Update 2013: It’s been 6 years since I wrote this piece and my views remain the same; ‘corollary vs causation’ arguments, context, ratings and research (handy: 25 studies on media violence) STILL remains less of interest to me than the basic ‘why are we creating market demand for thrill to kill content in the first place, when we could better spend that money, clout, political power and persuasive marketing in positive, productive pursuits?’ (Interesting CS Monitor article about parents ‘demanding’ better content, pro-social gaming, film, and/or ANY media development–Count me in as a ‘demander!’)
That’s my content bias, the media violence conversation is a complicated and messy one.
Don’t miss the convos with the articulate video-gamer in the comment section later in the post. It’s mental floss for the mind…wrapping around free agency, censorship, and education of parents’ level of cluelessness on media violence studies in ANY context.
As one who just came from Zero Dark Thirty in a theater filled with over a dozen six year old children in the audience, an “R” rating didn’t impede dumb and dumber justification of ‘they don’t even know what they’re watching’ reactions. Sigh. There is plenty of work to do. Here’s the original post:
(June, 2007) Let me get this straight…Yesterday, Kaiser Family Foundation released a new survey of over 1000 parents with two-thirds (65%) being “very” concerned that children in this country are exposed to too much inappropriate content in the media.
KFF’s study shows the SAME percentage of parents ALSO say they’re able to “closely monitor” their children’s media use and parents are “gaining control” over their children’s exposure to sex and the effects of media violence …
Uh-huh. Chyeah. Sure they are…You betcha. Let’s check back with parents in a few weeks when Rockstar Games premieres Manhunt 2, buzzed as the goriest and most violent game ever released.
Speaking wryly about “wii” on this well-known gamer’s blog, one mused: “Slashing someone’s neck with a shard of glass? Simply move your Wii-mote right to left in a sweeping motion while pressing the B button.”
Game Politics also wrote about the Florida attorney general’s profound concerns about Manhunt 2’s Nintendo Wii interactive platform where players can “act out” the violence, not just use a joystick.
One gamer even commented, “Yeesh. I’m all for free speech and individual taste, but I find this horribly offensive. Feel free to play it if you wish; I’m avoiding this title. I wasn’t huge on the PS2 original, and taking it to the point where you’re playing murder with physical gestures strikes me as sick.”
Most gamers, however, blogged about “moral panic morons,” the obviousness of setting Nintendo “parental controls,” media sensationalism and avoiding nanny states if “parents do their job.”
Ahem. Do MY job? Adult gamers need to check out some of the behavioral mirroring on playgrounds before they get too snide and self-righteous…
Kids WILL be indirectly exposed; whether it’s via verbal WOM or visual “wii.” It’s all a matter of degree. Then there’s always the ‘what goes in must come out’ studies on kids’ aggression and bullying, as well as evidence/resources on children’s excessive intake of media violence.
The self-regulating ESRB gave the July 10 Manhunt 2 release a stringent “Adults Only” rating, but perhaps we need a new category, “NSA: Not Suitable for ANYONE.”
CCFC successfully implored the ESRB to unambiguously rate the extreme level of violence and has launched a letter writing campaign to ensure the rating’s not watered down upon appeal. Parents? This is your chance to chime in here…
“In Manhunt 2, players can saw their enemies’ skulls in half; mutilate them with an axe; castrate them with a pair of pliers; and kill them by bashing their heads into an electrical box, where it is blown apart by a power surge,” CCFC said. Ugh.
They also quoted a reviewer for gaming website IGN who described using a saw blade to “cut upward into a foe’s groin and buttocks, motioning forward and backward with the Wii remote as you go.”
Gee, isn’t THAT just ducky…
Instead of an AO rating being “Adults Only” how about if AO stands for “Absolutely Outrageous”… or maybe “Asinine Objective?”
As it stands, the gaming controversy seems like it may just give Nintendo publicity rather than the “AO rating kiss of death.” Hmn.
Maybe my marketing cynicism is coming forth, but for a platform like Nintendo trying to expand market share and veer away from being a kiddie console, what better way than to create a brouhaha over their own ‘family friendly’ image by coming out with AO violent fare for their system?
Does ANYONE need to ‘experience’ bloodlust in some sort of therapeutic transference so they act out their ‘violent fantasies’ online instead of real life?
Could we get more APA and psychiatric research on the kiddie table here? Then again, how much more do we really NEED, folks? Sheesh.
From the “M” rated Mortal Kombat, Grand Theft Auto rating, and original Manhunt on ESRB to the bloody, gory and torturous Manhunt 2 “AO” rated sequel here, I’m trying to make sense of what POSSIBLE plausible reason for being this form of heinous media violence might have…
I mean, I’ve seen mellow, gentle guys that wouldn’t even whack a spider take out entire cities in World of Warcraft or Second Life dark drow sieges, so I’m trying to look at all sides of this equation with centrist objectivity. But then…as my sage journalist mom used to caution me, “don’t be SO open-minded all your brains fall out.”
Free market system acknowledged, just because we ‘can’ doesn’t mean we ‘should’ bring products like this into the marketplace with trickle down pollution onto kids…
C’mon, is there ANY remote iota of positive value in creating and producing media like this? And do we REALLY think this kind of media will NOT have an impact on society much less kids directly?
Sure, the AO rating might help deter retailers from DIRECTLY marketing it to kids, but look no further than “M” rated Grand Theft Auto, a mere one notch down (“content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older”)…
...Then do a basic headcount of popularity among middle school boys 11-13 who have not only played it “at a friend’s house” but list it as their ‘favorite game.’
If Grand Theft Auto achieved contraband status for its “M” rated thug factor (cop killing, blood spilling, decapitation, in ‘ewww gross’ graphics for the wannabe bad boy set) just how much brand-buzz will be built for Manhunt 2’s “AO” rating for “prolonged scenes of intense violence?”
Out of 13,000 games self-rated by ESRB criteria, only 23 have been given an AO rating — and only one for violent content, so this new game warrants a huge heads up.
Manhunt 2 has just been banned by the British rating board in the U.K. too, and my first disturbing thought is, “hmn, how much will its heinousness serve as a sales driver via viral word of mouth?”
This is the kind of conflicting analysis that makes my head spin when KFF’s Vicky Rideout, vice president and director of Kaiser’s Program for the Study of Entertainment Media and Health sums,
“While parents are still concerned about a lot of what they see in the media, most are surprisingly confident that they’ve got a handle on what their own kids are seeing and doing, but they remain more broadly concerned about inappropriate content in the media.”
“Confident they’ve got a handle on it?” Egad. C’mon, parents, peel off those blinders, you don’t have a handle on squat!
There’s no way to mitigate exposure to this kind of drek once it spreads like cancer into the marketplace.
It makes me wonder whether I should even be reporting this to parents as a heads up at all, or if we’d be better off in silence, squishing media momentum via counter-marketing first strike of no press whatsoever?
Perhaps an economic freezeout of any and all aligned corporate entities to hit ‘em in the pocketbook, tank the stock, and layoff the bozos creating this type of media manure for the masses?
The U.K. rating authorities differentiated the ban based on how this game crossed the line:
“Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing.
There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.”
Psychiatrist Alvin F. Poussaint, of the Judge Baker Children’s Center and Harvard Medical School said, “The most recent studies employing state-of-the-art neuro-imaging techniques support the behavioral research…There is evidence that violent video games can engender more aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors; and decrease empathetic, helpful behaviors with peers.”
Dr. Michael Rich, Director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children’s Hospital Boston spoke directly to the Wii issue, “By creating a virtual reality and allowing players to act out, rather than simply witness, fictional narratives in virtual worlds, players experience and learn the game’s skills, whether they be based in strategy, logic, or violence.
The content of Manhunt 2 and the unique physical interaction with the Wii control combine to take this simulation a level closer to reality – we can expect that the effects of this experience will be even greater.”
Seems among gaming parents, this desensitization to violence continues to be shrugged off as ‘harmless entertainment’ in the parental equivalent of ostrich-in-the-sand NIMBY denial…
Is it “censorship” to want to see this game FAIL?
Is there a way to counter-market the ‘coolness currency’ of ever-edgier bloodbaths, fear, and gruesome horror among youth?
Violent statistics aside, is sadistic gore and dehumanizing pain and destruction the media messaging we want to embrace in a civilized society?
As Sam Peckinpah said, “There is a great streak of violence in every human being. If it is not channeled and understood, it will break out in war or in madness.”
…Or in video games.
June 21st update from GamePolitics
Nintendo & Sony both will not release Manhunt 2 if it receives an AO rating, (big box retailers won’t stock it if it’s AO) and the comments on Joystiq.com on censorship and banning make for some interesting reads as well.
(at least the level-headed, well-reasoned ones, which add to the AO content & retooling, creative policy & game debate)
June 22: Release date delayed… This will no doubt start the censorship accusations churning big time…There are SO many fine lines here. (& now, this will vault sales, you see…)
Ireland and Britain have banned it, Italy’s seeking to have it cancelled there as well…but evidently U.S. gamers are vehement.
One hilarious parent mused to me, “imagine the poor gamer being deprived of the fully pixellated experience of flaying a human being.. The unmitigated GALL!”
Parents are lumped into the “do gooder groups” evidently…
This is gonna get ugly.
I was planning on commenting on this entire article, but I’ll limit myself to this last paragraph.
“As Sam Peckinpah said, “There is a great streak of violence in every human being. If it is not channeled and understood, it will break out in war or in madness.”
…Or in video games.”
And which would you prefer?
As benjamin Franklin said “Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither and will lose both.”
Increacing censorship of ANY kind pulls this country farther away from its foundations.
We pulled away from Britan to avoid this censorship, not create more. You like censorship? Then by all means, move back.
I’m rather curious, Video Gamer!–Just how old ARE you, anyway? Your use of quotations would indicate that you’re fairly educated and can apply them deftly, but your “indignity” about censorship hints at the fact that you’re NOT a parent and you’re not all that concerned about the issues Ms. J. addresses.–For those of us who are trying our best to raise our children on a level a bit above the lowest common denominator, your comments on this topic don’t seem very relevant.
Come on people,
Surely we don’t believe that ANYTHING somebody wants to publish in a videogame should be let out to the world. I think the blogger is trying to say, quite reasonably, that video games which portray and glorify socially dangerous behavior should get a pretty close look-see as to whether they are appropriate for kids to consume… That’s not censorship, that’s just common sense.
–sr
Tell me, VG, even with all the quantifiable data showing the impact of gruesome violence on kids’ behavior, is there any game you would NOT want to see produced? Curious…
And VG, though I DON’T like censorship as a rule, I DO like the freedom to choose to live in peaceful respect of one another, without feeling like I have to counter-market every media message flying in my face…that’s been taken away from parents.
Raising kids is like running a media gauntlet to dodge the most demeaning, destructive, cues that seep into their peer groups, schools, and kid-culture and impact them behaviorally.
I’d say we’ve censored CHILDHOOD in this “anything goes” media environment. Kids have had it taken away and banned completely.
The REASON I selected that quote was specifically for the beauty of its ambiguity; it applies to both sides of our dialogue, much like this one from Voltaire, “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.”
Evidently, I’ve got my work cut out for me with my industry colleagues here…sigh.
I’m rather surprised that I actually got a response to my post. First I’ll start by saying that I’m not a parent and I recently graduated college. As you can imagine I have some pretty “left wing” opinions in regards to free speech. I would also like to tell you a little about my childhood just so you know where I’m coming from with my argument. When I was 5 I got my first video game system, the Nintendo. Obviously, I still love video games very much. When I was about 10 I got my first actual “violent” video game, Doom 2. A game which caused much controversy in its time and by todays standards is laughable. The most popular games that I own are the GTA series. And I’d like to point out that the only reason that I bought it was because I heard that it was going to be banned. Its true, groups like Shaping Youth are the reason that I started playing those games. I felt that if it’s going to be banned then it must be good, and I wasn’t about to miss out on something like that. Oh and by the way, I wasn’t 17 when that game came out. You might wonder, then, where were my parents? It’s a popular argument of gamers that the parents are to blame for not keeping a better eye on their kids (I believe in that argument too.) My parents were right beside me to ACTUALLY WATCH what I was doing, my dad in particular because his brother is a police officer. And it’s because of that game that I gained my respect for police officers and the dangers of their job. It’s also because of that game that I made it a point to go out and actually fire a REAL gun. Not because I want to kill any one, but because I felt that by actually going out and doing it I would gain a better respect and understanding of firearms and firearm safety. To be perfectly honest, the first time I fired a gun I couldn’t even hit a target 10 yards in front of me (so much for games teaching our kids how to kill) and by this time I had been playing video games for 10 years. I should have been equivalent to a SWAT sharpshooter according to people like Jack Thompson. Ok, now that I’ve rambled too much I’ll actually address comments.
@Momzilla, Steve Richards
You can probably figure out my age and I already stated that I am not a parent. I do believe strongly in the freedom of speech that we have in this country. The constitution is quite clear in its wording “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” The creators of the constitution knew exactly what they were doing when they decided on this one. That’s why it’s #1 on the bill of rights. Had they wanted to include any ifs, ands, or buts they would have done so. They specifically did this because they wanted people to express their beliefs, no matter how crazy or obscene they may be. The intention was to challenge social norms, to bring “taboo” topics to the forefront of discussion. Quite ironically, rather than discuss those topics like civilized adults, we have banned those topics from our “accepted speech.” Our founding fathers experienced first hand what slow and increased censorship does to a people and they freed themselves from it.
@Amy
“Tell me, VG, even with all the quantifiable data showing the impact of gruesome violence on kids’ behavior, is there any game you would NOT want to see produced? Curious…”
It’s quite obvious that I don’t want anything censored from its creators original design for ANY reason, if see that I don’t like the creation, I just wont purchase it. Oh and there is no “quantifiable data” that proves anything of the sort. A causal relationship does not equal cause effect and I’m living proof of that.
“glamorize, or viscerally depict brutality as crude ‘entertainment’”
Ah…… the ol’ games reward violence argument. I’d like to ask a serious question here; Have any of you actually played these games? GTA has never rewarded or glamorized violence or cop killing. In fact it actually punishes you by making the game harder every time you do kill someone, thus creating a never ending circle(well, it doesn’t end until you die that is, which is surprisingly like real life.)
“Raising kids is like running a media gauntlet to dodge the most demeaning, destructive, cues that seep into their peer groups, schools, and kid-culture and impact them behaviorally.”
I have an ingenious and simple solution to this……NO. Take control as a parent and tell your kids NO. It worked quite well with me, when my parents said NO and I didn’t do it any more. If you truly are in control, as you all claim, then they will listen.
”I’d say we’ve censored CHILDHOOD”
And I’d say, you’re right! Children aren’t allowed to be children any more; we have too many safety cushions and protective layers. Our children will grow up to be quivering pale masses if we don’t let them go out and scrape a knee once in a while. By censoring life we aren’t properly raising our children to prepare for the real world. Mark Twain was quoted as saying “Censorship is like telling me I can’t eat steak because a baby can’t chew it.”
“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.”
I find it ironic that you can, in all seriousness, quote this and still be in favor of censorship. Many of Voltaire’s works were censored by the French monarchy and pretty much considered an intellectual terrorist (i.e. He could think for himself).
“I’d like the PRIVILEGE of being a parent without media usurping my role”
And you DO have that RIGHT as a parent. Get off your butt and do it……. TURN OFF THE TV AND TELL YOUR KIDS TO READ A BOOK! It’s just that simple.
In closing I would like to quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall; “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That, ladies and gents, is what free speech was founded on.
One last word before I forget, if Rockstar ends up NOT releasing Manhunt 2 with an AO rating, I will NOT purchase it.
VG, I think Dennis McCauley posting at Joystiq hit the nail on the head in their assessment of the AO rating and ESRB machinations, and will echo that logic here. http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/22/the-political-game-winners-and-losers-in-manhunt-2-meltdown
I’ll send you to Nick Yee’s site on gaming research, which I think you’ll find quite balanced as well, being a gamer. http://nickyee.com
I’m glad you got through childhood with balanced gaming behavior and firearm awareness as many kids do when accompanied by their parents (ESA cites 35% of parents play video games, of which 80% play with their children) but for every VG who takes a ‘just say no—turn off the media’ stance, those of us in the parental trenches roll our eyes and shake our heads at your level of bleak misunderstanding.
Kids don’t have to even engage with violent media to be impacted by it, for their peers expose them to it whether the kids want it or not.
We’re seeing excessively violent antisocial behavior in the classrooms and on the playgrounds, like 4th grade gamers heaving chairs at teachers (one hit me with a lunchbox!) and dark-side writing essays that would make your skin crawl.
If you were weaned on Doom 2 which is ‘laughable by today’s standards’ what will the generation of GTA, Manhunt 2 gamers have as their civility quotient raised on misogynistic decapitations and cruel sadistic mayhem?
No, I’m not saying all early gamers will turn into Columbine kids or Va. Tech shooters, but the battle zone being created by younger kids impacted by this “thrill to kill” dynamic IS bleeding onto behavioral actions. You’ll see…again, we reap what we sow.
As we all know, Game Suspension Could Spark Demand http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19376039/ which is why I’ll stop talking about it after this post, because for the record, my gripe is NOT about embracing a ban/censorship issue (common sense tells me that will just create more demand, as you rightly state)
I think they SHOULD keep the AO rating, not ban it altogether…
6-27-07 From Patricia Vance of the ESRB (entertainment software ratings board) copied to all concerned parents who voiced the need for an AO rating on this gig.
Here’s her letter in its entirety, to help all understand the machinations of the ESRB rating guidelines & put comments into context. Here goes:
“First and foremost, let me say that I commend your efforts to help parents make sensible choices regarding the video games they allow their children to play. The ESRB rating system was designed specifically for this purpose, and our ratings provide guidance to parents that allows them to make informed decisions about the games they deem suitable for their families. It is a responsibility that we take extremely seriously.
As you are now aware, prior to receipt of your letter and those from your supporters, the ESRB had already assigned an AO (Adults Only 18+) rating to Manhunt 2 for the Nintendo Wii, Sony PlayStation 2 (PS2) and Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP). While the publisher of the game now has a couple of options (e.g., modify the game’s content and resubmit it for rating or appeal the rating to an appeals board) and has not yet notified us of the course of action it intends to pursue, ESRB stands firmly behind the rating assigned to the game. We appreciate the support your group has expressed with respect to that determination.
The AO (Adults Only 18+) rating is our most restrictive rating, and it was assigned in this case based on the consideration of numerous factors that raters take into account each time they rate a game, including but not limited to the game’s content and the context within which it is presented, intensity, frequency, reward system, and the degree of player control. The AO rating does pose a challenge to game publishers, however, in that most major retailers currently choose not to sell AO-rated games, and the console manufacturers (Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony) have not allowed AO-rated games to be published for their platforms. These circumstances, which are beyond the ESRB’s control, are a significant reason why most games which receive the AO rating from ESRB end up being modified and resubmitted in order to receive a rating that would allow for them to be played on game systems and sold to the public. The ESRB does not exist to censor games; our job is simply to assign ratings in a useful, impartial, concise and reliable manner as an aid to consumers.
Regardless of the outcome in this case, it is important to emphasize that the M (Mature 17+) rating is a strong and clear warning that the content of the game is not recommended for those under the age of 17. We could use your help reinforcing that message. Additionally, most video game retailers have store policies with respect to the sale or rental of M-rated games to customers under the age of 17, and in their most recent Report to Congress the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recognized the “major improvement in retailers’ performance restricting children’s access to M-rated video games.” Enforcement of store policies by major retailers with respect to the sale or rental of M-rated video games is currently even more effective than movie theatres’ restriction of admittance to R-rated films, and far surpasses that for DVD sales at retail.
Most parents are also ably doing their job. The FTC’s research reported that about six in ten parents say they never allow their children to play M-rated games. In fact, according to our own consumer research, parents of children under the age of 13 are twice as likely as those with children 13 and older to never allow them to play M-rated games. The ESRB, retailers and, most importantly, parents, are all taking responsible steps to ensure that children play games that are age-appropriate.
You should also know that there is an arm of ESRB, the Advertising Review Council (ARC), which enforces guidelines with respect to how M- and AO-rated games may be marketed. Companies that violate these guidelines are subject to penalties, and, in fact, the FTC has recognized that the ESRB actively enforces these advertising guidelines.
Although we assigned the AO rating to Manhunt 2 prior to receipt of your letter, we do appreciate the time you took to express your opinion on the issue. The ratings are intended to be a useful tool for parents, and naturally we are always pleased to get feedback from those that have mutual concerns and interests.
We encourage those who sent letters to find out more about the ESRB on our website at http://www.esrb.org, where they can also subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates and other important news with respect to the ESRB and its rating system. Being informed is a vital part of sound parenting, and we urge parents to take advantage of the many resources we make available on our website to help them choose games they deem suitable for their children. The ESRB ratings are just one tool among many that parents can use, and we hope that in the future you would support our ongoing efforts to ensure that all parents are aware of them.
I hope this letter serves as the beginning, not the end, of a fruitful and meaningful dialogue for all concerned.
Warm regards,
Patricia E. Vance
President, Entertainment Software Rating Board”
Wal-Mart sells cigarettes and beer……………
With an I.D. check, yes?
Walmart sells beer and cigarettes with a required ID, just as they can only legally sell mature-rated games to minors within the company of an adult. Parents are responsible for purchases of any games “unsuitable” for their child or children.
A tip: To better support and validate anyone’s argument against video games, one should simply play these “obscene” games through first. Then at least they’ll get somewhere.
That said, there are plenty of environmental influences on kids that resonate on the positive gaming front…and that’s what we’re all about.
Amy Jussel’s last blog post..Get Out of Your Own Life! Environmental Influence on Kids
Hold on a second. You’re implying that I regularly play these games. I’m only interested in them in order to better come to grips with an apparent “issue” that people seem to feel is rather prevalent today. It’s true, we do all have our personal prerogatives, and I’m glad you acknowledge that. Just as every parent has a choice to pay close and detailed attention to their children and their lives, individuals have the liberty to prove or naysay the validity of that argument. However, I’d rather not open up yet another can of worms…
I couldn’t agree more that the positive games are what youths need to be better exposed to. My question is: who is to advocate these games to the young ones? The media? C’mon. If a kid (teenager more likely) looks on the game shelf and notices Mario Golf sitting right next to Fallout 3, it’s goign to be a tough call.
Nonetheless, it’s comforting to know that you have played and experienced the games you are blogging of. Equipped with that sort of in depth understanding, it adds so much more substance to your argument.
Mom for Video Games’s last blog post..Diagnosis Endometriosis: What to Know As Preteens Grow