![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.6){kind=small}
Video game ratings, video game violence, video game sex, Hot Coffee - their political and cultural impact are debated endlessly by politicians, gamers, parents, media pundits, activists and the video game industry itself. It's a battle that rages on but never seems to get anywhere, in large part due to the irreconcilable disconnect between those who "get" games and those who don't.
Thoughtful observers have long realized that, in the minds of many, games are inherently a form of child's play. It's not hard to understand why. When video games came along a quarter-century ago, even their creators saw them as children's entertainment. They were marketed to kids in retail toy stores - still are, in fact.
Such critics will always equate "games" with "toys" - and thus with children. And it's not just the nay-sayers. Too many parents either don't understand game content and ESRB ratings or simply can't say no to when their kids ask for age-inappropriate games. And, although the retailers, publishers and ESRB have made great strides, there will still be a certain amount of games sold or rented to kids who aren't old enough for its content. No system is perfect - not voluntary compliance systems like the one currently in place or legislated systems such as those currently under review by the federal judiciary in California and Michigan.
Things have changed, of course. Video game content now runs the gamut from kid-friendly titles like Curious George and LEGO Star Wars to adult-themed offerings such as GTA San Andreas and Black to the highly socialized online communities of World of Warcraft and Second Life or the largely adult-populated casual game scene of Pogo.
Over the years, gamers and game designers have recognized the artistic and expressive potential of video games, along with their power to enlighten and entertain players from four to ninety-four. But there are also millions who missed that particular cultural bus. Perhaps they had no gamer children. Or they weren't into technology. Or they simply just don't hold with video games. No one says - or should say - that video games are for everyone.
So there will always be people - adult people, voting people, influential people - who either don't understand or don't care to understand video games. Thus the video game industry finds itself in a Vietnam-style stalemate: an endless culture war it probably can't win, but can't lose, either - thanks to a series of successful First Amendment holding actions.
So it may be time to change the name of the game.
A two-tiered system that used terminology to differentiate "M" (17 and older) and "AO" (adults only) games from those meant for younger players would give parents another "tool" - a term of which which game-legislating politicians are so fond. It would show the industry's commitment to keeping mature content away from underage players, and might even convince legislators that they needn't invest time and tax dollars into constitutionally-doomed video game legislation.
How might such a system work?
It's all in a name, really. For starters, the word "game" has to go, at least for the 17-plus titles. Not an easy task, certainly, given nearly three decades of "gaming." But the industry could differentiate these products by calling them "adult interactive" or whatever catchy name its marketing pros can dream up. An aggressive ad campaign would be needed, of course, to promote the distinction between games meant for younger and older players. Perhaps a new packaging style for the M and AO games would help consumers, parents and store clerks tell the difference as well.
In the end, redefining adult titles as something other than "games" could show the world that the industry recognizes and wants to deal with the issues involved.
Thoughts, GP readers?
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →
February 12 2006, 17:12:26 UTC 6 years ago
Name change might help
Although in the mainstream media and in stores, they'll still be called "games" just through force of habit. Although I think "Electronic Entertainment" would go a long way to shifting the stigma away from "games are for kids".Then again, most parents have shown they are incapable of reading an MPAA sticker, let alone an ESRB one, so I'm not sure how changing the advertising scheme will help... Parents will still buy whatever their kids demand.
February 12 2006, 18:20:46 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Name change might help
Electronic Entertainment seem the best term to use. A "Electronic Entertainment user" sound more adult then "gamer". But how would we describe a "game" ? Like what other post say, like a graphic novel is to a comic, then what is there to a game ?
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 12 2006, 17:13:28 UTC 6 years ago
Well
About the unstoppable culture war thing.. Right now, the situation is just like you're describing it, but I'm pretty sure it won't stay that way; As time passes, more and more controversial stuff will pop up, like holograms and stuff. People will simply find other stuff to care about.That's my opinion, anywhoo
February 12 2006, 17:17:04 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Well
You're theory is time tested and true. BB guns, Comics, Cartoons, R-rated movies... Hell, even POG coins and Pokemon trading cards were once a huge deal with liberal p.o.s. pro-stupidity lawmakers.6 years ago
February 12 2006, 17:14:14 UTC 6 years ago
Name change
Games should be called something along the lines of "entertainment software" however, I think people will always refer to them as video games.February 12 2006, 17:14:15 UTC 6 years ago
I like
I fully support the ideas you've presented. However, it saddens me that the majority of people are so ignorant that these measures have to even be considered. But the overwhelming ignorance of society is a problem in so many other areas that I guess I could have expected this. So I fully support this. I don't have any good ideas to contribute just yet, though.February 12 2006, 17:16:40 UTC 6 years ago
It's an interesting solution, though the weight that the word "Game" carries is quite heavy. Most of the people I know pride themselves in the term "Gamer".
I think changing the way mature video games are referred to is somewhat pandering to people who simply don't care about video games enough to find out what their children are playing. I mean, how much more obvious does a game title like "God of War" or "Grand Theft Auto" have to be for a parent to take notice?
I think that seperating mature video games from childrens' games might be a better solution; kinda like the "Adult" section in a video rental store.
February 12 2006, 17:26:22 UTC 6 years ago
Graphic Novels
Good point. I'd forgotten that they'd done that. How well has it worked though? After initial confusion when hearing the name, your average soccer mom will still go oh, a COMIC book when explained the concept.Just like "collectibles" are still under the stigma of "toys for people who can't grow up"
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 12 2006, 17:18:20 UTC 6 years ago
That being said, I have to wonder what we'd call it. I mean adult games, adult entertainment, etc. all do indeed bring an 18+ mindset, however they also entail the baggage of immediately thinking we're dealing with pornographic material.
Ratings in general seem to have worked for movies though. After all, we don't think of all movies as being violent or kiddie, we look at their rating to decide if it's suitable for a child. Kids should be seeing G/PG/etc; R-rated, probably not so. Either way, in the home this is a moot point. It's up the parents to decide what their kid will be watching, just as much as it should be up to the parents what their kids should be playing. No matter what you call them, that's sitll the heart of the matter here. Some parents are responsible with this, some aren't. Some kids are more mature than others. Some parents are better at running their homes than others. Regardless, it's still the parents' responsibility.
February 12 2006, 17:30:41 UTC 6 years ago
When we think of "cartoons" we think of children, right? Kids watch cartoons.
But who watches anime...?
Anime has always been marketted as "adult anime" or cartoons not necessarily for children.
What if, with suffient marketting and complete agreement on the part of the gaming publishers/content creators to use a different term than "video game" for things like GTA? It'll sound strange, at first, but when things are repeated-- like, say, turning the war on Iraq from "wmd's" to "iraqi liberation"-- they're like to catch on.
All we need is a good word, industry support, and a shit load of repitition.
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 12 2006, 17:21:33 UTC 6 years ago
Might Help
"Interactive Entertainment" would be a good name, but everybody's still going to call them games.To add to Jabrwock: Minors are more successful buying R-rated or unrated movies or uncensored TV shows than M-rated games(Partially because most games are kept in the glass display cases).
Plus, Hollywood only makes what we want to see. That's why TV Shows like CSI and Desperate Housewives, Movies like Sin City, and games like GTA sell and the family-friendly crap are hardly heard of.
February 12 2006, 17:30:32 UTC 6 years ago
February 12 2006, 17:31:38 UTC 6 years ago
As for your idea to redefine adult titles, isn't that in the same spirit as the bill that was introduced a while back that lumped games with pornography? I would think that making M and AO rated games separate from all other titles in name and in packaging would probably encourage major retail store chains to stop carrying them. In addition, if I was a game developer, I would see this new area of "adult interactive" as free license to make whatever the hell I wanted. Games would become more hardcore and people like Jack Thompson would scream even louder about them. I think it would create more problems than it would solve.
I honestly think games have done more than enough to indicate their content. The ESRB rating is right on the cover after all, and you certainly won't find the MPAA rating on the cover of a new DVD. Why is that? It's because if you see Pulp Fiction sitting on the shelf, you already know what kind of movie it is. The real issues include the one you brought up-- awareness-- and the double standard associated with it. If someone showed their eight year old kid Pulp Fiction, people would probably think, "what the HELL were you thinking?" However, if someone let their eight year old kid play GTA, the reaction suddenly becomes, "oh, those evil video games!" That's just plain ludicrous. If you're a parent, take some responsibility and know what kind of game you're looking at before you buy it. It's not hard... like I said before, the rating is right on the cover.
February 12 2006, 18:28:00 UTC 6 years ago
"Hey mom, what dose promiscuous mean?"
"Well it means a woman who has sex with a lot of people"
"..."
"Like Capitan Kirk!"
"Yes, but Kirk is 'manly' and is accorded respect. When a woman is promiscuous they are considered to have a mental illness"
"That doesn't make sense"
"Just another double standard, "
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 12 2006, 17:33:11 UTC 6 years ago
To a point, though, all of this is silly. At what point does the gaming industry end responsibility? Why does the gaming industry have to be responsible because Mother bought Son Jimmy a mature rated game called "Grand Theft Auto"?
Is the movie industry responsible because Mother took Son Jimmy to see Reservoir Dogs?
Maybe it would stop confusion if the video games just took on the movie rating system: G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17. It may not be quite as form fitting as the current system, but people would probably be more familiar with them.
Not that it matters. People would still complain about them. *shrug*
February 12 2006, 17:41:36 UTC 6 years ago
ESRB can't use the MPAA system...
..because the MPAA owns the copyrights to it.I'm not confused, but I'm not a parent, and to paraphrase Bill Cosby, "all parents have brain damage!" :p
Bottom line: ESRB is similiar to the MPAA and TV ratings. It's so fucking simple to understand the similiarities.
E = G = TV-Y, Y7, & G
E10 = PG = TV-PG
T = PG13 = TV-14
M = R = TV-MA
AO = NC-17
See, no confusion whatsoever. :p
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 12 2006, 17:34:59 UTC 6 years ago
actually it's been done before
if any of you remember back in 86 when the NES first came out they shyed away from calling them games, it was for a different reason, but the princible was still the same (IE the nintendo wasn't a video game system, it was an entertainment system), the reason they did it then was they were afraid people wouldn't want to buy a video game system after the way the atari crashed a few years earlierthe fact is it would never catch on just as it never caught on 20 years ago
February 12 2006, 17:37:09 UTC 6 years ago
Either way, it's got to become the standard for it to work.
February 12 2006, 17:39:38 UTC 6 years ago
Totally OT
Holy crap, your freaking avatar, man! O_O6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 12 2006, 17:42:35 UTC 6 years ago
I doubt 'movies' sounded the way it does today 70 years ago
Or 'film'. 'Television' got away with it because it sounded more complex. But I bet in 20 years when somebody says the word 'game' it will be synchronised with the image of video games, and not only that, but adult and children's video games as well. This is something I've thought about myself, but as the gaming generation get's older, this stigma will drop away.Besides, all the other names sound naff.
February 12 2006, 23:11:11 UTC 6 years ago
Re: I doubt 'movies' sounded the way it does today 70 years ago
I agree. "Movie" is the dumbest word when you think about it. "Oh, look! The picture is moving. I think I'll call it a moo-vee".Abd they were thought of as a vice much like videogames are today.
February 12 2006, 17:47:57 UTC 6 years ago
With that said.
While I disagree with your specific solution, I do agree in spirit that games have an image problem. I think that there are a couple reasons for this:
February 12 2006, 18:03:40 UTC 6 years ago
Was that an anonymous poster or the gaming degree guy?
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 12 2006, 17:54:20 UTC 6 years ago
February 12 2006, 18:15:37 UTC 6 years ago
How about...
Graphicaly Advanced Moving Entertainment!we would call it G.A.M.E for short.
February 12 2006, 20:18:18 UTC 6 years ago
Re: How about...
Briliant!February 12 2006, 18:16:12 UTC 6 years ago
Anyway. It's not the intelligent people who actually check the already listed ratings and content for whether or not it'd be appropriate for their kids. It's the people who are too damned lazy to look a the NICE BIG LETTERS ON THE BOX that say whether it's appropriate for their kids who buy the inappropriate games and then whine and bitch when their children are exposed to something they shouldn't be. It's called "shifting blame."
Changing the name from "video games" to something else won't change what the lazy parents view it as. They'll still see it as an electronic "nanny" with music and flashing lights that they can sit Junior in front of.
February 12 2006, 18:30:40 UTC 6 years ago
Maybe. It's just a suggestion.
February 12 2006, 23:17:36 UTC 6 years ago
February 12 2006, 18:35:35 UTC 6 years ago
my 2 cents
Even if we change the name of video games or change the ratings to fit the movie ratings it wont matter.People are set now on the idea that ALL video games are only made for children and NO adults play video games at all because it is just a immature hobby.Soccer moms will still complain when they go and buy Gta for their 6 year old and try to file bogus lawsuits.Not to sound like a buzz killer but we are stuck dealing with these ignorant people who wont learn or try to understand video games so we might as well just deal with them.Me personally i just ignore them now because they arent worth my timeFebruary 12 2006, 18:42:10 UTC 6 years ago
Re: my 2 cents
Remeber the old anonymous posts? Some of them put in my mind the picture of a fat middle-aged woman who spoiled their child rotten and felt pissed the world wasn't amazed at everything they did. Personally I'm quite amazed the children of some of these people even know how to talk.6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 12 2006, 18:43:22 UTC 6 years ago
February 12 2006, 18:58:16 UTC 6 years ago
The problem is....
Stereotypes. You hear the word gamer, and for the most part people think no of a person who plays videogames so much that dust settes on him.Changing the name of our entertainment will do nothing to stop the enemies of it from continuing to call it "videogames" and attempt to stamp it censored.
Sure we can begin to try changing the names, but there in lay problems. Who wants to tell EGM to change their name to "Electronic Entertainment Monthly"?
Other problems stem from the system and platform of choice. Most times I see that people are divided between console and PC, thinking of the PC as separate.
So if we are going to prove people wrong about gamers, it will be because of stereotype change, nothing about name change.
February 12 2006, 19:00:19 UTC 6 years ago
Re: The problem is....
and until people stop thinking the word video game and just assume all gamers are little 7 year old children playing in their spongebob squarepants pajamas while mommy and daddy sleep we are stuck with what we have to deal with.So i say pop in a few games and hope all these people jump off a cliffFebruary 12 2006, 19:04:14 UTC 6 years ago
seems like an interesting idea...
but I don't think it would work out. First of all, they are what the name describes:"Video Games. Changing the name is not gonna change that fact. You can call it "Entertainment Software" but it still always be a game. I believe that the only way to get rid of the image that video games are only for children is to grow older and pass our knowledge to a new generation, just like when film was first invented, it wasn't really considered art at first.February 12 2006, 19:14:20 UTC 6 years ago
This won't really change until the folks who actually grew up with games begin to get into office.
February 12 2006, 19:19:28 UTC 6 years ago
February 12 2006, 19:39:12 UTC 6 years ago
I do think that a game by any other name would play as sweet, if you'll pardon the awful homage. But calling a game something other than a game is, frankly, wrong. There are already way too many touchy-feely euphemisms being employed in American culture - something I have come to loathe as a journalism student. Games are games, just like movies are movies and books are books. Not all books are for kids. Not all movies are for kids. You see what I mean?
I think changing the name now, while positive in that it shows the industry is willing to be progressive, is ultimately flawed. Video games are still a very new medium, and it will be a while yet before they're permanently ingrained into society like the aforementioned media.
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →