Digital Cream

See this article at PCWorld about how the game “Manhunt” was given an AO (Adults Only) rating by the ESRB.

As a game developer and parent, I’m prepared to support the AO rating given to Manhunt 2 by the ESRB. (My support is contingent on my better understanding of the game’s content and the definition of AO.)

I don’t accept the argument that because certain retail stores don’t carry AO games, and no console maker at this point allows the publication of AO games, the game should not get AO “because that makes it effectively censored”. This is what the free market is all about, and allows the USA to have a better way of dealing with this game than UK and Australia and others. (continued »)

Interestingly, my research has revealed that “M15+” games, which IMO closely map to M games in the ESRB system (that is, not suitable for those under 15), can in fact be sold here in Australia to those over 15 or those who are in the company of their parent or guardian (in Queensland, only has to be an adult). So my earlier assertion was wrong.

I wonder if this was a recent (and quiet) change. I’m not very fond of the requirement that an under-15 needs to be accompanied– so I cannot give my son money to go buy a M15+ game at the mall; I have to be there with him as he buys it, the requirement of which I feel abrogates my role as a parent– but that’s not high on my list of injustices to rectify. At least I was able to get Crackdown for my Oz 360, and it is a M15+ game. I think this used to be different; in 2001 GTA3 was not sold here because it was deemed to hot for MA15+ but now the GTAs are sold as MA15+. I’m not sure if they got toned down by Rockstar or the rating definitions flexed a bit.

From The Observer: 

Playing computer games may actually be good for children, according to a government study that found no proof that even violent games triggered aggressive behaviour.The games can improve children’s decision-making and instil ‘positive learning traits’, some research suggests. At least one study argues that make-believe violence helps children ‘conquer fears and develop a sense of identity’, as gruesome fairytales once did.

The review was ordered by ministers over concerns about possible links between bloodthirsty games and real-life violence. The fatal stabbing of 14-year-old Stefan Pakeerah, whose attacker was said to have been obsessed with a game called Manhunt, prompted a campaign by his mother to have violent titles banned.

The review concluded fears about violent games reflected deeper social concerns about ‘the changing nature of childhood in a modern world’. Most research suggesting a link came from America and did not take into account the context in which children played.

Ministers have discussed age-labelling of games and are understood to be planning talks with the industry about helping parents choose titles.

This is due to the HotCoffee fiasco which I presume everyone already knows about.

I think the action by the ESRB forcing an AO rating onto GTA:SA is justified. Rockstar needs to be spanked in order to bolster confidence in the ESRB rating system, which is (at least for now) protecting our industry from heavy-handed governmental regulation.

The political grandstanding about this is, as usual, both amusing and revolting. But that’s to be expected. Rockstar were idiots to allow this to happen and I want to personally slap those responsible.

I’m more willing than anyone to see an AO game be made and sold to enormous profit… but it must be clearly rated as such. Rockstar has set things back considerably.