the parents' responsibility to monitor what they're kids are doing/viewing. Please, let's have some impartial journalism! Meh.
I’m a Father of three and play a lot of games, a lot of which are adult, and I control exactly what they play and don’t play and stick to the ratings on the box. There are far more greater dangers for children to be guarded from, and little has changed in the last 50 years on that front, except that there’s no need to stuff hedges with porn anymore. I wouldn’t expect anything less from Parents who don’t care for their children, are too busy to bother, and deal with it by throwing money at them. Parents will blame anyone/anything except themselves.
With the exception of Nintendo, most publishers focus the majority of their marketing effort and budget on violent games.So, with reference to comments complaining about the media focussing on these titles, you can hardly spend a fortune focussing the media and the publics attention on these games to generate hype and sales and then complain when they see these games as representative of the industry.But it is correct that parents are the ones with the responsibility to ensure their children do not have access to unsuitable content.I have 3 children and they do not get access to content until they reach the age rating on the box – sure they moan like hell that their friends get these games and videos.Looking at the behaviour of some of these friends would add support to the argument that violent games are harmful, but I personally think it has more to do with the parents not disciplining their children and saying no to their kids demands.I think we need to teach the parents how to be responsible parents not just in relation to video games but in all aspects of raising their offspring.
I think the Games Industry is a little over-sensitive about this sort of stuff at the moment, it's a bit of a sore subject and one that developers are quick to jump in and defend.
I didn't see the show, but from the description here it didn't sound as if it was an attack on the industry, as if developers were being irresponsible making games of this type, just highlighting the reality that this stuff gets in underage hands more often than anyone would like. If that's the case, I don't think we should be getting up in arms defending it - anyone with kids of their own is going to know this is an issue of good parenting, and that's what the focus of this seems to be about.
As Peter Barron from Newsnight is quoted as saying - "This was done in the same way as we would for example show the reality of under-age drinking". Nobody would expect the breweries to be responsible in that instance, and wouldn't expect them to defend their product as to do so would be to suggest guilt and add fuel to the fire.
@David.
True, but I think you'll find that the reason why you mainly see advertisements for violent games is because they are aimed at adults and unless you make a habit of watching children's television, you're unlikely to see the massive marketing campaigns the games industry conducts in that space. Also, the reason why spending is oft disproportionate is because it is a lot easier to convince kids that your product is the next 'must have' thing. (Then again, baby sitting my nieces the other week, every advert had a 'must have' toy or game in it).
I think the main reason why all games tend to be tarnished with the same brush unlike – movies and music – the word game is, rightly or wrongly, still carries a heavy connotation of being a 'child's thing'.
Perhaps it is time that we really push through a wholesale change of videogaming's name to Interactive Entertainment; either that or make people disassociate gaming from toys et al.
Either way, it isn't responsible journalism to allow children to play games that they aren't old enough for and if it affect them, then what the hell do you expect? Part of the reason age ratings exist is because whether we want to admit it or not, children's brains and sense of self and others aren't developed enough to understand the way the world works... even at 17 – and with some people 30 – then yes, it could affect them. It's the basis of the 'normal-man' principle in law... they're not old enough to understand the implications of their actions.
And of course the parents of the children in this film signed release forms to sign away the rights to their child's image for them be on TV. As Dave pointed out, they sound very coached... so coached could it have anything to do with the story MCV reported on a while ago about a certain media company looking for 'victims' of gaming. I'd bet a lot of money these children are actors.
Mary Whitehouse was a hegemonic and didactic spokeswoman for a vocal minority... not the silent majority. Her constant defeats in the courts were a victory not only for free speech, but against restrictions on most people for because of some twisted and distorted moral campaign by a group of people who feel they knew – and where – better than the rest of us.
I have researched the pros and cons of video games on children before. At the moment, i believe that games content is well below the standard required to be good for our children.
Research shows that there are significant disadvantages to the current generation of games content. These range from fueling (specific) childrens aggression, fueling addictive behaviours, encouraging passivity, laziness and non-constructive behaviours, reduced ability for F2F social interactions, increased susceptibility to distraction, supression of natural imagination features - in favour of artifical devices, negative impacts on lifestyle and phyical conditioning.
Of course not everybody is affected by video games, but certain personality types are - to one degree or another.
I do however believe that as video games begin to permeate education that the pros may well outweigh the cons in the future. Thats the hope anyway!
@ Stephen:
Yep, agree with you. But I bet you every one of those games that affect children like that are rated for adults for that exact reason...
When i got involved in the games business, the first thing that i found odd was that they made games for adults - at all.
When i was a kid the only games mummy and daddy played was cards or bingo or such like. Well that was the only things - i saw them play - anyway.
I think that is part of the problem. Video games should never have been made for adults. If it says "GAMES" on the case - you can be sure kids will do everything they can to - play it!
The publishers know that! I say strip out the filth, add some cool new features and let everybody play!
@Stephen - The games industry is a maturing area, when I was 10 I played games like "Jet Set Willy" and "Horris Goes Skying", now I'm in my 30s I still love playing games, and that's why we make games for adults.
When I first started trying to get into games development I read an article about what sort of games companies will make the point that the article raised was that for the most part companies will make games the will make the most money, the biggest market isn't an adult audience rather it is the teen level and as with the reclassification of Oblivion from teen to mature not all publishers want an adult rating.
Dave, i do understand that adults love games too. After all adults never lose their inner child. Well, as long as they don't want to of course.
But my point was that just because children become adults doesn't mean that the content should slip into smut and ugliness. My favourite PS game was LAP-D cop and i used to play that at the age of 40. I didn't need to have naked ladies, sex scenes or a billion f* words to enjoy playing. Its actually not necessary for developers to make such games and for publishers to publish them.
Whilst i do agree with some of the age ratings - i do not see any point to adult content being introduced in games. If they want to make these games they should not be on the shelf with mainstream childrens content or mainstream TV.
Put them on the top shelf next to the Playboy magazines.
Perhaps we should stop kids from playing games
altogether? Maybe then we will find attention spans developing rather than shrinking? They don't even read
comics anymore!
Victor.
Everybody should be able to play games. Young and Old. In fact it is human nature to play games. We do it every day of our lives. Whether it be at work, home, relationships or whatever.
My point is that producers have a responsibility to ensure that content is delivered such that it does not pervert the recipient.
When i was young cartoons were very definately for children. Today, the lines are very much blurred. It the responsibility of producers to do their utmost to ensure content is not misrepresented.
Not enough creative thought has gone into this. Hence the reason why many under 16's are playing 18 content.
 edited size.jpg?i=1246459818 "Network Programmer"){kind=small}