Prime Minister Targets Games

Not a mention of adult gamers in that whole piece. This is quite worrying, because these suits aren't feed correct information by their flunkies. Not one representaitve of adult gamers, this still reinforces that stereotype that only kids play games. For a growing industry that brings so much money into this country, why can't someone in the industry get out there and represent our needs as gamers.

I'd vote for Clive Barker to do this. He's a known name with games and mainstream media and understands what games are about and who plays them. Come on, Clive.

As far as I'm concerned, children already get enough protection via age ratings in the U.K. Once you start going beyond and circumventing that and treading on the interests of mature adults, then we are gonna have a big problem. Adults without kids have to give up their gaming rights for those with kids? That's just crazy, where will it end?

I used to watch Prime Minister's Questions on C-SPAN...far more entertaining than anything the US legislature has ever put on TV....I'd like to see some brave MP ask Mister Brown if he is aware that the average gamer was in the 13-16 age group when Margaret Thatcher had his job. (or something pithy and cutting like that, adjusting the numbers to fit the statistics) Since he appears to feel that videogaming is exclusively a youf issue.

Perhaps these so called parents should stop being passively "concerned" and try "engaging" with their spawn, dare I suggest even going so far as taking an "active interest" in what they are up to, be it with videogames, online activities, movies and, horror of horrors, books and magazines.

As a 33-year-old gamer, who is already pissed off beyond all belief by the f**king smoking ban ruining my favourite venues (now empty and charmless inside while 80% of people are smoking outside), I have a warning for Mr Brown: touch my games; ruin, pollute or censor them; and I will hunt you down like a dog. A DOG, I SAY!

Sure, it's hardly constructive but I'm sick to death of the fools who are running this country fiddling about with my freedoms and making a mockery of what it is to be a right-minded, free-thinking socially aware adult. There are ratings on games already, just make sure that retailers abide to them and parents are aware. Stick your oar in to the content and you risk upsetting millions of 18+ gamers. Or perhaps it's about time the straw finally broke the camel's back and we had a bloody revolution in this increasingly depressing country.

F**k you Brownie, you know NOTHING so keep out of it. I do usually like to write more constructive comments but I've just about had it up to here [points skyward] with these t**ts in charge.

Well, get the institutional game started then. There's proof out there the average age of a gamer is actually 30, you have the names of the departments involved, Why can't every UK-based newstsite/blogger/magazine and what not join forces and mail/write these departments their ass off.

It is a "Citizens jury" (like someone is on trail) so someone should take up the defense of videogames. Miyamoto always said, videogames is this age rock'n roll...so how about some?

ok now its getting f**king stupid, not a single mention of adults, when the only reason this is a priority to the prime minster and his posse, is becasue `adult` games get into kids hands, its like they really see Manhunt and GTA targetted at kids, amongst others, but give us a break i havent been a kid for over 10 years and i play games, what really gets me is where is the jury for kids watching adult movies (not the skin flick type) i was stood at school the other day listening to kids talking about Kill Bill in front of their parents and those parents are the ones putting GTA in their hands but they are also the ones blaming games, it really doent make any sense i have kids and i DO NOT let them watch anything above there age limit, ok i have a little girl aged 9 and i let her watch spiderman which is a pg12 but i dont give her a copy of Texas Chainsaw or Saw and i certainly dont let them play anything other than what is intended for them, in fact they once saw me playing GTA:SA did i carry on playing so they could see, no i put on Mario Kart and we all played together im sick and tired of me suffering because i do what is responsibly required, and other parents cant be f**king arsed.

I was really hoping this article would be about Brown issuing tax breaks to the industry, after Canada bumping us out of the top three game development countries this year, for the first time in 30 years (as far as I'm aware).

On the other hand, getting a jury to review the situation, is a way for Gordon Brown to satisfy all those nandy pandies, without actually passing any legislation. I.e. if the Jack Thompsons come knocking, he can say: "Yes, we got a Citizen's Jury to review that". If the "citizens" have any sense, we've nothing to fear. But yes, the quotes presented in this article do demonstrate ignorance of what he's talking about.

Also, the problem isn't what children are exposed to half the time, but what they seek out. ;-)
But parents will worry about anything and everything. And it's probably they're vote they're after. No political party seems to represent "youth"...they just give us ASBOs and tell us to shutup.

I think the current generation is way ahead of the current establishment. Why are 18-30 year olds represented in parliment by 50-60 year olds, who don't understand a thing about today's culture?

How about we all stop getting so defensive as gamers and actually consider the What If?

What if there really is a link? Is it that hard to believe there might be one? As gamers, we're used to getting defensive, it's almost in our makeup. Even with the Playstation generation, playing games is not cool and we naturally react when anyone targets us.

But consider this. Violence in both games and films is often blamed for aggressive behaviour in impressionable youths, but there is one key difference - games are undeniably more active where films are passive. With movies, you watch what another character is doing and even if you empathise with them, as you should in a good film, you don't control their choices.

In games, you are directly responsible for someone's death. That's whether it's a stereotypical 'bad guy' or an innocent bystander. Let's face it, we've all killed hundreds of pedestrians in GTA because it has no apparent real life reprocussions.

Many adults play games, and most of us know the difference between right and wrong. But many kids play games, both those they should and shouldn't, and they're exposed to repetitive acts of violence and killing while their sense of right and wrong is still forming.

With that in mind, should we instantly deny that gaming has any part to play in this, or start to question why there is no real end to the number of games accessible by kids where violence is required or - in the case of Manhunt - encouraged?

The point i was making was not that it does/doesnt have an effect on kids, i dont know if it does what i was saying is the parents should stop letting kids play these games then blaming them!, no stores or responsible parents are letting them have access to this but some are and thats the problem, and if its a yes, games are bad for People/Kids then the parents have the responsiblity to stop the problem before it becomes a problem. but i dont think gamers are defending games as innocent what gamers are saying(the adult ones) is we are not kids so let us have the oppurtunity to play the game and focus on stopping children getting access, banning things only intrigues people more and further increases problems.

And the BBFC says that makes games less immersive than films. They still jump all over Manhunt 2 instead of the Hostels of the film world though.

Of course there is also the supposed correlation of facts that since the PlayStation came out in America violent crime amongst children has been on the decrease and is now at an all time low.

And then there is the fact that when actually playing videogames, kids aren't out wandering the streets, joining gangs and getting into fights. So if you spend 10-20 hours a week playing games, that's 10-20 fewer hours for you to be out being violent.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it's the opposite correlation that we are seeing? Maybe, just maybe, kids with violent tendencies like playing violent computer games? Possibly, just possibly those violent kids would have been violent if they'd not played games.

After all, how do we explain the violence in society before games, DVDs, videos, films, comics and books were widespread?

Surely it's all the fault of theatre!?!?!? Death by Shakespeare!

King Lear? Ban this sick filth!!!

Maybe the BBFC are wrong? But I would argue it's almost undeniable that Manhunt 2 can do more damage to the values forming in younger generations than watching Hostel. The effects may not be as obvious so quickly, but it could be sowing some very bad seeds.



That could very well be incidental, there are hundreds of other factors which could account for that.



Sports could have the same effect. Playing sports is also healthier, more social, and cheaper.

I'm not saying games are evil, far from it, but there may be some serious problems in this industry which are not being addressed because of a blanket defence against any opposition. Which is almost as bad as the blanket criticism which for some reason doesn't seem to be going away.

I've got no problem with banning kids playing games, it's when the adults suffer that pisses me off. If you can survive to adulthood with your head screwed on and your limbs intact, playing games featuring prostitutes being violently clubbed to death with giant spikey dildos should not just be a right, it should be compulsory.

But I do wish the government would shut up about things they don't understand and start trying to actually teach people how to communicate via language before humankind regresses to grunts and growls. It took me 5 or 6 read-throughs of haritori's post before I understood a word of it, and eventually realised he's not 10 years old, just writes like one. I blame computer games, they have obviously had an ill effect on his comprehension of spelling and grammar, therefore ban them all forever etc etc...

There have not been any conclusive study results that point to a definite link between normal, well-adjusted children playing violent videogames or watching violent films and those children then going on to perform violent acts. For every study that has suggested such a link, there is another that refutes the link.

However, that's not the real issue. The real issue is that adult gamers are being denied a choice of entertainment because it is unsuitable for children. As a movie goer, I don't want 18-rated films being banned because a 12 year old may see them. Why would I be happy for 18-rated games to be banned for the same reason?

A logical extension of the argument being used would be to ban alcohol, cars, rock climbing, cigarettes, hang gliding, motorcycles and snowboards because children are not ready to be exposed to them. Adults be damned, you don't get a choice! Will nobody think of the children?

Note: I'm not saying that kids should be able to play 18-rated games, I'm saying that adults should be able to play them.


The reason it's not going away is because a new scapegoat hasn't come along to replace games yet. Everything I listed in my last post, from theatre to games via comics and videos, has been vilified by "the establishment" as having the capacity to "corrupt our youth" at one time or another.

Each time a new entertainment medium comes along, it will corrupt our children or turn them into mindless zombies.

Anybody alive in the UK during the 80s will remember the "video nasty" craze where videos were banned because they were a corrupting influence or were too disgusting for general consumption. Almost all of them (62/75 listed on Wikipedia) have since been released, either with a few small cuts or without any alterations whatsoever, including the "poster child" video nasties, Driller Killer and Cannibal Holocaust.

Now we have games to vilify, we don't need to complain about films, videos or DVDs, so films like Hostel and Saw get passed with 18 ratings. I'd be willing to bet that as many kids get to see the DVDs of those films as get to play GTA or Manhunt.

There is, of course, the "fact" that "games are for children" so any adult game will be marketed to children, so we must ban all adult games.

I blame the parents for not taking an interest in their kids' hobby, the politicians for jumping on the latest Daily Mail led, middle England ignorance and fear bandwagon and the media its self for hyping the issue out of all proportion.

We in the UK already have the BBFC ratings to "protect" the children, they are backed by law unlike the ESRB ratings in the US.


That means, shopkeepers who sell games to children and adults who buy games for children that are too young for the BBFC rating are guilty and "shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine level 5 on the standard scale or both."

Buy your 15 year old an 18 rated game in the UK and you could go to jail for six months and be fined up to £5,000.

That should be the message the government is putting out, not "we will think about banning violent games".

If im right you agree with my previous posts?, and i dont quite understand the reason you choose to insult me?

Bentley im dyslexic and i have worked very hard to correct my grammar and spelling but when i use a keyboard its not the same as writing and its difficult to spot my mistakes, but i thought in a forum it wouldnt be as much of a problem as say at work, but obviously it is and the point of ignorance in this thread is pointed out by you pointing out my flaw, not that i need to explain this to you but i just have, and just so you can understand this post i spell checked it for you!, care to continue your insult?

I don't deny there's no conclusive study, but that doesn't mean there isn't a link, and that doesn't mean we should be assuming that they have no concerning effect. I really don't see why it would be that hard to believe that an interactive system where an impressionable player is encouraged or rewarded for violent behaviour might in some way also be having their later behaviour programmed in similar ways.



No, I'm afraid it isn't that simple. Parents (generally) know not to give alcohol to their kids and kids can't buy it themselves in shop. A child isn't physically able to drive a car. No rock climbing instructor worth his license would train a child to do so. Same for motorcycles, and to an extent, snowboarding.

But computer and video games are seen as almost a right for children to play. Parents often wrongly assume that these games are harmless and yes, those that are more violent are rated. But that doesn't stop them getting into the hands of people who shouldn't have them because parents either aren't aware of the possible effects (those effects that the industry is still refusing to recognise might exist) or kids can download them, or copy them and pass them around.



And there we go, look at that. Blame everyone else except for questioning, say, the minds who put a game like Manhunt into production. It's not even that great a game, but actually question the content and the motivation behind it. Would you go as far to say that snuff films should exist, whether genuine or staged, because adults have the right to choose what they do and don't influence themselves with?



I don't disagree with you, here's the middle ground. The gaming industry needs to stand up and say that yes, it could be dangerous allowing children to play these things. Yes, we may well have a problem, but a knee jerk reaction isn't the answer. Adults are perfectly capable, well, in the majority of circumstances, of knowing the difference between playing a game and acting out in real life. I'd even argue to an extent that there could be an increase in aggressive if not violent behaviour in adults repeatedly playing violent games.

But mostly that we're all aware a line needs to be drawn with what parents should and shouldn't be letting their kids play. Most of these games would still like to be made and played, so can everyone all please sit down and come up with a solution that matures the industry and makes it responsible for what's being produced, as well as educating those who are playing them?

Not to try and wind you up, but b******s! A 9 year old kid can take control of a tractor trailer pulling 10,000 pounds of cargo and bring it to a stop safely. If I was feeling silly, I may say that his quick reactions and driving ability came from playing games! :-)


If you mean a film in which an unwilling participant is abused and then actually killed, then no, of course not. The abuse and killing are criminal acts. Programming Manhunt is not a criminal act.

Also if by "staged" you mean a film in which people pretend to be abused and killed, then surely that means things like Hostel? I have no issue with adults watching that sort of film, not my cup of tea, but there you go.

schnide, I think we agree on the central idea of our arguments, but perhaps I'm using too many exaggerated examples to get my points across. Here goes in more straightforward language.

The problem is not a lack of legislation, the problem is a lack of education.

As you say, adults generally know not to give alcohol to kids. and they can't usually buy it for themselves. Why can't we educate parents to have the same attitude towards age-inappropriate games? I know most sales assistants at specialist games shops know the penalties for selling age-inappropriate entertainment to kids.

I do however refute your assertion that the games industry refuses to admit that inappropriate content may "damage" under age consumers of it. This is exactly why we have PEGI and BBFC ratings. This is exactly why most sales assistants are told about the age ratings on games and DVDs.

At no point has anybody in a position of responsibility in the games industry said that 18-rated games are appropriate for under-18 children. They may have refuted the studies that attempt to link violent games to violent tendencies with a causal correlation. However they recognise that some entertainment is inappropriate for some people, based on the age and maturity of the people in question.

We already have an appropriate level of legislation covering under age consumption of age-inappropriate entertainment. What we don't have is any education at all about the legislation or the ideas behind it.

I've had people I know, who are intelligent human beings and loving parents, tell me that the age rating on games is a difficulty rating! They were proud that their kids were playing 18-rated games already. Isn't little Timmy clever? Needless to say I set them straight very quickly, they now pay more attention to what their kids play.

Maybe all we need is for ELSPA and the BBFC to put together an advert that explains the age ratings. Put it on TV, in magazines and papers and in leaflets in games stores. Make sure parents know the consequences.

I think the point that Tyrion was actually trying to make, and you completely missed, is that scaremongers in the USA are claiming that videogames are causing a rise in violent youth incidents. The reality, however, is that youth violence has actually decreased during the time videogames have been available, though videogames are not claiming to have caused that decrease. In the same way that there are probably hundreds of factors that cause someone to take a gun into their school and then proceed to shoot and kill their classmates, the fact that they played videogames should in incidental, but it is being seized upon as the main cause.

I didn't miss that point at all. Thank you for trying to contribute though.

Videogames are very much unlikely to be the direct cause of overall increases or decreases in violent behaviour. However, as a contributing factor that may be very much different - it may well be that violent behaviour has decreased over all, but not as much as it would have if the level of violence in videogames had been recognised. It may also be that the overall incidence of violent behaviour has decreased but that the type of extremity of violence has changed.

I don't claim to know either way as I don't have the statistics, but to even hint that videogames are responsible for a reduction in violence without conclusive evidence when it may be quite the contrary, is dangerous.

Now before anyone starts getting their copies of C&VG out to start beating me like I'm some kind of Daily Mail reader, I'm a mid twenties male gamer. What I'm saying is that there's a general automatic reaction to refuse any suggestion that games increase violent behaviour. Recent media stories are too sensitive for me to get into specifics here, but when children and guns are being spoken of in the same sentence, and it's possible that they've been desensitised even if the slightest amount by their supposed acceptible representation in videogames, are you willing to say the industry does not need to look a little more inside itself at what it's doing? Even if the results might come back that yes, actually, we're okay?

Let's not get into specifics here, you know the basic point I'm making and that playing games and driving cars are not as comparable as first given.



No, I mean the general kind of snuff film that's available. Now I'm quite concerned that I know this, and probably shouldn't be making a big deal of it, but I'm under the impression that most snuff films are made to look real but are in fact, faked. So what you have is someone watching a film where someone is supposedly being murdered, and even though they know it probably isn't real, they're getting off on the idea that it might be.

Now I don't know about you, but games like Manhunt, few as they may be, are veering dangerously close to a similar idea. The fact that someone made a conscious decision to sit down and design a game which encourages graphic killing in the name of making money rather than furthering the cause of game design, does not make the games industry look very responsible.



I would agree that this is true, but I don't think that's all there is to it. The industry also needs to take a look at itself, and be aware that by continuing to make games that promote violent behaviour in particularly shocking or graphic ways, especially when it's not for the sake of gameplay, it's really not doing itself any favours.