Hello again everyone. Last time we spoke, I ranted on about having way too many systems to choose from for us to game on. This time, I wanted to take a second and through up our thoughts on video game violence since that's become the big thing lately.
First off, I wrote a paper a few years ago, if I can ever find the files, I'll post a copy of it on here, but it was a long (10 page or so) paper, detailing out video game violence and some solutions to keep the sensitive kiddy eyes away from it.
Now into the discussion. As has been said in any article that isn't from a major news outlet, video game violence has NEVER been connected to real life violence. I recently read a story about a teenager in New Mexico who when nuts and killed his family. The kid talked about how he loved "violent" games. The article immediately said there was a correlation. However, there is no link that has been studied that connects playing hours of Call of Duty to murdering a bunch of real people. That being said, I can see a critics point of view that says these psychos play violent games all the time. Personally, I'd like to see a little bit more study into it. But, I'm also interested to see what an "official" definition of violent games would be. Would it be any first person shooter, even the ones that aren't rated for mature audiences? Would Street Fighter qualify on the same level as Mortal Kombat? Would 007 Legends be as terrible as Call of Duty? These are some questions that we need to consider when talking about these violent games.
I don't think that "violent" games, whatever that category falls under, need to be outlawed. I think that the ratings system needs to be enforced. There was talk a couple years ago of fines being issued to stores and individuals who sell Mature rated games to people who are underage. This is a great idea! This will help to keep the store clerks from allowing the players who are too young to buy the games themselves. Another point is to make sure that if the parent is buying the game for their kid (I work retail, you can often tell when this is happening) that they understand that the game is rated "M" for mature, (Or 16 and 18 if you live in the countries that use the PEGI system) then their child who is probably between twelve and fifteen shouldn't play the game. When that point gets reached, the parent should be held responsible for making sure that their child can understand the difference between reality and fantasy.
The ESRB is the ratings board for the USA. The ratings are very simple to understand, and I plan on breaking them down in just a bit for everyone. ESRB ratings are displayed on the front of every game case carried in your local stores. On the bottom left corner in a black and white box, there will be a giant solid black letter signifying what the game is rated. On the back of the cases, on the bottom right, is a description of why the game is rated what it is. If you think that your child can handle Blood and Gore, Violence, Strong Language, then buy it. If you think they can't, then you probably shouldn't. I've found an easy way to understand game ratings is to relate them to movie ratings. Now, a quick summary of the ESRB rating system compared against the MPAA system for rating movies. I'm using ESRB because living in the USA, that is the system I'm most familiar with.
"E" stands for Everyone 6 and up, stuff in this game can be related to what you would find in a "G" rated movie. Generally has nothing objectionable in it. Pokemon is an "E" rated game series.
"E10" stands for Everyone 10 and up, similar to a "PG" rated movie, so still pretty much kid friendly, not really any kind of language or blood and guts, maybe a bit of action. LEGO Harry Potter falls under this category.
"T" stands for Teens 13 and up. This is your basic "PG-13" rating if it were a movie. Some blood, language, gun fire, maybe some partial nudity and light drug or alcohol use. May want to check this out before buying it for your child, just to be safe. The Uncharted Series are under this rating.
"M" stands for Mature players 17 and up. This is your "R" rated movie. A simple way to judge whether or not you would want your child playing this is to ask if you want them to watch an "R" rated movie. Blood and gore, violence, moderate to strong language, dismemberment, nudity, drug and alcohol use, or anything else goes with these. Parents should definitely do research before getting these for their kids. This would be your Call of Duty, Halo, and Assassin's Creed type games.
"AO" stands for Adults Only, 18 and up. Basically an "NC-17" movie. These games tend to only be available on the internet for computers. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo do not allow them on their consoles. These are generally heavily involved with sex, and some extreme super violence that would make the Saw franchise look like Barney and Friends. These are pretty hard to come by, and pretty much impossible on a console game. I actually don't know any games rated AO. Shows you guys how rare they are.
So, there it is, plain as day for anyone who isn't already aware of what these ratings mean. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you probably already know all of this. Do all of us who are involved in the gaming world a favor, and make sure people are aware of these ratings. It's amazing how many people aren't. As I said towards the top of this post, the problem doesn't revolve around the content of the games, the problem is that parents need to make sure that their kids are playing things that are appropriate for their child's age. That's not to say that not following the system will screw up your kids, I played Perfect Dark when I was ten, but I was also well aware of what was reality and what wasn't. Share this article with someone who isn't familiar with game ratings. Education people! That's how we are going to keep games from turning into scapegoats! See you online!
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
An Opinion on Gaming Systems
I'm sitting here listening to music stream from my PS3 and a thought occurred. We are sitting on a very delicate situation for old, seasoned gamers such as those of us here at GWB, and a potentially very confusing situation for gamers freshly entering the market of buying their own systems. There are a surprising amount of consoles and handhelds that are on the market currently, or being developed to be released in the very near future. I'm gonna go into a little detail, but the TL-DR version, is to read into things and make knowledgeable purchases for your systems. Don't fall for gimmicks.
Back in the early to mid '90s there were a frightening number of gaming devices on the market. The NES, the SNES, the Genesis (1, 2, and 3), the SegaCD, the Sega Saturn, the 3do, the list goes on. The problem with these was over saturation, and lack of a defining super game for the systems save for Sega and Nintendo. We are seeing a similar situation developing now. The public is currently free to buy a Wii-U, Wii, PS3, 360, PSP, Vita, DS, and a 3DS. All of these systems are being supported. (The Wii and PSP not so much as they used to be really) This coming year, we are expecting to see the next Xbox, the PS4, the Ouya, the Steam Box, iPads and iPhones, and several handheld devices that are Android powered. This puts developers in a very difficult situation with deciding on what platforms to make games.
The Wii, DS, and PSP are all dying systems. The development of newer games has slowed drastically, though the systems still sell fairly well. The DS may have been dealt it's death blow by Nintendo's recent announcement Pokemon X and Y coming only to the 3DS with some awesome looking new graphical direction. The fact of the matter is, even with these systems on the way out, there's still an enormous amount of choices for the gamers of today to partake in.
I see a problem where a developer may look at a game and decide that they have the team to make it for all available platforms thus splintering a team into many small parts, each one needing separate managers to be able to keep track of all the information and reporting to the creative director who is going to have to make changes to each specific game based on the needs of each system. Hypothetically, if a developer were to take this approach, they would need to have at least seven different versions of their game. While each version would fundamentally be the same, they would all have to be coded differently, take different controls, and be coded to run properly within the limitations of each system. Conversely, if a developer decides to make games for one particular system, in the vein of a second party developer, they run a strong risk of limiting their earning potential.
Competition is a key factor in any kind of business, but with an industry like the video game industry, too much competition can be a poison. Each system needs to make sure that people have a reason to buy their system that is above and beyond what the competition has to offer. For example, PS3 has free online, access to Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Instant Video, and several other video services. It also has a built in Blu-Ray player, which isn't as important now as it was a few years ago. The Xbox on the other hand offers a pay to play online service, but has many more video, music, and social services to offer if you do decide to pay. PS3 has many more exclusive games that come to it, but that is in part due to Sony outright owning twelve or so studios. Microsoft cannot keep up with the amount of exclusive games that Sony has, but it does offer a much better online experience.
Every system has their fanboys, but the fact of the matter is, without something to set all of these individual systems apart from the others, consumers are going to become confused and apathetic towards purchasing a new system. Another issue with that is that if nobody buys the hardware, the companies making the hardware will have a hard time staying afloat unless they have several other interests such as Microsoft and Windows, or Sony and TVs.
I'm sitting in my chair right now surrounded by all kinds of technology. I have my PS3 running, my 360 is off, my Wii is in standby, my 3DS is on the charger, and so is my Android phone. Whenever I decide I'm going to purchase a game, I have to sit and think about what system I'm buying it for. Although, I generally don't buy games for my phone, I tend to stick to the free ones there. These kind of decisions are sometimes difficult because I have a different number of controllers for each system so I need to decide what system that I would prefer to play the (potential) multiplayer portion of each game on. I know that later on this year I'm going to probably have to make a choice as to buying the next PlayStation or the next Xbox. I still haven't managed to get enough cash around to get a Wii-U yet, but that's another system I want to get my hands on, which will give me another set of options on what system to buy the games for.
I'm not trying to be an alarmist. I do not think that the Android based handhelds, the Ouya, or the Steam Box will cause a lot of issue with consumers. The Steam Box will be bought by people who have a steam account, but are looking for some different ways to play their games. The Ouya will be bought by people looking for something cheap to be able to play games on their TVs. Finally, the Android based handhelds will come and go by the by due to the 3DS and the Vita. However, these things that as consumers we should all probably be aware of. Make sure you know your system before you buy it. Do some basic research on Google. Knowledge is power, and money is not an infinite resource for most of us. Just some things for everyone to think on. If you have any thoughts, please don't hesitate to comment below, I'd like to see what you guys think. See you online.
Back in the early to mid '90s there were a frightening number of gaming devices on the market. The NES, the SNES, the Genesis (1, 2, and 3), the SegaCD, the Sega Saturn, the 3do, the list goes on. The problem with these was over saturation, and lack of a defining super game for the systems save for Sega and Nintendo. We are seeing a similar situation developing now. The public is currently free to buy a Wii-U, Wii, PS3, 360, PSP, Vita, DS, and a 3DS. All of these systems are being supported. (The Wii and PSP not so much as they used to be really) This coming year, we are expecting to see the next Xbox, the PS4, the Ouya, the Steam Box, iPads and iPhones, and several handheld devices that are Android powered. This puts developers in a very difficult situation with deciding on what platforms to make games.
The Wii, DS, and PSP are all dying systems. The development of newer games has slowed drastically, though the systems still sell fairly well. The DS may have been dealt it's death blow by Nintendo's recent announcement Pokemon X and Y coming only to the 3DS with some awesome looking new graphical direction. The fact of the matter is, even with these systems on the way out, there's still an enormous amount of choices for the gamers of today to partake in.
I see a problem where a developer may look at a game and decide that they have the team to make it for all available platforms thus splintering a team into many small parts, each one needing separate managers to be able to keep track of all the information and reporting to the creative director who is going to have to make changes to each specific game based on the needs of each system. Hypothetically, if a developer were to take this approach, they would need to have at least seven different versions of their game. While each version would fundamentally be the same, they would all have to be coded differently, take different controls, and be coded to run properly within the limitations of each system. Conversely, if a developer decides to make games for one particular system, in the vein of a second party developer, they run a strong risk of limiting their earning potential.
Competition is a key factor in any kind of business, but with an industry like the video game industry, too much competition can be a poison. Each system needs to make sure that people have a reason to buy their system that is above and beyond what the competition has to offer. For example, PS3 has free online, access to Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Instant Video, and several other video services. It also has a built in Blu-Ray player, which isn't as important now as it was a few years ago. The Xbox on the other hand offers a pay to play online service, but has many more video, music, and social services to offer if you do decide to pay. PS3 has many more exclusive games that come to it, but that is in part due to Sony outright owning twelve or so studios. Microsoft cannot keep up with the amount of exclusive games that Sony has, but it does offer a much better online experience.
Every system has their fanboys, but the fact of the matter is, without something to set all of these individual systems apart from the others, consumers are going to become confused and apathetic towards purchasing a new system. Another issue with that is that if nobody buys the hardware, the companies making the hardware will have a hard time staying afloat unless they have several other interests such as Microsoft and Windows, or Sony and TVs.
I'm sitting in my chair right now surrounded by all kinds of technology. I have my PS3 running, my 360 is off, my Wii is in standby, my 3DS is on the charger, and so is my Android phone. Whenever I decide I'm going to purchase a game, I have to sit and think about what system I'm buying it for. Although, I generally don't buy games for my phone, I tend to stick to the free ones there. These kind of decisions are sometimes difficult because I have a different number of controllers for each system so I need to decide what system that I would prefer to play the (potential) multiplayer portion of each game on. I know that later on this year I'm going to probably have to make a choice as to buying the next PlayStation or the next Xbox. I still haven't managed to get enough cash around to get a Wii-U yet, but that's another system I want to get my hands on, which will give me another set of options on what system to buy the games for.
I'm not trying to be an alarmist. I do not think that the Android based handhelds, the Ouya, or the Steam Box will cause a lot of issue with consumers. The Steam Box will be bought by people who have a steam account, but are looking for some different ways to play their games. The Ouya will be bought by people looking for something cheap to be able to play games on their TVs. Finally, the Android based handhelds will come and go by the by due to the 3DS and the Vita. However, these things that as consumers we should all probably be aware of. Make sure you know your system before you buy it. Do some basic research on Google. Knowledge is power, and money is not an infinite resource for most of us. Just some things for everyone to think on. If you have any thoughts, please don't hesitate to comment below, I'd like to see what you guys think. See you online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)