PART VII

PART VII

~VIOLENCE, SCHMIOLENCE! WE WANT SEX!

This is just a tidbit I thought I’d throw in…

A Foxnews.com story dated October 18, 2004 and entitled Game Players in Lewd Mood snagged my eye awhile back (I mean, it said “lewd,” so how could I not check it out?). According to the article, “A slew of new video-game releases are putting the X in Xbox by forsaking violence for nudity.” It goes on to mention three games in particular: Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude, Playboy: The Mansion, and Singles: Flirt Up Your Life.

Before anyone starts drooling or foaming at the mouth, let me say that the nudity in these games isn’t total. Both XBOX and PS2 censors prohibit nudity of the full frontal variety, so nothing below the waist is shown. (Hey, wait a second! Wouldn’t that be a violation of someone’s First Amendment rights?) According to Paul O’Neil of Vivendi Universal Games (Leisure Suit Larry), hiding various anatomical parts is accomplished through the use of “ferns and other things.”

Gee, I wonder if any of the women in these games suffer from an affliction first noted by our very own Randy Sluganski in his review of BloodRayne? He calls the condition juggsashakin.

~THE MYTH DEBUNKER

In 2004, Seattle PBS affiliate KCTS produced a documentary called The Video Game Revolution. The show’s website includes an essay by MIT professor Henry Jenkins entitled Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked.

In his opening remarks, Jenkins says: “A large gap exists between the public’s perception of video games and what the research actually shows. The following is an attempt to separate fact from fiction.” He goes on to challenge the positions that violent video games cause real violence, that children represent the primary video game market, that violent games train kids to kill, and other such contentions.

Jenkins, who is the director of MIT’s comparative media studies program, makes some good points. For instance, he writes: “According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. It’s true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players…The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. The moral panic over violent video games…misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester.”

He goes on to say: “…a growing body of research does suggest that games can enhance learning. In his recent book, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, James Gee describes game players as active problem solvers who do not see mistakes as errors, but as opportunities for improvement. Players search for newer, better solutions to problems and challenges, he says. And they are encouraged to constantly form and test hypotheses.”

I came across another interesting article by Jenkins, written in 2002, concerning an appearance he’d made on the Donahue show. According to Jenkins, he’d been assured by the show’s producers that they “wanted to have an intelligent discussion [about video games], to avoid sensationalism, to give me a chance to make my arguments.”

But once the show began, he discovered he’d been set up: “I was ambushed, and forgot how to fight back.” He ended up not saying many of the things he had wanted to say. Here is one of them:

“Parents are demanding that the government do something even if it’s wrong, and once we reach that point, we tend to do all the wrong things…every moment our government focuses on the wrong problems, they take away time and resources that could be used to combat actual causes of youth violence. Banning games doesn’t put a stop to domestic violence, doesn’t ensure that mentally unstable kids get the help they need, doesn’t stop bullying in the hallways, and doesn’t deal with the economic inequalities and racial tensions that are the real source of violence in American culture.”

~THE MYTH DEBUNKER IN OPPOSITION

In October 2003, Dr. Craig A. Anderson (mentioned earlier in this article) published a piece that appears in the American Psychological Association website entitled Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions. In it, Dr. Anderson states:

“Although the violent video game literature is still relatively new and small, we have learned a lot about their effects and have successfully answered several key questions. So, what is myth and what do we know?”

He goes on to list 11 myths, then provides facts that he claims demonstrate their falsity.

~SO, WHICH IS IT?

In the interest of comparison and contrast, let’s have a look at a myth that’s been addressed by both Henry Jenkins and Craig Anderson.

First, from Professor Jenkins:

“[Myth:] Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression.

“[Facts:] Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, “media effects.” This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds. In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played. Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That’s why the vague term “links” is used here. If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor – when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences – which can contribute to anti-social behavior. But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer.”

Now, let’s hear from Dr. Anderson:

“Myth…There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.

“Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).”

~PROOF? EVIDENCE? CONCLUSIONS? WHERE?

In an article entitled The Psychological Effects of Violent Media on Children published by AllPsych Journal on December 14, 2003, author Aimee Tomkins says the following regarding media violence:

“The only part of the issue that researchers do agree about is that violent media types are not the only cause of children committing violent acts. The involvement of parents in what their children watch, how the family interacts with each other, what the children are exposed to in their environment are also indicators of how they will behave and what value system they will follow…not one research conducted could prove either positive or negative long term outcomes of violent media. The fact of the matter is that parents should monitor and be more attentive to their children…Parents need to pay more attention to their children’s lives and not sit them in front of the television, whether it is for movies, video games, or general television shows. In my opinion in this day and age most parents get too wrapped up in their own lives to be overly concerned about what their children are doing.”

Let’s fast-forward to March 24, 2005 and an article entitled Campaign against video games is political grandstanding by Franklin Harris, published in the online edition of The Decatur Daily. This is how the article starts:

“Whenever anyone says we must do something for ‘our children’s sake,’ watch out. This is when government inevitably is up to no good.” Whoa.

It goes on to mention several states that are currently considering legislation to restrict the sale of violent video games to children. The bill of one of these states, Alabama, says that “it has now been established by overwhelming scientific, law enforcement and medical evidence that violent and sexually themed video and computer games can and do harm not only the consumers of the games but also lead to harmful behaviors toward innocent third parties…”

Mr. Harris counters this with: “As it happens, there is no ‘overwhelming’ evidence of the kind. The studies so far are deeply flawed, and none deals with the plain facts of the matter, including, obviously, the fact that millions of people play violent video games without becoming criminals. Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker says the link between media violence and real-world violence is simply ‘an article of faith’ that isn’t backed by scientific evidence. He goes on to say that ‘psychologists who have recently reviewed the literature have concluded that exposure to media violence has little or no effect on violent behavior in the world.’

“If all of this seems familiar, it’s because the same arguments now leveled against video games were leveled against comic books in the 1950s.” Referring to Dr. Frederic Wertham, Harris says, “But now, of course, almost everyone recognizes that Wertham was, at best, misguided or, at worst, a crank.” Bingo.

Harris also states: “Laws like those under consideration here and elsewhere are insidious. They seek to transfer the responsibility for parenting from parents to the government, which has a difficult enough time delivering the mail, never mind acting as parent to millions of children.”

PART VIII

~I SAW THIS ONE COMING, FOLKS…

When I first heard about the tragic shootings that took place on the Indian reservation in Red Lake, Minnesota on March 21, 2005 , I was almost certain that somehow, violent video games and/or other violent media would be mentioned in conjunction with the 16-year-old shooter, Jeff Weise. Never mind that his family life had been horrible, that he’d been abused and told by his mother that he’d been a mistake, that his father had committed suicide, and that his mother had ended up brain-damaged and institutionalized after an auto accident. Never mind that Jeff had tried to commit suicide, was being treated for depression, was taking Prozac, had spent time in a psychiatric hospital, admired Adolf Hitler, was into neo-Nazism, maintained a blog filled with despair, and participated in a forum at http://www.nazi.org where he posted disturbing messages.

If you’d care to see something truly chilling, have a look at a page that, according to The Smoking Gun website, reflects Jeff Weise’s MSN Profile: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0324051weise1.html.

Subsequent research into the shootings confirmed what I’d suspected. From MSNBC, for example: School shooter followed video game-like script [subtitle: Faded Columbine reality kept warning signs from being taken seriously]. This is an interview with Dr. Katherine Newman, professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton, who wrote a book entitled Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings.

Frankly, folks, I find some of this interview to be more than a little off-putting. For example, Dr. Newman states, regarding a crudely-drawn, violent animation Weise had posted on the Internet:

“If you pick up the average video game, you’re going to see sequences that look just like the animation this boy produced. It’s not something that we look at and say, “Oh, I’ve never seen that before.’ You will see it a million times if you pick up any of the common video games available to teenagers today.”

Okay, I have some questions:
(1) What’s an “average video game?”
(2) What’s a “common video game?”
(3) In which video games, specifically, can one see violence “a million times?”
(4) Has the good doctor played them all and kept a running count?

The kinds of generalities used by this woman drive me right up the wall. They also provide yet another example of “all video games are violent” rhetoric.

Brief aside: I’ve seen a Flash animation attributed to Jeff Weise, allegedly entitled “Target Practice.” I find it pretty disturbing, and it saddens me that, for whatever reasons, Weise felt a need to create it. I don’t, however, think that it proves a direct link between violent video games and what happened at Red Lake. To view the animation, see School Killer’s Animated Terror on The Smoking Gun website at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0323051weise1.html.

Getting back to the interview, Dr. Newman says that Weise’s community couldn’t have been expected to see warning signs of the violence to come; that Weise was trying to commit “suicide by cop” but he “got to himself first;” she claims that it’s “quite common…for school shooters to have suicidal impulses;” and that Weise’s social situation, painful though it was, was “no worse than millions of other kids experience: teasing, feeling inadequate, being excluded, these are very common feelings for teenagers.”

I think these are absolutely outrageous statements. I also have a few more questions for the doctor:
(1) How could the community not notice that there was something terribly wrong with this kid?
(2) Wouldn’t it be a little more accurate to say that suicidal impulses can push a kid into becoming a shooter, instead of the other way around?
(3) Jeff Weise had already attempted suicide the previous year.
(a) You mean to tell me that no one in the community was aware of this?
(b) If people were aware of it, did anyone try to discover underlying causes?
(c) Who could possibly think that what Jeff Weise went through was no worse than what “millions of other kids experience?”

Even the title of this piece has me grinding my teeth. The first part — School shooter followed video game-like script — lays wholesale blame on video games; the second part — Faded Columbine reality kept warning signs from being taken seriously — blames the amount of time that’s elapsed since Columbine for the fact that no one who was in a position to do so noticed that Weise was in serious trouble, despite the fact that there were warning signs all over the place. Gimme a freakin’ break!

Let’s move on to an Associated Press piece published in The Seattle Times: Nation & World on March 26, 2005:

“The teenager who shot five fellow students to death at his high school had watched a movie about a school shooting with friends earlier this month, skipping ahead to some of the most violent scenes…Sky Grant, 16, a friend of Weise’s since sixth grade…said Weise took the 2003 movie Elephant [said to have been based on Columbine] to Grant’s house on March 4, then skipped ahead to parts of the movie that show two students planning and carrying out a fictitious school shooting in Portland.”

Okay. Speaking of Columbine (15 killed, including the two shooters), the Red Lake shootings (10 killed, including shooter) are being called the worst since that tragic event. Now, let me ask you something. In the six years since Columbine, we’ve done study after study, held hearing after hearing, listened to expert after expert, made law after law, and spent taxpayer dollar after taxpayer dollar. Has any of this been effective? Is it possible, as has been suggested, that we’ve been looking in the wrong direction? I invite you to draw your own conclusions.

Curious about what Jack Thompson might have said about Jeff Weise and the Red Lake shootings? Well, according to an article by Lorna Benson for Minnesota Public Radio dated March 24, 2005, “Thompson sees parallels between the videogame, ‘Grand Theft Auto: Vice City,’ and Jeff Weise’s animated production ‘Target Practice’…It’s a nearly precise replication of that game, even down to the exploding police car.”

The article goes on to say (emphasis is mine): “Calls to the company that makes ‘Grand Theft Auto,’ Take2 Interactive, were not returned. And it’s still not clear if Jeff Weise played video games.”

Elsewhere, in an undated Associated Press story captioned Movie viewed by Weise has elements of Red Lake Shooting (the movie being the aforementioned Elephant), posted in March 2005 on the Red Lake Net News website, Jack Thompson is quoted as follows: “No one in their right mind says that a movie turned Jeff Weise from an angel into a demon.” Yet isn’t this just what Thompson says violent video games do to kids?

As a point of interest, Elephant is rated R (“under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian”) for “disturbing violent content, language, brief sexuality and drug use all involving teens.”

On March 23, 2005, The Oklahoma Daily carried an opinion piece captioned Our View: Don’t blame games, TV. Referring to the Red Lake shootings, it says:

“Legislators may soon be telling America, as they did after Columbine and other youth-violence situations, that violent video games, movies and television are responsible. This is almost negligent disregard for reality…No study has found more than a correlative relationship between violent media and aggressive behavior; they’ve all had an alternate cart-leading-the-horse explanation. Correlation certainly isn’t proof…Unfortunately, enough Americans are shirking parental responsibility and expecting the government to pick up where they left off…The government should never be called upon to sanitize media…Once the government gets license to censor, it will be nearly impossible to revoke.”

~RED LAKE: FOLLOWING UP

According to a March 29, 2005 CBS News article, Red Lake High School student Louis Jourdain, son of the tribal chairman of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa, was arrested in connection with the shootings. It goes on to say: “According to sources, federal investigators have seized computer records that allegedly show Louis Jourdain had what authorities believe is advance knowledge of the plot.”

Jumping ahead to April 1, 2005, a Washington Post article said that authorities “believe as many as 20 students were involved” in planning the shootings carried out by Jeff Weise.

A Portland State University Vanguard opinion piece by Dylan Tanner, dated April 5, 2005 and captioned The hidden danger behind school shootings, reflects the following:

“High school can be a brutal and humiliating experience, and it’s certainly one I would never ever want to relive. But never during those miserable years did I consider irrevocable violence. It was just high school. It was miserable, but I knew it would end.

“Like Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, Jeff Weise couldn’t realize this. He was estranged and mocked to the point that he saw no escape from his situation other than violence. His plight ended with tragic results. For the media, finding reasoning behind his actions is simple – internet violence, heavy metal or the oeuvre of Gus Van Sant [writer/director of the film Elephant] – there is no shortage of scapegoats. It’s easy for them to concentrate on Weise as an innocent young man, led astray by the evil and brutal entertainment media. His influences are part of a pattern, the same symptoms found in other school shootings. Jeff Weise fits in a mold, however disastrous. And like any good stereotype we can accept it without too much scrutiny.

“But what of his classmates? I find myself shocked that nearly 20 students are being investigated in the wake of the shootings…Police have seized three computers and arrested one student already. They believe that more than a dozen students were aware of Weise’s plans…authorities should be looking for the patterns that are responsible for lack of action among his peers.

“How is it that this 16-year-old could actively and publicly express…the desire to kill others and himself for so long without intervention? How are the moral leaders of our country going to pin mass apathy on the makers of Grand Theft Auto?

“They can’t. It’s not the fault of Marilyn Manson or “Bride of Chucky” that a dozen or more high school students chose not to act…Is it that these kids lead a life so miserable it doesn’t surprise them that their classmate would want to kill them?

“There is something inherently wrong with a system that produces this kind of situation. Granted, high schools throughout the country are underfunded, understaffed and barely keeping up, but there is no justifiable reason for putting students in a position where they can laugh off or ignore threats of violence.”

On April 29, 2005, Minnesota Daily published a news story captioned Mood changes, anger contributed to student’s shooting spree… It discusses Jeff Weise’s emotional problems and the medication he was on, which family members believe is what pushed him over the edge. And as stated earlier, Weise had also attempted suicide.

According to the story, “One of Weise’s counselors allegedly had told the family that the youth, who was diagnosed with depression, dressed all in black and often found refuge in sadistic entertainment, was ‘just going through a phase.’

“Family members and psychiatrists have said Weise’s life was one risk factor piled atop another, and that he should have had intensive therapy.”

After the suicide attempt and diagnosis of depression, Weise was put on the antidepressant Prozac. Two weeks before the shootings, “Weise’s daily dosage was doubled to 60 milligrams a day – considered a heavy dose for an adolescent.” Psychiatrists interviewed about this level of medication stated that it should have been accompanied by weekly therapy and close monitoring for side-effects. (I’ll be saying more about antidepressants in the next section.)

Apparently, Weise was not monitored very closely and his therapy sessions weren’t regular or frequent. It seems, in fact, that every one of his support systems broke down.

I think this is an absolutely tragic story all the way around, and I think violent video games had very little — if anything — to do with it. What a shame that this kid was failed on so many levels, and that so many people had to die because of it. That such a thing can happen in this day and age is incredibly sad. My heart goes out to the families and friends of all of the victims.

Update! On November 4, 2005, StarTribune.com reported that Louis Jourdain would be tried in federal court “sometime in mid-December” (postponed from November 14) in conjunction with the Red Lake shootings. The article goes on to say: “Prosecutors have not said what Jourdain is accused of doing. Sources with knowledge of the investigation have said he is charged with conspiracy to commit murder.” Hmmm. I wonder if anyone has checked to see if Jourdain played violent video games?

~A SIDE-TRIP TO THE CHILDREN’S PHARMACY

Say, I have an idea. Let’s stroll on over to the Federal Drug Administration and take a gander at a Public Health Advisory dated March 22, 2004 (almost a year to the day prior to the Red Lake shootings) entitled Worsening Depression and Suicidality in Patients Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications. This advisory pertains to the drugs Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa, Lexapro, Wellbutrin, Effexor, Serzone and Remeron. The advisory says that in addition to worsening depression and suicidal thinking, possible side-effects in both adult and pediatric patients include anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity, akathisia (severe restlessness), hypomania, and mania.

Okay, stop everything — I need to ask something. What good is an antidepressant that can result in increased depression and suicidal thoughts? I mean, I’m no doctor (nor would I want to be), and I don’t even play one on TV — but does this make any sense at all? Or is it that sense has no place here?

Let’s consult Merriam-Webster Online for the definition of antidepressant (emphasis is mine): “Used or tending to relieve or prevent psychic depression.” Yet antidepressant drugs can increase depression and even drive people to suicide? Maybe I’m dense or something, but I just don’t get it.

A disturbing article entitled How Lilly Gilded Prozac’s Profile, dated May 10, 2005, begins thusly:

“This spring, Jeff Weise shot himself dead after taking the popular antidepressant Prozac.

“He scored national headlines because he took nine innocent people down with him in the worst school shooting rampage since Columbine. Some now wonder whether Weise’s antidepressant — rather than depression itself — may have finally pushed the troubled teenager over the edge. After all, unstable Prozac users have been pulling the trigger for years.

“Joseph Wesbecker killed himself and eight others while taking Prozac back in the late 1980s, when the still-new drug was viewed as a miracle cure for depression. Relatives of the survivors blamed Prozac and sued its maker, Eli Lilly…for damages. That case, which ended in a settlement, began to expose serious problems with drug research that have grown even more obvious over time.”

The article goes on to offer a chilling portrait of “drug-company influence over researchers, consumer groups and even the government agency charged with regulating them.” Claiming that pharmaceutical companies spend less on product development than on product promotion, it also refers to a 2004 government study indicating that “children who visited the doctor for depression symptoms were nearly three times as likely to wind up on prescription drugs…than they were a decade ago.”

The hazards of suicidal ideation and behavior led the FDA, in January 2005 (two months before Red Lake), to direct drug manufacturers “to add a ‘black box’ warning to the health professional labeling of all antidepressant medications to describe the risks of treatment in these patients and to emphasize the need to monitor them closely when they begin using antidepressants and when doses are increased or decreased. The warning also lists the approved uses of the drug in children or, alternatively, indicates that there are no approved pediatric indications.” (Note: The “black box” is the FDA’s most stringent warning.)

For those who may be interested, the specific “black box” warning for Prozac was published by drug manufacturer Eli Lilly in February 2005. It can be found, along with 32 pages of additional warnings, precautions, contraindications, etc. concerning the drug, at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/SAFETY/2005/Feb_PI/Prozac_PI.pdf.

But wait — there’s more. Here we have an FDA Public Health Advisory dated October 27, 2003 entitled Reports of Suicidality in Pediatric Patients Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). This advisory says that of the seven different antidepressants evaluated by the FDA for treatment of pediatric MDD, only one — fluoxetine (Prozac) — was demonstrated to be effective for that disorder.

Reference is made, at the end of the advisory, to an FDA Talk Paper, also dated October 27, 2003 concerning the same topic. This paper reflects:

“FDA is aware of press and medical journal reports of suicide attempts and completed suicides in pediatric patients receiving antidepressants, and many such reports have also been submitted to FDA as spontaneous reports. Such reports are very difficult to interpret, however, in the absence of a control group, as these events also occur in untreated patients with depression.

“FDA emphasized the need for additional data, analyses and a public discussion of available data. As we recognize that this is a serious illness, we need a better understanding of how to use the products we have.

“In order to promote a public discussion of data and pertinent regulatory actions, FDA has scheduled a meeting on February 2, 2004, before the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee with the Pediatric Subcommittee of the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee.”

Hey! Wanna go to that meeting? Well, a 401-page transcript is located at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/transcripts/4006T1.pdf. I’ve only skimmed it. I’ve included the link here in case anyone is really, really interested in reading it.

I’m only going to raise one more issue in conjunction with the FDA. Another Talk Paper, this one entitled FDA Statement Regarding the Anti-Depresant Paxil for Pediatric Population and dated June 19, 2003, starts out thusly (in a yellow box and all caps):

“ADVISORY: DESPITE THE NEW POSSIBLE SAFETY CONCERNS ABOUT USE OF PAXIL IN CHILDREN, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT PATIENTS TAKING PAXIL (paroxetine hydrochloride) DO NOT SUDDENLY DISCONTINUE USE OF THE DRUG. ANY CHANGES MUST TAKE PLACE UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION.”

It goes on to say that due to a possible risk of increased suicidal thinking and attempted suicide in those under age 18 who are taking Paxil for MDD, FDA does not recommend that it be used by children and adolescents. It states: “There is currently no evidence that Paxil is effective in children or adolescents with MDD, and Paxil is not currently approved for use in children and adolescents.”

So, here we have children and adolescents taking a drug that the FDA now says is not safe and not approved for that use, the sudden discontinuation of which can be dangerous. In fact, the sudden discontinuation of Prozac — the one antidepressant approved by the FDA for children — can result in “dysphoric mood, irritability, agitation, dizziness, sensory disturbances (e.g., paresthesias such as electric shock sensations), anxiety, confusion, headache, lethargy, emotional lability, insomnia, and hypomania.”

All I can say is those poor kids. As far as I’m concerned, they’re being used by pharmaceutical manufacturers, the medical profession, and the FDA as guinea pigs.

Now, I’m sure that there are all kinds of people, adults and children alike, who are helped by antidepressants — and more power to ’em. But I’ll tell you what: researching these kinds of drugs in relation to kids was downright scary. I truly believe that we have a problem in this country with overmedicating children and treating symptoms rather than causes. It’s just too convenient to give a kid some pills instead of trying to discover underlying problems.

I’ve taken this side-road for one major reason: beginning with Columbine, every incident of school violence that I’ve researched has been perpetrated by children who were allegedly taking antidepressants. I realize that the emphasis in the above warnings has been on suicidal thoughts and actions, but as far as I’m concerned, those kinds of things can lead, by extension, to killing others — and so can some of the other possible side-effects such as anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, severe restlessness, irritability and hostility.

I mean, if you’re going to off yourself and you’re as socially maladjusted as some of these kids appear to have been, why not take those you blame for it with you? Personally, I think we have a much bigger problem with pharmaceuticals leading kids to kill and commit other violent acts than we do with violent video games doing so.

As a matter of interest, I tried to find some statistics regarding the number of children in this country who are on antidepressants. Well, I found statistics, all right. I looked at numbers from drug manufacturers, from organizations that claim there are way too many kids taking this kind of medication, and from various other sources. The stats were all over the map, depending on who was providing them. I was unable to locate anything that I felt was reliable enough to include here.

~A DIFFERENT KIND OF GAME

On March 29, 2005, GameIndustry.biz published an article captioned Now Clinton jumps on the violent videogames bandwagon. It says that Democrat senator Hillary Clinton has singled out “Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto titles as a ‘major threat’ to morality.”

The article goes on to say that Clinton has joined with Republican senators Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum in pressuring Congress to once again research the issue. It also reflects the following:

“American political analysts have noted that Clinton has taken on some increasingly right wing stances on domestic issues in recent months, in an effort to win support from traditionally Republican voters in the next presidential race, with videogames being merely the latest political kicktoy to be adopted by the ambitious senator.”

Don’t you love it when issues are manipulated for political gain? When children are used to facilitate attempted political arena power-grabs?

~IT’S ONLY ME, MOUTHING OFF AGAIN

As I write this in the wee hours of the morning, I’m suddenly reminded of a cartoon I saw when I was a kid. In it, these two characters had broken into a house and were trying to steal things as the occupants slept. (Note: Seeing this at a very young age never induced me to actually engage in this kind of criminal activity.) The burglars were clumsy, however, and kept hurting themselves. So after a character had just, say, dropped the end of a sofa on his foot, he had to rush outside to scream so he wouldn’t wake anyone up.

Excuse me while I rush outside. (ARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!)

There…that’s better. Now let’s see…how many video game violence investigations have been done so far? A few thousand? Why in the world do we need another one?

Aside from political gamesmanship, I can think of one other possible reason. Could it be that engaging in countless investigations gives the investigators a feeling that they’re accomplishing something when they’re actually accomplishing nothing, or at least next to nothing?

In my opinion, all of this wheel-spinning is about as effective as creating new laws when existing laws aren’t enforced, then not enforcing the new laws, either. Got problems? No problem! Never mind that no one can agree on causes or solutions. We’ll just do a million studies and pass more laws, and all of your problems will be over! (Our taxpayer dollars at work…)

Do I sound cynical? Good. I am cynical.

Meanwhile, despite the flurry of government activity surrounding the violent video game/violent media issue — not to mention the issue of school shootings — since 1994, a kid carrying two handguns and a shotgun is able to walk into a school in Minnesota, mow down nine people, then fatally shoot himself; and a kid in Tennessee is able to take a .22-caliber handgun to school and shoot three administrators, killing one of them and seriously wounding the other two (see HERE WE GO AGAIN…, later in this article). Some people are trying very hard to blame violent video games for both incidents.

Again, I ask you: could it be that this issue is being approached from the wrong direction? Is it possible that the myriad studies, laws, subcommittees, reports, etc. are only addressing symptoms of greater problems, such as the disintegration of the nuclear family and abdication of parental responsibility? Or, maybe someone needs to do some studies on medicated children, and how antidepressants drastically alter their perceptions and seem to leave them quite vulnerable to any number of dangerous mental and emotional states.

Going back to the Red Lake shootings for a moment, the Yuma Sun published an insightful article on March 25, 2005 captioned Laws, rules cannot fix broken kids. It discusses the ineffectiveness of laws and policies mandated after Columbine, and goes on to say:

“More laws and policies, sure to come now, aren’t going to…prevent such tragedies in the future. They cannot mend broken spirits, they do not instill a sense of human decency, and they do not teach young people that there is no restart button in life.

“One thing that will be discussed in the wake of this recent tragedy, though not to a sufficient extent, is the role of parents.

“If guns are a factor, then it is incumbent (and common sense), for parents to lock those firearms up.

“If cultural rot is a factor, then it is incumbent upon parents to not allow their kids to indulge in hate music, ultra-violent games, or go cyber surfing into morbid virtual fantasy worlds.

“So what were the parents or guardians of these troubled teenagers doing while these kids were imploding over the years leading up to these tragedies?”

Amen.

Side note: I’ve been nowhere close to comprehensive in my examination of school shootings. Not only have there been a lot more than I’ve mentioned, some have occurred in countries other than the U.S. For a real eye-opener, have a look at A Time Line of Recent Worldwide School Shootings at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html, which covers the years 1996-2005. The shooters range in age from six to 19.

PART IX

~MEANWHILE, AT THE IEMA

The Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association — mentioned briefly at the beginning of this article — is a trade organization representing 29 of the interactive entertainment industry’s top 30 retailers. This organization has put in place a carding program in an effort to ensure that M-rated games aren’t sold to kids under 17, and requires the display of in-store signage spelling out ESRB ratings for the benefit of consumers.

According to the IEMA’s announcement of the program, “Signing on to the IEMA carding program to be put in place by Holiday Season 2004 are: Best Buy, Blockbuster Entertainment, Circuit City, CompUSA, Gamesource, Electronics Boutique, Hastings Entertainment, Hollywood Video, KB Toys, Kmart, Meijer, Movie Gallery, Musicland, Shopko Stores, Target, Toys R Us, Transworld Entertainment and Wal-Mart. Taken together, these retailers sell approximately 85 percent of all computer and video games sold in the United States. Membership in the IEMA will be contingent on agreeing to implement the carding program.”

For additional information concerning the IEMA and its position on video game violence, see an interview of IEMA president and founder Hal Halpin conducted by CBS News on March 16, 2005, at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/15/tech/gamecore/main680440.shtml.

For a revealing look at the effectiveness of the carding program and the actions of one IEMA member retailer during the 2004 holiday season, see the next section, where I just about blow a gasket.

~A RATHER ALARMING REPORT ON RATINGS ENFORCEMENT IN NEW YORK CITY

In December 2004, the Council of the City of New York released the results of an investigation into the sale of M-rated video games to minors in New York City. Entitled Parental Advisory – Violent Video Games Are Not Child’s Play, the investigation involved 67 stores. Fifty-nine of these stores were caught selling M-rated games to kids under 17. That’s 89%.

Okay, ahem, excuse me, I must interrupt this broadcast right now or I might spontaneously combust. Where else have we heard about M-rated games being sold to minors? Why, in the previously mentioned FTC report Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children, released in September 2000, and in the report generated by the FTC Workshop on Industry Self-Regulation held October 29, 2003, both of which found that children under 17 could easily purchase M-rated games. Now, I ask you: what progress has been made in the five years that have elapsed between the first report in 2000 and this investigation? What good has all of the wailing and bickering over ratings enforcement done? Precious little, if New York City is any indication. And the wailing continues.

Let us now return to our regularly scheduled program, where unfortunately, things get worse.

The NYC investigation also revealed that 33% of the stores in which minors had been carded sold M-rated games to them anyway. Merchants in this categoy include GameStop and Toys “R” Us (see next two paragraphs). Arrrggghhh!!!

The emphasis is mine in what follows. In 1999, the ESA (then known as the IDSA) had received a commitment from Toys “R” Us to (1) display ESRB posters and offer brochures explaining game ratings; (2) move all M-rated games “to the top tier of the software display so that small children cannot mistakenly access them;” and (3) not to sell M-rated games to kids under 17 unless an adult is with them. Well, in view of what happened in NYC, so much for that commitment. (Knocking head into wall).

And what about the IEMA carding program, which was to have been in place for the 2004 holiday season and in which Toys “R” Us had agreed to participate? According the IEMA, membership is contingent on agreeing to implement the carding program to ensure that M-rated games aren’t sold to kids under 17.

Well, on November 7, 2005, when I checked the list of Current IEMA Member Companies, Toys “R” Us — which was caught selling M-rated games to kids under 17 in NYC in December 2004 — was still there. (Ripping out handfuls of hair.)

So, what — are we going backwards now? While it’s true that Toys “R” Us actually had carded minors during the investigation, M-rated games were sold to them anyway. The IEMA Carding Program in which Toys “R” Us participates clearly includes enforcement of ratings — yet there is apparently no penalty for not enforcing them, and Toys “R” Us continues to be an IEMA member. (Ripping out more handfuls of hair.)

The NYC report also indicates that the investigation showed no significant improvement over results of a similar investigation conducted in 2003. It notes:

“Despite last year’s promises by the industry to enforce its own standards without government oversight…[a] disturbing number of stores continue to sell M-rated video games to minors despite an industry policy that advises retailers not to sell these games to individuals under the age of 17.” (May I please be excused before I hurt myself further?)

For anyone who is interested, the ESRB’s December 20, 2004 response to the 2004 NYC investigation is located at http://www.esrb.com/downloads/pvstatement_12_20_04.pdf. This is how it starts (emphasis is mine):

“The ESRB ratings are designed to provide information about computer and video game content so that parents can select appropriate games for their families. We look forward to working with retailers, software publishers, and the New York City Council and Mayor’s office to ensure that parents are aware of the rating system. Since parents are involved in the purchase of computer and video games 83% of the time, according to a Federal Trade Commission report published in September 2000, such a coordinated effort could have significant impact in helping ensure that inappropriate games stay out of the hands of our children.”

There’s that FTC figure from the year 2000 again. The ESRB contnues to use it, even though more recent data are available. Why do you suppose that is?

~NARC

In the time since I started writing this article, a new game for PS2 and XBOX has been released by Midway Games. The M-rated (Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Use of Drugs) NARC, based on 1988’s side-scrolling shooter of the same name, shipped on March 21, 2005.

This game is not only violent, it allows players to use virtual drugs. According to the GameSpot review:

“Drug use is a central theme in the game, and the idea is that using drugs will give you an edge…but at the price of addiction. In a rather grotesque take on substance addiction, the game treats drugs like power-ups. Marijuana will slow down time but allows you to aim in real time, à la Max Payne. (Incidentally, NARC also makes Cypress Hill’s ‘Hits From the Bong’ or The Stranglers’ ‘Golden Brown’ play in your head while you’re stoned.) LSD gives all pedestrians gigantic bobbleheads and makes the ‘bad guys’ easily identifiable by giving them devil heads. The most beneficial, and thus, most addictive of the drugs is the fictional ‘Liquid Soul,’ which is basically like the super star for Mario, making you invincible and making all your attacks extremely potent.”

Generally, reviews of the game haven’t been too favorable. But I must say that I find the game’s element of drug use pretty unsettling. A review by Gaming Age concludes, “On the whole, if you are a fan of drugs, or a drug user yourself, save your money and get your fix.” Good grief.

Interesting side note: Midway’s suggested retail price for NARC is $19.95. Yet the Toys “R” Us and Target pages within the Amazon website for the PS2 version of the game along with the Toys “R” Us page for the XBOX version reflected, on December 2, 2005, a list price of $49.99 with a 60% discount. This made the Toys “R” Us and Target prices $19.99, with a claimed savings of $30.00 (60%). Compared with Midway’s suggested price, however, customers are paying four cents more.

The XBOX version of NARC, also sold via Amazon by J&R Music and Computer World, was priced at $19.88. It also reflected a list price of $49.99 and a 60%, or $30.11 discount. Compared with the manufacturer’s suggested retail price, however, the savings was only seven cents. The XBOX version was sold by CSA Computers via Amazon as well, but the price is $22.19, which is $2.24 over MSRP.

As a point of interest, none of the NARC listings reflected above included ESRB content descriptors at the time I viewed them. In the next section, I’ll be detailing a lot of other things that are missing from and/or reflected erroneously on the game pages of online vendors.

Update! To show you how quickly things can change online (more about that in the next section, as well), when I revisited the NARC product pages on December 9, 2005, only the XBOX version was available, and neither J&R Music and Computer World nor CSA Computers was listed as a seller. The PS2 version was reflected as “This item is currently not available.” Go figure…

~RATINGS ENFORCEMENT: WHAT ABOUT ONLINE RETAILERS?

This is something I’ve been wondering for quite some time, now. So I decided to dig through the websites of some major online retailers that sell video games to see what, if any, policies they may have in place. I also examined product pages for DOOM 3 (PC/Windows) and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2).

I chose these games because they inhabit the top two slots in the list of games to be avoided by children and teens as reflected in the Ninth Annual Mediawise® Video Game Report Card, which is what prompted my interest in writing this article in the first place. At the time of my initial research, both games were rated “M.” But a funny thing happened after I had completed this section: a GTA:SA mod that unlocks hidden, graphic sexual content in the software was created by a Dutch programmer and made freely available on the Internet. (See GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS HITS THE FAN, later in this article.)

The ensuing uproar prompted a re-examination of the game by the ESRB, and the game’s rating was changed from “M” to “AO” (Adults Only). I’ve elected to keep GTA:SA in this section, however, because it still serves to illustrate what I consider to be serious shortcomings on the part of online retailers when it comes to selling inappropriate games to children.

As I’ve already mentioned, things can change very quickly on the sites of online vendors. Because of this, I felt it prudent to frequently mention specific dates in conjunction with my research. The following is what I discovered as of October 30, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

AMAZON.COM

DOOM 3 (PC)
~ESRB Rating appropriately reflected as M (Mature, content suitable for ages 17 or older)
~The product page carried no content descriptors.
~The back of the game’s packaging carries descriptors of “Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Game Experience May Change During Online Play.” These match the game’s current descriptors as displayed on the ESRB site, with the exception of the one pertaining to online play.

GTA:SA (PS2) – as of December 9, 2005
~The ESRB rating of the original, re-rated version was appropriately reflected as AO (Adults Only, age 18+) on two different product pages – one packaged in a jewel case and one packaged in a box.

On the jewel case-packaged product page:
~ The title is reflected as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Jewel Case Mature Version (PS2) which is misleading, as the ESRB’s “M” rating means “Mature.”
~A box shot was displayed, and it still carried an “M” rating.
~A sole ESRB Descriptor was reflected: “Mature Sexual Themes.”
~Current ESRB descriptors for the AO-rated version of GTA:SA (no matter what the packaging) are “Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs, Nudity.” “Mature Sexual Themes” isn’t mentioned; in fact, it doesn’t even appear in the current list of ESRB descriptors.

On the box-packaged product page:
~The a box shot still reflected an “M” rating.
~A sole ESRB Descriptor was reflected: “Fantasy Violence.”
~Current ESRB descriptors for the AO-rated version of GTA:SA (no matter what the packaging) are as reflected above. “Fantasy Violence” is not included.
~”Fantasy Violence” is defined by the ESRB as “Violent actions of a fantasy nature, involving human or non-human characters in situations easily distinguishable from real life.” Does this even remotely sound like the AO-rated version of GTA-SA? Not to me…

Additional note:
~As of November 23, 2005, Amazon also carried the re-released M-rated GTA:SA for PS2 (from which Hot Coffee code has allegedly been removed by Take-Two/Rockstar).
~This version was listed as PS2 Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas – Special Edition.
~The “M” rating was reflected, but no content descriptors were provided.
~ESRB content descriptors for the M-rated version are “Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs” (in other words, the same as the AO-rated version, except for “Nudity”).

BOTH GAMES
~All product pages carried a link to ESRB: Understanding Video Game Ratings (also an Amazon page), which explains the rating system and content descriptors. The new ESRB rating of E10+ was reflected, but only eight of the 20 content descriptors listed matched the ones currently displayed on the ESRB website. Of those eight, only one descriptor definition matched the one on the ESRB site.
~Amazon’s ESRB page also contained the following statements:
” In addition to using the ratings, consumers should check out content descriptions for more specific information about a game’s content. You can find this information, if applicable, on the product information pages under the Note to Customers advisory.”
~I was unable to locate a “Note to Customers” on any of the product pages I examined.
~I saw nothing on the product pages stating that these games would not be sold to anyone under 17 or 18 years of age, respectively. Instead, they said “Content suitable for ages 17 or older” (DOOM 3; GTA:SA Special Edition), and “…content suitable only for adults, These products may include graphic depictions of sex and/or violence. Adults Only products are not intended to be sold or rented to persons under the age of 18” (GTA:SA AO-rated version). Well, I think there’s a big difference between “suitable for” and “can only be purchased by,” not to mention “not intended to be sold” and “will not be sold.”

I then went to Amazon’s Conditions of Use and Privacy Notice.

The Conditions of Use document reflects the following statements (the emphasis belongs to Amazon):
“If you visit or shop at Amazon.com, you accept these conditions. Amazon.com does sell products for children, but it sells them to adults, who can purchase with a credit card. If you are under 18, you may use Amazon.com only with involvement of a parent or guardian.”

The following appears in the Privacy Notice, with emphasis by Amazon:
“By visiting Amazon.com, you are accepting the practices described in this Privacy Notice. Amazon.com does not sell products for purchase by children. If you are under 18, you may use Amazon.com only with the involvement of a parent or guardian.”

So who enforces this stuff? Well, as far as I can tell, no one does. The Internet is such that I don’t even know if these kinds of policies can be enforced.

By the way, Amazon accepts product reviews from children under the age of 13, but a separate submission form is used in which names and email addresses are not required. As a point of interest, the form refers back to Amazon’s Conditions of Use, which state that kids under 18 must have involvement of a parent or guardian before they can use the Amazon site.

An example of the form is located HERE (the form is tied to individual game titles; this particular one happens to pertain to GTA:SA). These reviews are reflected only as “A Kid’s Review” on product pages. I’m mentioning these things for a reason that will soon become apparent.

When I checked on November 23, 2005, DOOM 3 (PC) was also available from other outlets operating as storefronts on the Amazon.com platform: GameStop, J&R Music and Computer World, and CompUSA. I decided to do some additional snooping.

The GameStop product page was identical, with the exception of price, to the one appearing within the Amazon site under its own banner. The GameStop storefront referred back to Amazon’s Privacy Notice, so nothing was new there. Ditto the J&R and CompUSA storefronts.

Now, considering the nature of both games along with their “M” and “AO” ratings, I’d like to point out a few things. Let’s start with GTA.

When I first did research for this section, 34 of the first 100 reviews appearing on the Amazon product page for GTA: San Andreas (PS2) had been written by children under the age of 13. When I revisited the page on September 17, 2005, I thought this had changed. I only saw four reviews, none written by children.

I then realized, however, that the page I’d been looking at (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/975539463X/qid=1127012891/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-9946496-6214440?v=glance&s=videogames) represents the software packaged in a jewel case rather than a box. As mentioned above, Amazon also has a page for the boxed PS2 version of the game (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001VGFK2/ref=pd_ser_asin_6/104-9448158-8050366?v=glance&s=videogames), and this is the one I had seen previously. But this page hadn’t been returned as a hit in my search for GTA:SA in the Computer & Video Games section of the Amazon site. I wonder why that is? Things can sometimes be very confusing at Amazon.

Anyway, as of October 28, 2005, the page for the boxed version reflected a whopping 835 reviews. Twenty-five of the most recent 100 had been written by kids under 13. I thought you might enjoy reading a few of them. All are copied verbatim; none of the spelling, grammar, etc. has been corrected.

“This game rocks, bitches!, August 3, 2005
A Kid’s Review
I don’t understand why people hate this game. Just because some demeneted kids who imatate art, this game is banned. Thank god I have the original version when it 1st came out. GTA is so friggin’ fun. It’s awesome. You get to pimp out your own vechiles, jack cars, do crazy missions, pick up hookers, have girlfriends, eat, go work out at the gym & much more. You can even go to strip clubs. It’s that far-out.
IT KICKS ASS”‘

“the funnest game ever by a preteen {not a kid and if you call me a kid i hate you, July 31, 2005
A Kid’s Review
this game was the funnest game ever,my favorite was when find out ryder and big smoke betray you and you have to kill them for doing that,and how many missions you have to do so you have to train cj to eat,swim,run,and to hold his breath and how you get to have girlfriends and how you take them out on dates and when you get to skydive off an bicycle and drive an airplane. i think this blows all the other grand theft auto away.” (Note: Skydive off a bicycle? I wonder how that works?)

“THIS IS THE BEST GAME. WORTH EVERY F@#&ING PENNY, June 8, 2005
A Kid’s Review
man, when i first got this game, i was in heaven. it is perfect.
its very realistic interactive-wise. u can eat, rest, do graffiti, have a gf, have sex wit ur gf (much to my moms dismay) and much more. if you are only thinking about buying this game, HESITATE NO LONGER. also, the game is f***ing MASSIVE. it is so big.
u have airports, the country, the desert, the suburbs(ur hometown,) a las vegas kinda city, the beltway, a large new york size city, everything. also, u can even work out, and do trix on a bike.
so last but not least, BUY THIS GAME. LET IT BE XBOX, PC, OR PS2, BUT FOR GODS SAKE MAN, BUY IT!!!!”

It’s hard to say whether these pleasant, well-written reviews were really submitted by children, and I realize that folks who send product reviews to Amazon need not have bought the products from Amazon. But if the Kid’s Reviews are any indication, it appears that GTA:SA, no matter what its rating, is being acquired and played by children for whom it was never intended.

I also discovered something rather interesting while perusing Amazon’s GTA:SA pages on September 5, 2005. On one of them, I stumbled over a link captioned “Sony PlayStation 2 (NEW DESIGN) with GTA San Andreas and 8MB Memory Card.” This took me to a GameStop page within the Amazon site (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006VKFOE/sr=1-1/qid=1127014612/ref=sr_1_1/104-9448158-8050366?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=A3JNJQGSI0X4J6&n=12397651&s=merchant&v=glance) that describes the Sony PlayStation that’s being sold, but makes no mention of GTA:SA anywhere except in the header.

So, is GTA:SA being shipped with this console? If so, it seems to me — particularly in view of the recent GTA:SA firestorm I’ll be addressing a little later — that details should be provided about the game on the PlayStation product page. Wouldn’t ya think? Yet there is nothing.

Interesting aside: The following is reflected on the Amazon page for GTA:SA (XBOX) as one of the game’s features: “Steal all-new vehicles, including bicycles.” Gee, isn’t stealing motor vehicles enough anymore? Or, maybe it’s just those skydiving bicycles that are stolen…

DOOM 3 (PC) had a lot fewer kids’ reviews: only three out of the most recent 100. Here’s one of ’em, and it’s actually negative…

“The Extreme Let Down, April 2, 2005
A Kid’s Review
Here’s the main deal, one day I lost track of how much left over money i had, so i counted, and I ended up with 120 dollars! I decided to take it to Best Buy and buy Half-Life 2, after buying half-life 2, i still had a lot of money left, so i was thinking about buying the remastered half-life 1, but I saw Doom 3, and remembered the awesome commercial I saw for it. I picked it up and took it home. I expected an amazing game such as doom 1 and 2, but instead it was terrible! Doom 3 is nothing but a scarier first person version of the Men In Black 2 game! You get trapped in a room with aliens, you kill them, then you move onto the next room of aliens, up until you find a somewhat bigger and scarier alien that is referred to as the boss. The game will most likely be over in 4 or 5 days, and the alien’s graphics are somewhat really bad for the time, so I dont know what else to say but Doom 3 isn’t worth the money!“

Note: Half-Life 2 (Valve Corporation/Sierra Entertainment) is also rated M. Men in Black 2: Alien Escape (Infogrames Melbourne House/Infogrames, Inc.) is rated T (13+).

The recently released DOOM 3 Collector’s Edition (XBOX) — which also includes Ultimate DOOM and DOOM II — had only 48 reviews as of October 28, 2005, but five of them were kids’ reviews, including:

“Scary Violent Good Combination, April 13, 2005
A Kid’s Review
Doom 3 is a great gorey game with chainsaws shot guns etc. The Graphics, on a scale of 1 to 10 it is 10 they are The best I have ever seen which makes it more scary and the best details like when you see the blood all over the zombies mouths it made my heart skip a beat. Sound 10 out of 10 Like when you shoot a gun you can hear the shell hit the ground and the demons and zombies you can hear them groan and their footsteps. Story 8 out of 10 you are on Mars working for Union Aerospace Corporation. Accidentally open a gateway to Hell. Limited edition is better because it has the first two doom games so if you want a scary gorey shooter buy Doom 3“

WALMART.COM

DOOM 3 (PC)
~The ESRB rating was appropriately reflected as “M” on the product page.
~Content descriptors, as such, didn’t appear on the page, but it did carry the following: Warning: This title may contain intense violence, blood, and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language. You must be 17 or older to purchase this item. This product is intended for mature audiences only. By ordering this item you are certifying that you are at least 17 years of age. (See a note regarding this warning that appears after GTA:SA [PS2], below.)
~This warning differs in detail from the actual ESRB descriptors of “Blood and Gore, Intense Violence.”
~I checked other M-rated games on the Wal-Mart site, and they all carried the identical warning.

GTA:SA (PS2)
~When I checked on November 23, 2005, Walmart.com was selling only the “Special Edition” of GTA:SA for PS2 (from which Hot Coffee code has allegedly been removed by Take-Two/Rockstar).
~The ESRB rating was appropriately shown as “M.”
~Content descriptors, as such, did not appear on the page, but it did carry the following: Warning: This title may contain intense violence, blood, and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language. You must be 17 or older to purchase this item. This product is intended for mature audiences only. By ordering this item you are certifying that you are at least 17 years of age.
~The warning differs in detail from the actual ESRB descriptors of “Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs.”

Note: The above warning is more strongly worded than the one reflected on both product pages in October 2005, which read: Warning: intense violence, strong language and/or mature sexual themes may make this game inappropriate for anyone under the age of 17.

Product pages for both games reflected a link captioned “About ratings” that led to ESRB Ratings: What Do They Mean? (also a Wal-Mart page), which explains the rating system and content descriptors. The new ESRB rating E10+ was reflected. Content descriptors matched those reflected on the ESRB site.

I then examined Wal-Mart’s Terms of Use, which includes a section captioned Video and Computer Game Ratings. It states: “Games rated ‘M: Mature’ are intended for mature audiences only and are noted as such on this Site. By ordering any ‘M: Mature’ rated game, you are certifying that you are at least 17 years of age.”

The page also reflects: “By accepting these Terms of Use through your use of the Site, you certify that you are 18 years of age or older. If you are under the age of 18 but at least 13 years of age you may use this Site only under the supervision or a parent or legal guardian who agrees to be bound by these Terms of Use…Children under the age of 13 may not use this Site and parents or legal guardians may not agree to these Terms of Use on their behalf.”

Again, who is going to enforce this stuff, and how?

The main Video Game page carries a link to Wal Mart’s Policy on Mature Content. It reflects the following:

“At Wal-Mart we make every effort to be a responsible retailer and this includes the sale of video games and computer software games. All of these items that we carry are rated by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) and we carry no adult-rated video or computer software games. We have a process in place to help ensure that only customers who are 17 or older can purchase games that are rated ‘Mature.’ We have programmed all of our cash registers to prompt associates to check the age of customers. All of our stores should have the ESRB rating information posted in the electronics area to help our customers make informed decisions about the video and software games they’re purchasing.”

For the most part, this statement pertains to actual Wal-Mart stores. It appears that the sale of M-rated games online is restricted only by the language in the Warning on individual product pages and Terms of Use reflected above, which allows anyone of any age to certify that he/she is over 17 (or 18, according to Terms of Use).

~A SIDE TRIP TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD WAL-MART

There’s a Wal-Mart Super Center not too far from where I live, I go there every now and then. It’s an intimidatingly huge place, and it’s always crowded — even at, say, 1 AM on Wednesdays (it’s open 24/7).

Now, I’m not much of a people-person, and I don’t really care for crowds. Okay, so I’m more-or-less a hermit. When I do manage to get myself into the enormous, crowd-filled expanse that is Wal-Mart, I usually buy myself a present of some sort as a reward (no one else is going to, right?). One of my favorite gifts is (surprise!) a new adventure game.

I undertook my most recent expedition into the wilds of Wal-Mart not too long ago. As I approached the video game department, I took note of some ESRB signage displayed quite prominently. Had it always been there? I can’t really say. As I’ve mentioned, I never used to pay attention to ratings, but I can see that writing this article has sure changed that. Anyway, the Wal-Mart display included actual ratings, along with posters for the ESRB’s “Okay to Play?” PSA campaign. I did notice, however, that the new ESRB category of E10+ wasn’t reflected on any of the signage. (Yeah, I know — picky, picky. I should be a ratings cop, don’t you think?)

Unfortunately, that’s about as far as I got. There were so many people in the game aisles that — and this is not an exaggeration — I would have literally had to elbow my way into a boisterous mob consisting primarily of kids in order to look at the games. I mean, I love adventure games, but not that much. I don’t love anything that much.

~BACK TO ONLINE RETAILERS

CIRCUITCITY.COM

DOOM 3 (PC)
~The ESRB rating was appropriately reflected as “M” on its product page.
~Content descriptors matched those reflected on the ESRB site.
~Kidding on the square? One of the customer reviews is captioned “Do not play if you have a heart condition.”
~The page carried a link to Check The Rating (also a Circuit City page), which explains the rating system and content descriptors. However, the link was tied to an ESRB rating symbol graphic on the product page and wasn’t apparent until I passed my pointer over it.
~I discovered a second Check The Rating page linked to from the main Video Game page. The link was captioned What do ESRB ratings mean?
~A major difference existed between the first and second Check the Rating pages. The second one contained a link to some important info: Circuit City’s Mature-rated product policy (discussed below, following the GTA:SA info).
~The Mature-rated policy link also appeared on the main Video Game page. I could find no reason why this information is not accessible from individual game pages. Could it be that the policy applies only to Circuit City brick-and-mortar stores? (Again, see discussion below GTA:SA info.)
~When I last examined the two ratings pages on November 23, 2005, the new ESRB designation of E10+ (announced on March 2, 2005) was not included. An old rating was included: K-A (Kids to Adults). The ESRB subsequently replaced this with an E rating, which was also reflected. Content descriptors matched those reflected on the ESRB site.

GTA:SA (PS2)
~When I checked on November 23, 2005, circuitcity.com was selling only the “Special Edition” of GTA:SA for PS2 (from which Hot Coffee code has allegedly been removed by Take-Two/Rockstar).
~The ESRB rating was appropriately shown as “M.”
~The product page reflected no content descriptors.

Circuit City’s Mature-rated product policy:
“Circuit City has taken an active role in educating our associates and the public on the sale of movies, music and video games with mature content. We provide signs in our stores and information on our website explaining the rating system applied by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB). [Note: unfortunately, there is no mention of actual sales via the website.]

“Circuit City does not carry video games and computer software which receive the ‘Adult Only’ rating. We do carry products which are rated for mature audiences, but it is our policy that we will not sell mature rated products to anyone under 17 years of age, unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian. This policy covers sale of the following items:
~M-rated video games and computer software
~CDs carrying the ‘Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics’ label
~R-rated DVDs and VHS movies
~Unrated DVD and VHS movies

“To enforce this policy, we instruct our sales associates to request photo identification if a customer wishing to purchase one of the products appears to be 21 years of age or younger. Our cash registers are programmed to prompt associates to verify each customer’s age.

“We encourage parents to learn about the ESRB ratings system and make a careful determination about which products are suitable for their children.

“Click here to learn more about the ESRB ratings system.”

I was unable to locate anything regarding age restrictions in Circuit City Stores, Inc. Website Terms of Use.

I then visited Circuit City’s Privacy policy, which contains a “Children’s online policy” section. Of all policies I’ve examined here, it’s the weakest:

“Circuit City is committed to preserving online privacy for all of its website visitors, including children. Circuitcity.com is a general audience site, and we do not knowingly collect information about children or sell products to children. Consistent with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, we will not knowingly collect any information from children under the age of 13. If you are under the age of 13, you must ask your parent or guardian to assist you in using circuitcity.com.”

~TO SUM IT UP…

Now, I’m sure that the kinds of documents I mentioned in the last section cover Amazon, its outlets, Wal-Mart, and Circuit City from a legal standpoint, and absolve them of liability. But I have to ask: how many people actually read this stuff? My guess would be very few.

Further, when it comes to effective video game ratings enforcement and corresponding sales restrictions, it seems to me that online purchasing is one gaping mother of a hole. What’s to stop kids from lying about their ages? Short answer: nothing. In this area, the game industry seems to be shooting itself in the foot. Or maybe in both feet.

Let’s revisit the well-worn September 2000 FTC report on marketing violent entertainment to children. This time, let’s have a look at Appendix J, which addresses the IDSA’s Advertising Code of Conduct (“Adcode”) as it applies to online promotions. It states that a 1999 review of 40 game-selling publisher sites revealed that some of the sites, collectively operated by 18 companies altogether (14 of which were IDSA members), did require that purchasers be at least 18 to place an order. However, none attempted to verify purchasers’ ages.

Appendix J goes on to state the following:

“In a followup review conducted in May 2000, one site from each of the 18 companies was randomly revisited to determine if compliance had improved. Only one company had made changes to comply with the online Adcode. No company was in complete compliance, and none of the game developer sites had made changes to improve compliance.”

I looked hither and yon for the IDSA’s Advertising Code of Conduct. It appears to be missing in action — the IDSA/ESA website doesn’t even have it. As previously mentioned, the ESRB does have an Advertising Review Council responsible for monitoring advertising in the form of “print ads, packaging, radio and TV spots, Internet advertising, online stores, posters, and demos.” However, its Principles and Guidelines Second Edition, published May 1, 2001, does not address the sale of video games online to inappropriate age groups.

FYI, both Toysrus.com and Walmart.com are IEMA members. Unfortunately, there is no feasible way to enforce the IEMA carding program agreed to by Toys “R” Us and Wal Mart when it comes to online purchases.

PART X

~EXASPERATED YET?

Ironically, the more deeply I delve into the ESRB ratings system, the more questions I seem to have. I hope you’ll indulge me as I unload some of them.

One thing I’ve noticed is that the rating process, although done in accordance with certain criteria, tends to group games having disparate content into the same category. Here is what the ESRB site reflects about those criteria:

“In rating a game, ESRB considers many content areas, including but not limited to violence, sex, language, and substance abuse. ESRB raters also take into consideration how such content elements are depicted and used in the context of the game to help them determine an appropriate age recommendation and which content descriptors to apply.”

To me, this seems rather broadly drawn. As a gamer, I’m unable to understand why some of the games I’ve played carry the ratings they do. And I question how accurate a rating can be when ESRB raters don’t actually play the games.

Additionally, I’m wondering how much subjectivity goes into the assignment of ratings. There must be some, because (as mentioned earlier) three raters must agree on a particular game’s rating before it becomes official. If there is no consensus by the first three raters, the game is reviewed by additional raters until there is a consensus — sort of like the procedure when a jury is hung/deadlocked. If the rating process were strictly objective, this wouldn’t be necessary.

I also wonder how parents and other adults are supposed to discern the actual differences between games, particularly those that have the same rating and lack content descriptors. Plenty of them do; the ESRB site has pages and pages of them spanning every letter of the alphabet and all platforms. (I’ll be getting into that issue shortly.)

Further, although the ESRB says that its raters represent various age groups and backgrounds, I’m wondering if any juveniles are included in the mix. I tend to doubt it, as it wouldn’t be advisable to have kids rating games that could end up being M or AO-rated — although if publishers supply the kind of information that the ESRB states is required when games are submitted for ratings, it seems to me that such a thing could be avoided. But what do I know? On the other hand, if no raters are juveniles, I’m wondering if adults are capable of effectively seeing the world through the eyes of, say, today’s six-year-olds.

~CASES IN POINT

In the event I’ve confused you (and even if I haven’t), let’s look at a couple of adventure games I’ve enjoyed playing: Wanted: A Wild Western Adventure (European title: The Westerner) from Revistronic/The Adventure Company, and Nancy Drew: Secret of the Scarlet Hand from Her Interactive. Both games are rated “E” (age 6+) on the ESRB website — although on the packaging, Scarlet Hand publisher Her Interactive reflects not only the “E” rating, but its own “For Mystery Fans 10 and Up.”

Wanted carries the content descriptors “Cartoon Violence, Mild Language, Use of Tobacco and Alcohol,” which are reflected on the back of the game’s packaging. (Editor’s Note: “Mild Language” does not appear in the current list of content descriptors on the ESRB site.) Scarlet Hand carries no content descriptors.

I want to make it clear that what follows does not represent criticism of either game. If I’m criticizing anything, it’s the ratings system. In my opinion, the differences between the two games are striking.

**Spoilers Ahead**

Wanted: A Wild Western Adventure is a funny, rather silly game (and I don’t mean that in a negative way) that features cartoonish characters and takes place in the Wild West (hence, the title.) The plot is classic good vs. bad. A nasty land baron and his henchmen are taking over the property of innocent farmers and must be stopped. As the game starts, hero Fenimore Filmore rides into town to save the day.

Fenimore is a rather likable doofus who has basically good intentions. Unfortunately, he also knowingly engages in some unscrupulous and illegal activities.

For example, Fenimore needs money with which to buy items that are necessary to complete the game. He gets this money by stealing it from any number of places including the desks of school children and the dresser/desk drawers, closets, and cabinets of various other characters, including the sheriff. This is always done successfully and, at times, right under the victims’ noses (some of the other characters are doofuses, too).

Fenimore also obtains money by sending people bogus telegrams. He even hits on the President of the United States.

Further, our hero robs a bank, blows up a bridge, facilitates a jailbreak, knowingly buys stolen goods, and kills other characters. As I was playing the game, I got the impression that because Fenimore is on the side of the “good” guys, the ends justify the means.

The game also contains what I consider to be bathroom humor. It occurs intermittently throughout the game whenever Fenimore talks to the sheriff. As Fenimore takes his leave, he says, “I really have to go now.” The sheriff replies with things like, “You should carry a portable urinal” or “I’d get your prostate looked at if I were you.” The ESRB does have a content descriptor — Crude Humor — that includes bathroom humor. Yet this isn’t one of the descriptors assigned to Wanted.

At the beginning of the game, a juvenile steals Fenimore’s two pistols and, with another juvenile, is in control of them for about half the game. Both children are depicted as under age 10. When Fenimore confronts the boys about the theft, one potential exchange has Billy — who knows where the guns actually are — refusing to tell Fenimore anything.

When Fenimore threatens to tell Billy’s father about the situation, Billy says he doesn’t care because his father’s a famous bank robber who’s in jail, and has robbed more trains than Jesse James. We find out later that this is only partially true.

Nevertheless, Billy also says that he intends to follow in his father’s footsteps, and that the other juvenile, Tommy, will be in his gang. First, however, they’ll have to learn how to shoot. Fenimore promises to teach them if they’ll tell him where his guns are stashed. They comply.

After Fenimore retrieves the guns and is on his way back to talk to the boys again, he’s run down by a speeding buggy driven by a drunken doctor, and the buggy crashes into a tree. In the distance, the two juveniles are seen leaving the area. This takes Fenimore off the hook for the shooting lessons, which are not mentioned again.

Another potential exchange about Fenimore’s guns has the juveniles bemoaning the fact that they aren’t permitted to watch hangings, and agreeing to return the guns only if they can watch Fenimore kill people with them.

Also during gun negotiations, there are several opportunities for the juveniles to send Fenimore away so they can talk in private — and Fenimore complies every time. This makes it clear who’s in charge here, and it sure ain’t the adult.

Further, the fellow Fenimore breaks out of jail has a “shady past” as a forger. Fenimore later has him forge the sheriff’s signature on a legal document.

Most of the principal characters participate in an endgame shootout in which they kill other characters, blow up structures and wreak general mayhem. The good guys use not only pistols, but items resembling machine guns and rocket launchers.

There are no negative consequences for any of the behavior I’ve mentioned. Granted, it all takes place within a cartoon framework, and being an adult (that’s what they tell me, anyway), I can’t really say how a young child might react to the off-color humor, illegal activities, and lack of respect for adults depicted in the game. It seems to me, though, that age six might be a little young for this kind of stuff. Speaking strictly as a gamer, I would not want to see a kid that young sitting in front of Wanted.

**End of Spoilers**

The front of the packaging for both Wanted and Scarlet Hand reflects only an “E” rating. “Age 6+” is not included. As a result, neither game’s packaging agrees with its rating as reflected on the ESRB site, where “Age 6+” is specifically mentioned.

~A SIDE-TRIP TO THE ESRB SITE

Interestingly, the “E” rating is defined as follows on the Game Rating & Descriptor Guide:

“Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.”

Yet the “E” rating on game packaging sometimes includes “age 6+” and sometimes doesn’t. Additionally, the ESRB’s own ratings pages sometimes reflect “E (age 6+)” and sometimes show just plain “E.” Why the inconsistencies, which have potential to cause confusion?

Further, “Use of Tobacco and Alcohol” is not mentioned as a descriptor associated with the “E” rating, yet Wanted carries this descriptor and is rated “E.”

Sorting listings of ESRB ratings by descriptors rather than alphabetically by game titles, I’ve discovered the following (letters of the alphabet were chosen at random):

Four pages into the letter “S” reveals a list of 20 games carrying the single descriptor “Animated Violence.” Ten of them (50%) are rated “E (6+).” The other ten (50%) are rated “T (13+)”. On what sort of specific content is this difference based, I wonder? It seems to me that whatever is responsible would be a crucial element and should be reflected on the game’s packaging and the ESRB site.

Perusing the letter “M,” the third page of listings also carries a list of 20 games, this time bearing the single descriptor “Animated Violence.” Thirteen of them (65%) are rated “E (6+).” Seven (35%) are rated “T (13+).” Again, what sort of content prompted these differences?

~BACK TO CASES IN POINT

**More Spoilers Ahead**
Okay, let’s move along to Nancy Drew: Secret of the Scarlet Hand, which is the sixth entry in the Nancy Drew series of games. It takes place primarily in a museum in Washington, D.C. that’s gearing up for an exhibition of Maya artifacts. Nancy is serving a summer internship as the museum’s deputy curator.

Nancy encounters a somewhat standoffish supervisor, who is also the museum’s curator, as well as an epigrapher who is an expert in translation of Maya hieroglyphics, a somewhat smarmy art dealer, and a cultural attachè from the Mexican Embaasy who resents that a rare artifact recently discovered in Mexico is having its première exhibition at a museum in the U.S.

The game also features a few unseen characters with whom Nancy interacts by phone. Another unseen character is the former deputy curator, who’s a little off-the-wall. He’s represented by items he left behind, including his notebooks and a computer disc.

The plot revolves around an extremely valuable artifact that’s stolen from the museum. When this happens, Nancy dons her detective cap and sets out to find the culprit. As is common in Nancy games, all other principal characters give her cause for suspicion.

As our detective goes about solving the mystery, players actually learn a thing or two about Maya civilization and culture, Maya monoliths, King Pacal of Palenque, legal provenance, and more. The game is so entertaining, though, that it actually makes learning fun (my favorite kind).

The character of Nancy also provides a good model of desirable behavior. For instance, she won’t use certain items without getting permission first, and when she opens/unlocks drawers, cabinets, etc. she always closes/locks them again before moving on. Generally, she cleans up after herself.

Side note: In Nancy Drew: Secret of the Old Clock (released in July 2005) Nancy needs spending money, just as Fenimore Filmore does in Wanted. The difference is that Nancy goes to work and earns hers.

The only thing that concerns me about six-year-olds playing Scarlet Hand comes right at the end, when Nancy is sealed in a dark, small space that’s also occupied by a mummy (eek!). Nancy’s light source consists of a green glow stick that illuminates only what’s directly in front of her. In a timed sequence, she must locate and use two items in order to escape her confinement before her air runs out.

Although a generous amount of time is allowed, it’s still possible for Nancy to fail. If she does, a newspaper is displayed showing not only the original mummy, but Nancy as a mummy, too. This could be frightening to young children, I think. But I don’t think this would be sufficient cause to seriously question the game’s rating.

Scarlet Hand (as well as all other Nancy games) also features a “Second Chance” option (actually, the chances are unlimited). If Nancy runs out of air in the above sequence, for example, players are taken back to the beginning of the puzzle and can keep trying until they get it right.

Now, here’s the best part of this game: once nabbed, the wrongdoer ends up in federal prison. Now, that’s what I call a consequence.

**End of Spoilers**

As previously mentioned, Her Interactive reflects ages “10 to Adult” on Scarlet Hand‘s packaging (see next section, below). I must admit that I’m baffled by the absence of ESRB content descriptors.

So here we have two games with the same ESRB rating. One of them, although cartoonish in appearance, depicts “good” characters engaging in undesirable and unlawful activities that carry no consequences. In the other, the one character who engages in wrong behavior is held accountable, and punished.

I think Scarlet Hand is deserving of its “E” rating, although I feel that Her Interactive’s assignment of “10 to Adult” may be more appropriate than the “6+” designation that appears on the ERRB website.

On the other hand, I think Wanted, with its “Cartoon Violence, Mild Language, Use of Tobacco and Alcohol” (not to mention bathroom humor, theft, violence, con jobs, other illegal activities, and lack of consequences) leans more toward a “T” rating (age 13+).

Maybe I’m not understanding something, or maybe I’m just being too subjective or picky. But I do wonder how parents and other adults are supposed to be able to determine whether a game is appropriate for children using the kind of information supplied by the ESRB.

~SAILING, ANYONE?

Another adventure game I’ve really enjoyed playing is Return to Mysterious Island from Kheops Studio/The Adventure Company. The game was inspired by Jules Verne’s 1874 novel The Mysterious Island.

The ESRB site reflects a T (13+) rating for this game, with a content descriptor of “Mild Violence,” which is defined on the site’s descriptor page as “Mild scenes depicting characters in unsafe and/or violent situations.”

The fact that this game was given a “T” rating baffles me. I happen to think it would be a great game for kids to play.

Further, the game’s packaging reflects just plain “T,” with no age designation or content descriptors. This makes me wonder about the ESRB’s statement that its rating process includes the review of game packaging “to make sure the ratings are displayed in accordance with ESRB standards” (i.e., the game’s rating on the front, and content descriptors on the back). Mysterious Island‘s packaging doesn’t conform to this edict. I’m not sure how such a thing can happen if everyone is following procedure.

**More Spoilers Ahead**

The back story of Mysterious Island has protagonist Mina in a ’round-the-world sailing competition during which she encounters a storm and ends up on the beach of an apparently deserted island. This is where the game begins.

Mina is the only “person” in this game. Left to her own devices, she gathers food, finds items with which to build a fire, and fashions tools out of various other things she discovers on the island. She’s quite resourceful.

Many items Mina comes across can be combined, often in more ways than one, to make items she needs. Some can even be disassembled into their constituent parts if need be. She discovers how to construct two different kinds of batteries, fix a windmill, make bricks and pottery, and more. She even manages to grind flour and bake a cake!

Mina actually goes out of her way to avoid violence. For instance, she successfully deals with some hostile monkeys, a snake, and a shark-like sea creature without harming them.

She also encounters a monkey who is injured. After she dresses his wounds, finds fruit for him to eat and nurses him back to health, the monkey becomes Mina’s companion and assists her in the balance of her quest to return to civilization.

There is a ghost in Mysterious Island — it’s the ghost of Captain Nemo, in fact. But it’s not threatening or hostile — if anything, it’s helpful. Captain Nemo’s remains are also in the game, in the form of a skeleton. At the request of Nemo’s ghost, Mina gives it a proper burial, and the ghost gives her a valuable reward for her efforts.

Mina does have a couple of weapons, but she uses them only on guardian robots (constructed by Nemo years earlier, to protect the island) that she knows will try to shoot at her. Could it be that blasting robots qualifies as “mild violence?”

There are also several places in the game where Mina can die — but, as with Nancy Drew in Secret of the Scarlet Hand, she gets unlimited second chances. Another similarity to Scarlet Hand is that one actually learns things while playing Mysterious Island, and has fun while doing so.

**End of Spoilers** (finally!)

Not only do I not understand why Mysterious Island is rated “T” rather than “E,” I also take exception to the online descriptor “Mild Violence.” Going back to the ESRB Game Rating and Descriptor Guide, “Mild Violence” appears as a characteristic of the “E” rating. Just plain “Violence” (“Scenes involving aggressive conflict”) falls under the “T” rating.

Mysterious Island is certainly less violent than the E-rated Wanted, with its “Cartoon Violence.” Further, Mysterious Island has no off-color humor, nor does anyone drink, smoke, break the law, steal money, or lie. Self-sufficiency, creativity, and resourcefulness are emphasized. And, although this is neither here nor there, the music in Mysterious Island is fabulous. In fact, I feel that there’s an enormous amount of talent among folks who create video games these days. As with comic book artists before them, they’re quite serious about their craft — and it shows.

PART XI

~MORE RATINGS INCONSISTENCY

Earlier, while still in a Nancy Drew mindset, I went ahead and took a look at the current packaging for all 13 Nancy Drew games. All reflect ages “10 to Adult” (designated by Her Interactive), as does the Her Interactive website.

The ESRB site, however, shows 11 of the games rated “Everyone (6+).” Three are simply rated “Everyone” with no age parameters. I do realize that 11+3=14 rather than 13, but this is because one of the games, Nancy Drew: The Haunted Carousel, is shown twice, each listing reflecting a different publisher.

The first listing for Carousel, showing Valu Soft as publisher, is rated “Everyone.” The second, reflecting publisher Her Interactive, is rated “Everyone (6+).” Neither has content descriptors. If we combine these with Her Interactive’s “10 to Adult” designation on the packaging, we have three different ratings for the same game.

A total of 11 of the Nancy Drew games lack content descriptors on the ESRB site (12, if you count to Carousel‘s double listing). The very first game in the series, Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill , reflects “Mild Animated Violence” and is rated “Everyone (6+).” The most recent game, Nancy Drew: Last Train to Blue Moon Canyon, indicates “Mild Animated Violence” and is rated just plain “Everyone.”

I actually managed to stumble across alternate packaging for Secrets Can Kill that shows ages “11 to Adult” rather than “10 to Adult.” This is one of the games that the ESRB has rated “Everyone (6+)” on its website, but the game’s packaging reflects just plain “E.”

It may seem to some of you as though I’m slogging through minutiae (just wait until the next two sections), but there are inconsistencies here for which I’m unable to discern any viable reasons. These kinds of discrepancies reveal — at least to me — that the current rating system does not hold up under close scrutiny. How can this system possibly provide reliable indicators concerning suitability of game content for specific age groups?

Okay, let’s review what we’ve learned so far:
(1) It’s possible for games to have the same rating yet be drastically different in content.
(2) It can be very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately assess a game’s content using ESRB ratings/descriptors.
(3) Not all games are assigned content descriptors by the ESRB.
(4) The ESRB site can reflect one rating while the publisher shows another on the packaging.
(5) There can be different versions of packaging reflecting different age-appropriateness for the same title.

All of this is sure helpful to consumers, isn’t it?

~I THINK MY HEAD MIGHT EXPLODE

I swear, stuff like this just keeps falling into my lap. As I was checking out something totally unrelated, I accidentally tripped over another example of This Doesn’t Make Any Sense. The disparity is so pronounced and so recent that I felt I had to mention it.

Let’s have a look at the newly-released (November 2005) The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (Disney/Walden Media), which is available for XBOX, PS2, Nintendo Game Cube, PC, GameBoy Advance, and Nintendo DS.

Okay — now get this, straight from the ESRB site:

(1) The XBOX, PS2, Game Cube, and PC versions of the game are all rated “T” for “fantasy violence”
(2) The GameBoy Advance version is rated “E” for “fantasy violence”
(3) The Nintendo DS version is rated “E-10+” for (you guessed it) “fantasy violence”

There is no indication of why three different ratings have been assigned to the same title, or what the differences could be between the “fantasy violence” present in the “E,” “E-10+” and “T” rated versions.

And if that isn’t bad enough, let’s pay another visit to Amazon, where (as of December 2, 2005):

(1) The ESRB rating for the PS2 version is reflected as “E-Everyone (Content suitable for persons age 6 or older)” while the product page’s box shot and the ESRB website clearly show a “T” rating.
(2) The PC version reflects “RP-Rating Pending (ESRB rating has not yet been determined)” although the ESRB site reflects the assignment of a “T” rating.
(3) The Nintendo DS version is shown as “E-Everyone (Content suitable for persons age 6 or older)” while the product page’s box shot and the ESRB website clearly show an “E-10+” rating.
(4) The XBOX, Game Cube and GBA versions are appropriately shown with “T,” “T” and “E” ratings, respectively. (Thank God for small favors, although this just parrots the nonsensical actions of the ESRB in assigning different ratings to the same game.)
(5) No content descriptors are reflected on any of Amazon’s product pages for this game.

How in the world is such erroneous and contradictory information supposed to help parents and other adults decide which games are suitable for kids? Why, in the face of increasing scrutiny and criticism of violent video games, is such sloppiness tolerated? Or could it be that few people even notice stuff like this?

~JUMPING INTO THE ESRB’S DEEP END

Some of you might think that what I’m going to do now is symptomatic of some type of obsessive-compulsive disorder on my part. For all I know, maybe it is.

While researching parts of this article I started to notice that a lot of the games lacking ESRB content descriptors seem to be rated “E.” So I decided to see if I could discern any sort of pattern with these kinds of games. I picked a letter of the alphabet at random (it turned out to be “D”) and started looking at ratings and descriptors on the ESRB site.

Once I’d worked up a good head of steam, things sort of snowballed. I kept coming across stuff that, once again, doesn’t make sense. And as you know, that kind of thing bugs the crap out of me.

Soooo…I examined ratings and descriptors for all 763 titles (yep, 763; someday, I should try to get a life) appearing under the letter “D.” As of Sept. 22, 2005, they rolled out as follows:

Early Childhood
Out of 5 titles, 4 carried no descriptors; 1 carried the descriptor Edutainment.

Early Childhood (age 3+)
Out of 15 titles, 2 carried no descriptors; 13 carried the descriptor Edutainment.

Everyone
Out of 23 titles, 15 carried no descriptors; 8 carried one or more of 5 different descriptors, two of which did not appear in the current ESRB descriptors list: Mild Cartoon Violence and Mild Fantasy Violence.

Examples of descriptors used in this category that are defined by the ESRB are Comic Mischief (“Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor”) and Simulated Gambling (“Player can gamble without betting or wagering real cash or currency”).

Everyone (6+)
Out of 378 titles, 201 carried no descriptors; 177 carried one or more of 20 different descriptors, 8 of which did not appear in the current descriptors list:

(1) Animated Violence
(2) Financial Information (don’t ask me…)
(3) Gambling (considering the ESRB’s definition of Simulated Gambling, above, wouldn’t it seem to follow that just plain Gambling would involve real money or currency?)
(4) Mild Animated Violence
(5) Mild Cartoon Violence
(6) Mild Language
(7) Mild Lyrics
(8) Personal Information (Huh??)

Examples of descriptors used in this category that are defined by the ESRB are Use of Tobacco and Alcohol, Suggestive Themes (“Mild provocative references or materials,” whatever those might be), Lyrics (“Mild references to profanity, sexuality, violence, alcohol, or drug use in music”), and Violence (“Scenes involving aggressive conflict”).

Everyone 10+
Out of 8 titles, all carried one or more of 5 different descriptors, one of which did not appear in the current ESRB descriptors list: Mild Lyrics.

Examples of descriptors used in this category that are defined by the ESRB are Suggestive Themes and Violence.

Teen (13+)
Out of 230 titles, all carried one or more of 21 different descriptors, 7 of which did not appear in the current ESRB descriptors list:
(1) Animated Violence
(2) Gaming
(3) Mature Sexual Themes
(4) Mild Animated Violence
(5) Mild Language
(6) Mild Lyrics
(7) Realistic Violence

Examples of descriptors used in this category that are defined by the ESRB are Crude Humor (“Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including *bathroom* humor” [emphasis is ESRB’s]), Strong Language (“Explicit and/or frequent use of profanity”) and Violence.

Mature (17+)
Out of 104 titles, all carried one or more of 14 descriptors, 4 of which did not appear in the current ESRB descriptors list:

(1) Animated Blood & Gore
(2) Animated Violence
(3) Gambling
(4) Mature Sexual Themes

Examples of descriptors used in this category that are defined by the ESRB are Intense Violence (“Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons, and depictions of human injury and death”), Nudity (“Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity”), and Strong Sexual Content (“Graphic references to and/or depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity”).

There were no AO-rated games under the letter “D.”

As you can see, descriptors that don’t appear in the ESRB list are reflected under all rating designations. The one having the highest number (53%) is “Everyone (6+).” Further, note that games under all designations except Early Childhood and Early Childhood (age 3+) can contain “Violence.”

Now, putting aside the fact that I don’t understand why some games are rated as they are, I have some questions (and this is only a partial list of them):

(1) Why does the ESRB assign content descriptors that don’t appear in its own list of descriptors?
(2) How is the lack of certain descriptor definitions on the ESRB site supposed to facilitate the choice of appropriate games?
(3) Is an absence of content descriptors supposed to indicate that no objectionable content is present, and if so, why isn’t this clearly indicated on game packaging and the ESRB site so that people won’t have to engage in guesswork?
(4) As content descriptors, by the ESRB’s definition, “indicate elements in a game that may have triggered a particular rating and/or may be of interest or concern,” might it not be useful to formulate some positive descriptors for those games having no objectionable content, to keep consumers better informed and not give the impression that descriptors of certain games have simply been blown off by the ESRB for some unknown reason?
(5) Some descriptors are reflected under more than one rating — so what’s the difference, say, between the Animated Violence contained in games rated Everyone (6+), Teen (13+) and Mature (17+)?
(6) What in the world do Financial Information and Personal Information mean?
(7) With so many descriptors in which the word “mild” is used are missing from the descriptors list, wouldn’t an ESRB definition of “mild” be in order, at least?
(8) What’s the difference between Early Childhood and Early Childhood (3+), and between Everyone and Everyone (6+)?
(9) What’s the difference between “Sexual Themes,” which is defined, and “Mature Sexual Themes,” which is not? (Hmmm…could “Mature Sexual Themes” denote sexual activities involving senior citizens, perhaps?)
(10) Are we having fun yet? (Nope.)

Okay, I’ll try to stop obsessing now. (Yeah, fat chance…)

~TESTIMONY FROM YET ANOTHER GOVERNMENT HEARING

On September 28, 2004, testimony was heard by the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation on the Effectiveness of Media Rating Systems. Of particular interest is testimony presented by Dr. Kim Thompson (no relation to Jack, thank you), Associate Professor & Director, Kids Risk Project, Harvard School of Public Health.

Here is some of what Dr. Thompson had to say (although I disagree that content descriptors are clearly defined by the ESRB):

“The ESRB system for video games…provides an age-based rating (e.g., E, T, M) and also provides content descriptors that the ESRB defines clearly on its website (www.esrb.org). Our studies suggest, however, some inconsistency in the application of these content descriptors and a lack of transparency in how they are assigned. Since the ESRB does not play the games prior to assigning a rating, the ESRB ratings by definition do not reflect full knowledge of the game content and leave raters without the opportunity to experience the full range of content that ultimately gets released in the final game. The ESRB requires game manufacturers to provide examples of the most extreme content, but do they do so? Should parents expect the content descriptors to provide information about all of the types of content in the games, or have the content descriptors now become more like the MPAA’s rating reasons indicating only some of the content? With the information to parents very unclear on this, and parents and kids easily able to observe omissions as they experience actual game play, the ESRB should in my opinion focus more on ensuring the quality of its information and worry less about its advertising. Parents will use a system that they trust and that they find reliable, and perhaps the lack of use of ratings reflects a lack of trust.”

So it’s not just me, then. What a relief.

PART XII

~SO, HOW DO MPAA RATINGS MEASURE UP, ANYWAY?

In the interest of comparison, I tried to locate information on the MPAA site concerning the enforcement and effectiveness of movie ratings, but I was unsuccessful. The issues of copyright infringement and piracy appear to have become greater concerns to that organization.

I then strolled on over to the National Association of Theater Owner’s (NATO’s) website, where I located a Survey of Exhibition Industry Practices dated December 9, 2002. This document states:

“The U.S. Constitution protects the right to ‘free speech’, which includes entertainment products such as motion pictures. There are a few limits to the protection. For example, pornography that is so graphic and lacks any artistic value can be deemed ‘obscene’ and thus not protected by the constitutional right of free speech. In general, however, the right of free speech protects most movies. As such the government cannot regulate the content of movies generally.

“We also believe that a ratings system imposed by the government would violate the constitution. The U.S. House of Representatives considered a governmental movie ratings system in 1999 and rejected the concept by majority vote…

“NATO and the Motion Picture Association of America…do maintain a VOLUNTARY rating system for movies. Most movies exhibited in the United States are submitted voluntarily to the Classification and Ratings Administration [CARA], where one of five ratings are applied to the movie (G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17).

“…[T]here are two restricted ratings. R indicates that no one under the age of 17 will be admitted without an accompanying parent or guardian. NC-17 means that no one 17 years of age or younger will be admitted at all. By voluntary agreement, the NATO members enforce the R and NC-17 ratings by checking for age identification at the box office and by taking other steps to ensure that children do not see inappropriate movies.”

Well, I’m not sure what those “other steps” might be, and I don’t know whether IDs are indeed being checked at theaters showing movies that are rated R or NC-17. I do know, however, that kids under 17 are seeing these films. I also know that certain violent movies have been used — albeit unsuccessfully, for the most part — in defense of minors who have committed murder. One of the most infamous is 1994’s Natural Born Killers. More recently, it’s been the Matrix trilogy (among others).

Another thing I’ve discovered is that apparently, the MPAA is even worse than the ESRB is when it comes to content descriptors. In a May 2005 article entitled An Evaluation of the Motion Picture Association of America’s Treatment of Violence in PG-, PG-13-, and R-Rated Films, the American Academy of Pediatrics observes the following:

“Although CARA’s descriptions of films are inconsistent and often vague, given the choice, parents prefer these content-based assessments to a single, overall age-based rating. Currently, however, film distributors are not required to print the factors for rating assignment in newspapers or on the jackets of DVD/VHS videos, leaving parents with only a single age-based rating to determine the appropriateness of the film. CARA skirts around this issue only by maintaining an online database of films and content-based ratings on their publicly accessible web site. However, many parents do not have Internet access; therefore, one must assume that the only consistently available film-rating information is the age-based guidelines. With 30 million households owning a DVD player and >90% of American households using VCRs, it is troubling to find such a void in the availability of the most relevant and sought-after film-rating information.”

Further, not only does the sale of DVD & VHS movies via the Internet suffer the same enforcement problems as online game sales do, it’s also possible for people of any age to buy tickets online for films that are currently showing in theaters.

Interesting side note: While perusing the MPAA site, I decided to do a ratings search for a few films I’ve seen. One of them, 1988’s Hellbound: Hellraiser II (a definite guilty pleasure), is reflected as originally having an “X” rating. Imagine that, huh? It was subsequently edited by the filmmaker and submitted for re-rating, whereupon it was rated “R.” This really makes me wonder what was cut out!

Incidentally, the MPAA site does not reflect content descriptors for either the original Hellraiser (also rated R) or Hellbound: Hellraiser II.

~OH, THE SWEET SUFFERING…UM, I MEAN IRONY

Continuing with our MPAA ratings motif for a moment, here’s a real kick in the pants. The movie Amadeus, when released in 1984, received a “PG” rating despite the fact that a brief glimpse of male full frontal nudity — not to mention a glimpse of a naked male backside — appear in the asylum scene early in the film.

**Spoiler in next paragraph**

Well, in the Director’s Cut DVD of Amadeus, one of the restored scenes involves Mozart’s wife Constanze (Elizabeth Berridge) stripping to the waist. There are two shots of her topless for a total of oh, maybe five seconds. She isn’t doing anything lurid, either — she’s basically just standing there. But this was enough for the MPAA to slap an “R” rating (for brief nudity) on this particular version of the film.

The change in rating makes no sense to me. There was already brief nudity in the PG-rated theatrical release of the film. So I guess ESRB ratings aren’t the only ones I don’t understand.

Interesting tidbits: Dies Irae from Mozart’s Requiem is featured in the adventure game Still Life (Microids/The Adventure Company). Also, the music that accompanies the opening credits of Amadeus (this is after the two jarring chords that introduce the opening “Forgive Me, Mozart” sequence, which are from Don Giovanni, Act II, Commendatore scene) is from the 1st Movement of the Symphony No. 25 in G Minor, which Mozart wrote when he was just 17 years old. I’m in absolute awe of such talent. Can you tell that I’m an unabashed fan of Herr Mozart’s music?

~ANOTHER “WORST” LIST (11 GAMES THIS TIME)

The same day the Ninth Annual Mediawise Video Game Report Card was released, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) together with four other parent, church and women’s groups issued a report concerning violent video games. Although not identical to the Mediawise list, the ICCR list is similar, with GTA:SA and DOOM 3 occupying the top two slots.

According to a press release, the list was published “in the hopes of alerting unwary parents and grandparents to the blood-soaked and anti-social content of the games that might otherwise be purchased as holiday gifts for children. In a joint statement, the groups also urged retailers to stop selling the inappropriate games directly to children and called on the industry to come up with an improved and more widely promoted game rating system that parents can understand.”

According to Sister Pat Wolf, executive director, ICCR: “Adults buying video games for children need to understand that the game makers and retailers are not on their side when it comes to these violent video games. This fast-buck-at-any-cost mentality is something that is a real danger to kids.”

The following is a statement by Dr. Martha Burk, who represents two of the other organizations involved in compiling the list (Center for Advancement of Public Policy and National Council of Women’s Organizations): “Video game retailers must commit to keeping video games with graphic violence or strong sexual themes out of the hands of children. The best way to do this is to not sell the games. Corporate responsibility must mean more than meeting minimal rating standards, which presently serve the industry far more than they serve the consumer.”

One of the groups’ recommendations to parents is something I don’t understand at all: “They can find out what their internet service providers are doing to prevent children from purchasing or playing violent video games online.” Internet service providers?? To the best of my knowledge, ISPs have no responsibility or authority to restrict the activities of their subscribers (unless it’s to yank a user’s account for sending spam or engaging in other terms-of-use violations). I, for one, hope they never do.

Again, I’m not saying that I disagree with the basic premise of keeping M-rated games out of the hands of those under 17. I just feel that statements such as the above have the potential to add to the confusion that continues to swirl around this issue.

PART XIII

~JACK THOMPSON, RELOADED

On February 16, 2005, our old acquaintance Jack Thompson filed a lawsuit in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, alleging that a teen (also named Thompson, first name Devin, although I’ve also seen him referred to as Devin Moore, Devin Moore Thompson and Devin Darnell Thompson) who had shot and killed two police officers and a dispatcher in June 2003 had been “trained” to do so by playing Grand Theft Auto III and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. The suit, brought by families of two of the victims, names Wal-Mart (which, BTW, is an IEMA member that had signed on to the previously mentioned carding program) and Gamestop — which had both sold the shooter the M-rated games when he was not yet 17 — as well as Take-Two Interactive and Sony Computer Entertainment.

An article in Gamershell.com puts the lawsuit at $600 million. It also describes an interesting email exchange between Shaun McCormack, who wrote the article, and lawyer Thompson:

“I emailed Thompson several questions in an attempt to understand his position in all of this. I asked him if he really believes Devin Thompson would not have committed these alleged murders had he not played Grand Theft Auto. I asked him if he had a problem with less realistic violence in games from the 1980s. I asked him about Dungeons and Dragons, which was demonized in the 80s and blamed for several youth murders and suicides. I asked him about violent sports game simulations; hockey, football, boxing and wrestling. I asked him how much consideration he’d given to the idea that the responsibility for shielding kids from violence should lie with the parents instead of game developers, retailers and the courts.

“His only response, emailed to me, was, ‘Kiss the game industry good-bye.’

“Another question was ‘Why do you have a web site urging people to contact you if you don’t want to talk about this stuff?’ Thompson’s answer was: ‘Read again whom I want to have contact me. Have the games so disabled your frontal lobes that you can’t understand the site?'”

~UPDATE: GTA DEFENSE DOESN’T WASH IN CRIMINAL TRIAL

On August 9, 2005, the jury in the Devin Moore (or Thompson) capital murder trial rejected his “video game made me do it” defense and returned a verdict of guilty. Death by lethal injection was subsequently recommended.

On October 7, 2005, GampStop reported that the judge took the jury’s recommendation and gave Moore the death penalty. That loud rumble you hear is the mob of lawyers stampeding to the courthouse to file appeals.

Brief aside: On the evening of Sept. 29, 2005, I happened to be listening to a radio talk show in which the Devin Moore/Thompson issue was being discussed. The host of the show, in addition to being almost hysterical, got everything concerning video games wrong — it sounded to me as though he’d never so much as played one. I turned it off after about ten minutes. It was making me cringe.

~ANOTHER UPDATE: THOMPSON’S RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW IN ALABAMA CHALLENGED; THOMPSON QUITS CASE

Let’s go back to the aforementioned GTA civil suit filed by Jack Thompson for a minute. According to a GamesIndustry.biz article dated November 7, 2005, a motion was filed by law firm Blank Rome to have Thompson removed from the case and his license to practice law in Alabama revoked.

According to the article, “[T]he firm alleges that Thompson has attacked and threatened their lawyers in dozens of press releases which also accused Blank Rome of conspiracy.” A stack of statements, letters, and press releases from Thompson were submitted as evidence.

Jim Smith of Blank Rome has said of Thompson: “He can’t proceed with the civility the rules require. All lawyers have to conduct themselves with honesty, integrity and civility. This isn’t a street fight…He’s going to turn the courtroom into a circus and we can’t have it.”

In response, Thompson has accused Blank Rome of engaging in a smear campaign, adding that he “didn’t start this food fight.”

Before the judge could rule on the motion, however, Thompson withdrew from the case. He said that doing so was his idea, based on his belief that the defense was trying to make him the issue.

The plaintiffs are represented by three other attorneys, and it’s expected that the case will proceed as planned.

Interesting tidbit: According to gamesarefun.com, Dr. David Walsh, founder and president of the National Institute on Media and the Family, has contacted Jack Thompson with a request that he abstain from mentioning either Dr. Walsh or the Institute in conjunction with his war on violent video games, citing unacceptable tactics on Thompson’s part. For more details, including Thompson’s response, see National Institute on Media & Family Disavows Jack Thompson at http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=5661.

~A SIDE-TRIP TO OUT OF HARM’S WAY, OR JACK THOMPSON WRITES A BOOK

A feud has recently developed between Jack Thompson and Amazon.com, where his new book, Out of Harm’s Way (Tyndale House Publishers, November 14, 2005), is being sold. On November 20, 2005, Game Politics reported that the book’s product page was “under full-scale assault from gamers who have been outraged by the strident anti-game violence campaign waged by the activist attorney over the years.” Based on reader reviews, the book had a one-star rating as of November 24, 2005. If you’d care to have a look, the product page is located at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1414304420/ref=dp_return_2/002-9946496-6214440?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books.

Also on November 20, 2005, on the Amazon site, Thompson posted a lengthy response to the negative reviews, claiming that almost everyone who posted a review hadn’t actually read his book, and that “[t]he overwhelming majority of the ‘reviews’ here are by young minions who are being encouraged, directly and indirectly, by the Internet ‘enthusiast press’ that is owned and operated by the video game industry.”

Ninety minutes later, Thompson’s commentary was gone. Game Politics saved a copy, though, so if you’d like to read it, here ’tis: http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/2005/10/01/.

~COMING ATTRACTION: 25 TO LIFE

A new video game entitled 25 to Life (Eidos Interactive/Avalanche Software) for PC, PS2, XBOX had originally been scheduled to descend on us some time in 2005. The release date has been pushed back several times, however, and on October 28, 2005, the game’s official site reflected “In stores 2006.”

According to a Boston Globe article dated July 2, 2005 and captioned Up in arms over violent visuals, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) considers the game to be so violent that it makes “other controversial games like ‘Grand Theft Auto’ look like Romper Room.”

Senator Schumer has also called on New York retailers and distributors not to stock or sell this game. Moreover, he has asked both Microsoft (XBOX) and Sony (PlayStation) to terminate their licensing agreements with Eidos Interactive. For additional information, see the press release posted on Senator Schumer’s website HERE.

25 to Life is rated M for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Drug Reference, Strong Language, and Sexual Themes. The game reportedly offers over 40 weapons, including shotguns, machine guns, stun guns, and tear gas. It also features fully customizable characters. Along with a single-player version, the game will offer a multiplayer option in which players may form gangs of up to 16 people and rampage through virtual streets online.

I’ve explored the official site at http://www.25tolife.com/ (caution: music with explicit lyrics plays in the background), which requires a visitor to furnish his or her date of birth in order to gain access to the site’s content. Unfortunately, any person of any age can enter any birth date, so this requirement does nothing to restrict site access to those individuals who are age 17 or older.

The game can be pre-ordered from any number of sources online. And as we’ve seen, effective enforcement of ratings by online retailers is non-existent.

I’ve watched trailers, viewed screenshots, and read previews of 25 to Life. Frankly, the thought of young kids playing this game makes my skin crawl.

A GameSpy preview of the PS2 version starts this way: “Random acts of video game violence are a lot more fun when they’re enacted on human thugs via online deathmatch.” It goes on to say: “In all, you have 15 maps to explore and kill on. I don’t know about you, but I relish the opportunity to kill people in places that look like my own neighborhood. It makes things so much more cathartic and personal that way.” Concerning character customization, the preview notes that “Individuality is important, even if you’re laying face-down in a puddle of your own blood.”

Although many people appear to be excitedly anticipating the release of 25 to Life, suffice it to say that I’m not one of them. I expect we’ll be hearing a lot more about this game as time goes on. I wonder if we might also hear from Jack Thompson again?

Interesting side note: The July 2, 2005 Boston Globe article referenced above also addresses some of the legislation attempting to ban the sale of M-rated games to minors, and notes that the courts have afforded First Amendment protections to video games. In commenting on this, Doug Lowenstein notes that violent movies “have been accepted in the culture as culturally credible” but that video games lack that credibility. One of the reasons for this, Lowenstein says, is “a neglect of untapped markets, such as women.”

Let’s go back to 2001 for a moment, to a hearing before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet (covered earlier in this article). In his testimony before that subcommittee, Doug Lowenstein said (emphasis is mine): “Sixty-one percent of all game players are over 18, 35 percent are over 35 years old, and 43 percent of them are women.” Does this sound like an untapped market to you?

PART XIV

~MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAMES: WHO NEEDS THE REAL WORLD?

Having burst upon the scene in the late 1990s, Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) are relative newcomers to the world of gaming, although their roots can be traced back to the MUDs (Multi-User Dimensions/Domains/Dungeons) of the 1970s. As the term suggests, these games are played via the Internet, where very large numbers of participants interact with each other. For example, 1997’s fantasy MMORPG Ultima Online (Origin Systems/Electronic Arts) eventually boasted 225,000 subscribers and is still going strong.

MMOGs take place in real-time, persistent online worlds, where life goes on 24/7 and things continue to happen even when you’re not actively participating in them — just like real life. In some MMOGs, activities in which players engage, such as finding a place to live, getting an education, joining an organized group, and/or working at a trade or profession, can mirror real life.

Even MMOGs with strong FPS, combat, fantasy or sci-fi elements have social hierarchies as well as skills that must be mastered and goals that must be met. Playing an MMOG can consume enormous amounts of time (often referred to as timesink), and the more deeply a player gets into the game, the greater the emotional investment. It can become easy to forget that the world in which one is spending so much time is virtual rather than actual — particularly if one is having trouble coping, for whatever reason(s), with the real world.

There are several major differences between MMOGs and single-player games. In my opinion, these differences can make playing MMOGs a tad risky for certain types of individuals (more about that later).

In MMOGs, one interacts with other people (via in-game chat) and the characters they control (within the game proper), so a strong social element is present. Violence, if any, can be perpetrated not only on NPCs (non-player characters) but on real players via their virtual counterparts (referred to as PvP, or Player vs. Player combat or violence).

Also, due to the competition involved in “getting ahead,” players can feel compelled to put as much time into the game as possible for fear of being outdone by other players. Further, MMOGs are generally open-ended. This is facilitated by the release of game add-ons, called expansion packs. You can’t win these games, nor do you ever finish playing them (unless the whole enterprise sinks, as was the case with URU Live).

Some MMOGS are free. Those that aren’t generally offer free trials, after which one has to pay a monthly fee to keep playing. I have a feeling that purveyors of MMOGs are banking on people becoming hooked by the time their free trials end.

There can be a definite downside to the social element of MMOGs. For instance, one can be harassed or otherwise mistreated by other players, or certain players might successfully use prohibited tactics to advance in the game, leaving behind those who are following the rules. In some MMOGs, game masters (or other such people who are supposed to keep order and handle complaints) are rarely seen, or are absent altogether.

Relationships can be formed; two characters might even get married within the game (even though they may already be married to other people in real life). Relationships can also go bad, bringing as much emotional pain to some individuals as face-to-face rejection by a real person would.

The first MMOG I took the time to learn anything about was 2003’s Eve Online, from Iceland’s CCP Games. I’m a real sucker for sci-fi/space sims.

I was all over the Eve website while the game was still in development, and I followed its progress for awhile. The graphics blew me away — I found them stunningly beautiful, and I still do. During this time, I recall repeatedly saying out loud (with no one around to hear me except my cat), “If I ever go in there, I’ll never come out.” I’m being serious here, folks. I know how I am with certain things, and this is one of ’em.

I was eventually able, with Herculean effort, to pry my eyeballs off the website, put them back in my head where they belong, and resist my strong urge to jump permanently into cyberspace. Whew.

There are, of course, many other MMOGs of assorted varieties, geared toward different age groups. Some are relatively small, some are for kids, and as previously mentioned, some are free.

However, the better-known titles tend to be MMOGs that are large in scope, such as EverQuest Live (989 Studios/Verant Interactive [acquired by Sony Online Entertainment in 2000]), discussed in its own section, below; World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment); Anarchy Online (Funcom); and Star Wars Galaxies (LucasArts/Sony Online Entertainment). All of these games are T-rated.

There is a point to my telling you all of this. Read on…

~FIRST, ABOUT THOSE RATINGS

Has anyone ever heard of ESRBi ratings (the “i” meaning “interactive”)? Well, I’ve been researching this article for a considerable length of time, and until recently, I sure hadn’t. I managed to stumble across it in my research on MMOGs. The first one I came across indicated “TI” (Teen, ESRB Interactive; see below). When I saw the symbol, which differs from the usual ESRB symbol in that it’s a metallic silver oval rather than a black and white rectangle, I did one of those “What the…?” double takes:

ESRBi Rating Symbol

It seems that ESRBi — if it currently exists at all — is a rather closely-held system by which the ESRB rates MMOGs. I’ve chewed my way through the ESRB site many times in the past months, and I’d never seen any mention of ESRBi ratings.

After I encountered this enigmatic little symbol I revisited the ESRB site, just in case I’d missed something. I did manage to stumble across a button captioned “ESRBi Website Ratings.” It was reflected in the left-hand navigation menu of a page of results that were returned after I’d searched for info on a specific game by name. I noticed it completely by accident.

Unfortunately, the button was linked to http://www.esrb.org/esrbiratings.asp, which is a dead link.

Now, here’s the ESRBi pièce de résistance. What should I see on the “not found” page to which I was taken after clicking on said dead link? Well, sitting in the left-hand navigation menu, all by itself and linked to nothing, was none other than this ESRBi rating symbol:

Doesn’t anybody want me? <sniff>

So, do ESRBi ratings even exist? Who knows? If they do, they’re the best kept secret I’ve run across since I found out my aunt is really my uncle. I mean, these ratings were announced years ago. Is anyone using them? Is anyone at ESRB monitoring their use?? Not as far as I can tell.

While attempting to locate a functional URL for ESRBi ratings, I discovered an Entertainment Ratings Pocket Guide released jointly by the Federal Trade Commission, National Association of Attorneys General, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the U.S. Dept. of Justice, and YWCA of the U.S.A. that reflects all ESRBi ratings: ECI (Early Childhood Interactive, age 3+), EI (Everyone Interactive, age 6+), TI (Teen Interactive, age 13+), MI (Mature Interactive, age 17+), and AOI (Adults Only Interactive, no age reflected). Unfortunately, this document is undated.

Permit me a question. Can anyone even imagine a three-year-old playing a Massively Multiplayer Online Game? I sure can’t…

I also discovered information about ESRBi ratings in Appendix D of the previously discussed FTC report Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children (September 2000). This document reflects a link entitled ESRBi — About the ESRBi Ratings System (http://www.esrb.org/esrbi/about.html). Well, guess what? That one’s dead, too.

Neither the Entertainment Ratings Guide at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/misc/rateguide.htm nor the “About the Ratings” page at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/ratings/ratings.htm, both part of the FTC Website on Entertainment Ratings at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/ratings/index.html, makes mention of ESRBi ratings (nor do they reflect the new ESRB category “E10+”).

A Google search for ESRBi yielded some additional links. Here’s a sampling:

(1) http://www.esrb.net/online.asp. Dead.
(2) http://www.esrb.org/code/. Led to the top page of the ESRB site, where nothing is reflected concerning ESRBi.
(3) http://www.media-awareness.ca/…. Page contained ESRBi link leading to top page of ESRB site.
(4) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/448017_7. Dead.

I was starting to feel as if my brain were going dead, such is the mind-numbing effect of navigating through such a ridiculous labyrinth in search of ratings information. I wonder why these particular ratings are so cloaked in secrecy? I would ask the ESRB, but they still haven’t answered my first three emails.

I did unearth something about ESRBi ratings and online gaming sites in the Mediawise® 1998 Video and Computer Game Report Card. The following appears in that document under Internet Gaming Safety (the emphasis is mine):

“We reviewed this for the first time because there is so much growth in Internet gaming. Increasingly producers and distributors offer game samples that can be downloaded and played by youngsters. There has also been a tremendous amount of growth in the on-line gaming market, where participants either download or purchase software, enabling them to play the game with other players on the Internet.

“The Entertainment Software Rating Board has developed a standardized rating system for all interactive entertainment software, called the ESRBI (Entertainment Software Rating Board Interactive) ratings. Its information specifically identifies game sites as appropriate for this interactive rating system.“

The report goes on to say that “None of the on-line game sites examined carried the ESRBI ratings. One site did display a warning that it was an adult site.” The grade awarded by Mediawise to online gaming sites in 1998 is “F.”

Unfortunately, subsequent Mediawise report cards make no mention of the ESRBi rating system, and I’ve been unable to discover anything, anywhere, more recent than 2001 concerning these ratings. Further, I haven’t seen anything saying that ESRBi ratings were discontinued, became extinct, suddenly vanished from the face of the planet, were abducted by aliens, or anything else. Everything just stops in 2001. (Gee, I wonder if that monolith had something to do with it?)

Okay — who took the ESRBi ratings? I’m going to lock all of the doors and not let anyone leave until somebody admits to it and gives them back. I’m waiting…(standing with arms crossed, tapping foot)…

Or, could interactive ratings have been replaced across the board by “Game Experience My Change During Online Play” (wording I mentioned earlier in this article), without regard to age-appropriateness? If that’s the case, few MMOG sites reflect this wording, and some reflect age-appropriateness in the form of “regular” ESRB ratings.How is this hit-and-miss approach supposed to help parents and other adults determine which MMOGs may be appropriate for children to play?

Is it any wonder, in the midst of this chaos, that so many people don’t understand video game ratings? If I were a parent attempting to get reliable information about a game my kid wanted to play and I ran into this kind of thing, I believe I’d be screaming so loud that people at the ESRB and FTC would be able to hear me just by opening a window.

~EVERQUEST ADDICTION, SUICIDE, AND YES, JACK THOMPSON

In 1999, 989 Studios/Verant Interactive (acquired by Sony Online Entertainment [SOE] in 2000) released a fantasy MMORPG called EverQuest Live, the current incarnation being its sequel, EverQuest II. Such is the addictive nature of this game that it’s been nicknamed “EverCrack.” Some of EverQuest‘s 400,000+ registered players even call it that.

As of December 6, 2005, the ESRB site reflected a total of 25 EverQuest titles, including expansion packs. All carried a “T” rating for such things as “Violence, Blood & Gore, Suggestive Themes, Use of Alcohol.” None of the ESRB listings reflected the MMOG disclaimer “Game Experience May Change During Online Play,” although that language did appear on the EverQuest website.

In November 2001, Shawn Woolley, 21, interrupted a session of EverQuest to put a bullet in his brain. His body was discovered by his mother, Elizabeth. The game was still up on Shawn’s computer monitor.

According to Elizabeth, Shawn had quit his job, become estranged from his family, isolated himself in his apartment (where he lived alone) and played EverQuest at least 12 hours a day. Shawn became so emotionally caught up in the game that online slights or betrayals by other players could leave him agitated, depressed, and upset to the point of tears.

Elizabeth tried to get help for her son. A psychologist diagnosed Shawn as suffering from depression and schizoid personality disorder.

Shawn also suffered from epilepsy. As an epileptic, he shouldn’t have been playing the game in the first place because it triggered seizures. (The EverQuest site does carry a photosensitive seizure warning.)

Jay Parker, co-founder of Internet/Computer Addiction (ICA) Services, believes that Shawn’s mental health problems made him particularly susceptible to online game addiction. “The manufacturer of EverQuest purposely made it in such a way that it is more intriguing to the addict. It could be created in a less addictive way, but (that) would be the difference between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine.”

In Shawn’s case, Parker thinks that any number of things could have triggered his suicide. “It may be that the character was slain in combat and Woolley had trouble recovering him. Or, he could have lost a treasured artifact or massive wealth, or been cast out of one of the game’s social clubs, called guilds…The social component is big because it gives players a false sense of relationships and identity.”

Although Elizabeth Woolley has never denied that Shawn had serious problems, she believes that EverQuest pushed him over the edge. In 2002, she hired lawyer Jack Thompson to file a lawsuit against Sony Online Entertainment on her behalf. At the time, Thompson said that he would seek a monetary amount so large that it would force SOE to put warning labels on the game, which Thompson says Sony knows is addictive.

Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to locate further information about such a lawsuit, so I don’t know if one was ever filed. During the considerable time I spent on the EverQuest site gathering information, however, I saw no warnings concerning the addictive nature of the game, nor was I able to find such warnings on the game’s box, jewel case, or software.

Elizabeth Woolley went on to form On-Line Gamers Anonymous (OLGA/OLG-Anon), a support group modeled after the 12-step program Alcoholics Anonymous. The group is open not only to online game addicts, but to their families and friends. As of December 6, 2005, had 1854 registered members. If you’d like a real eye-opener, have a look at the group’s message board, which is accessible from the site’s top page at http://www.olganon.org/index.htm.

Support groups have also popped up that deal specifically with EverQuest addiction, including a Yahoo group called EverQuest Widows. As of December 6, 2005, the group — which was founded June 16, 2000 — had 6408 members.

Interesting side note: While perusing the EverQuest II Help Section, I discovered a link to The Children’s Onine Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) FAQ. It explains that effective April 21, 2000, COPPA dictated “that web sites must not collect, use or disclose the personal information of children under the age of 13 without parental permission.”

Now, keep in mind that EverQuest II is rated “T,” age 13+. The above page goes on to say that EverQuest premium players under the age of 13 would need to have their parents contact customer service in order to switch the accounts from their children’s names to their own adult names, and if this was not done, the accounts would be deactivated.

Here is where it gets really interesting (the emphasis is mine)…

Question: “What do I do if I registered with an incorrect birth date?”

Answer: “If you are 13 years old or older and have entered your birth date incorrectly, go to My Account Info and click on View or change the information you entered to register and then click on Change your registration information. From there, you can update your account with the proper information before April 20th.

“This will ensure that your account will not be deactivated.”

It seems to me that this could be interpreted as an invitation (wink, wink) for the under-13 crowd to do an “Oops, I got really mixed up about the year I was born while I was registering” and suddenly become older than 13. Now, I realize the COPPA issue goes back a few years and maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it seems odd to me that this information would still be posted on the site over five years after the window for the requested actions had closed. It could sure give people under 13 who want to register for the first time ideas about providing a date of birth that makes them older than 13 (not that they can’t figure this out for themselves, but you never know). This would also keep things between SOE and the subscriber, with parents shut out of the loop.

I did find some current info about age limitations in the Everquest site’s COPPA and Privacy Notice, which says that memberships are no longer extended to children under 13. But the stated reason is COPPA itself, not the fact that EverQuest II is T-rated. While SOE does participate in the ESRB Online Privacy Policy, I saw no mention of ratings enforcement.

Altogether, I waded through 10 pages of fine (and I do mean fine) print associated with EverQuest Online. By the time I was finished, my eyes were about to liquefy and start running down my face. It makes me wonder how many parents actually take time read all of this stuff.

Let’s revisit Eve Online for a minute. Its Website Terms of Use Agreement states that the minimum age required to use the site is 13, and by continuing to use the site you represent that you are 13 or older. It also says the following:

“The age requirements differ from country to country. If you are under 20 years of age, you may need to obtain the permission of your parent(s) or legal guardian to use the Web Site. We strongly suggest that you check your local, state, province, country or regional legal restrictions that may be applicable to your use of the Web Site.” (Of course, one needn’t check any of this in the U.S., because we all know that any attempt to legally restrict access to video games will automatically run headlong into the First Amendment and break its little skull.)

I found no mention of ratings enforcement by CCP. But to its credit, the Eve Online website does carry an addiction warning. As previously mentioned, there is no such warning on the EverQuest site.

Regarding MMOGs and young children, I have to ask the same question that I asked in the section about online vendors. What’s to keep kids from lying about their ages when they sign up for this type of game? And I’ll repeat the same short answer: nothing.

~ONLINE GAME ADDICTION IS APPARENTLY A REAL THING

It may seem that I’m getting a little off-topic here, but please bear with me. Although I haven’t discovered any data that links MMOGs to violence against others in the real world, they have been considered a factor in loss of life (not only by suicide, either) and other serious damage. The worst offender in this area appears to be (you guessed it) EverQuest.

Take Mary Christina Cordell, for instance. On August 8, 2003, as she was playing EverQuest, her 3-year-old daughter suffocated in Cordell’s car. Cordell was charged with felony manslaughter.

ICA Services’ Jay Parker says he once had a client who played EverQuest for 36 straight hours and started hallucinating that the characters had come out of his computer and were chasing him down the street. He actually ran through his neighborhood trying to get away from them.

Some EverQuest players have lost their jobs and families. Some stop bathing, wear the same clothes for weeks at a time, and leave dirty dishes piled in the sink. Others eat little and sleep even less.

For an up-close-and-personal account of the dark side of EverQuest, see EverQuest: What You Really Get From an Online Game, at http://slashdot.org/articles/02/12/27/1748252.shtml?tid=127c. Additionally, a rather scholarly treatment of EverQuest addiction can be found in Ever on EverQuest, at http://www.geocities.com/michaeljosephhines/everquest.pdf.

I’ve also read about folks who have played MMOGs for so many consecutive hours that they’ve dropped dead. On August 9, 2005, for example, a 28-year-old man in Seoul, South Korea suffered terminal heart failure after having played unspecified online battle sims at an Internet café for 50 hours straight. The cause of death was presumed by authorities to have been exhaustion.

In another incident in South Korea — this one occurring at a Kwangji Internet café in October 2002 — a 24-year-old man collapsed and died after having played Half-Life: Counter-Strike (Valve Corporation/Sierra On-Line) for 86 hours straight. Ten days later, after 32 hours of gaming, a 27-year-old South Korean died en route to the hospital.

Brief aside: There are over 25,000 cyber cafés (also known as “PC bangs”) and 4 million online gamers in the Republic of Korea. This nation also has more available broadband than any other country.

On November 1, 2005, it was reported by the Chinese website Xinhuanet.com that a female gamer had died in October 2005 after having played World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment) for “several continuous days.” The following week saw the death of yet another “game enthusiast” following a marathon session. The article goes on to say that “7 major domestic game makers have agreed to install an anti-obsession system on eleven online game products. The system entered a trial period on October 20.”

On July 03, 2005, Wired News reported that “China’s first officially government licensed clinic of Internet addiction” had opened in Beijing. Dr. Tao Ran, the director of the clinic, “estimates that up to 2.5 million Chinese suffer from Internet addiction, although others are skeptical.” Treatment includes electroshock therapy.

A BBC News article dated October 10, 2005 further quotes Dr. Ran: “Every day in China, more than 20 million youngsters go online to play games and hit the chat rooms, and that means that internet addiction among young people is becoming a major issue here.”

You know, all of this makes me wonder why the ESRB (or somebody) hasn’t addressed addiction to MMOGs and come up with some kind of standard warning label about it. It also makes me wonder why, considering the addiction potential of MMOGs and the possible consequences of such an addiction, most are given a “T” rather than “M” or “AO” ratings. Unfortunately, this probably wouldn’t help folks such as the ones I’ve mentioned who were in their 20s when they went to such gaming extremes that it killed them, but I do wish I could ask the ESRB about stuff like this and get some answers.

~DECEPTICIDE

Wanna hear something sick? On November 14, 2000, a message was posted on an EverQuest fan site saying that player Sheyla Morrison, 19, had committed suicide after having been let go as a volunteer EverQuest game guide. She was said to have been depressed, unemployed, and obsessed with the game.

The news of Sheyla’s suicide spread quickly, showing up on message boards across the Internet. People — especially those who had known her online — were shocked.

Well, guess what? The whole thing turned out to be a hoax. Not only had there not been a suicide, there had never been a person named Sheyla Morrison.

This deception had been perpetrated by a married couple, with the husband playing the part of Sheyla, and the wife taking on the role of Jolena, Sheyla’s sister and fellow EverQuest player.

Why did these people use fake personas to play the game? Search me. But the reason for the bogus suicide is allegedly this: the couple had split up, and the husband staged Sheyla’s suicide as a ploy to get custody of their daughter. He had intended to claim that his wife was the one who had perpetrated the hoax, thus revealing that she was unstable and unfit for motherhood. Good freakin’ grief.

~I’M STARTING TO THINK THAT EVEN WRITING ABOUT EVERQUEST IS ADDICTIVE

Just when I thought it was safe to move on, I stumbled across something else that I feel I must mention. It concerns a website called KidzWorld which, according to the KidzWorld Media corporate page, “[i]s the ultimate online entertainment for kids nine to 14 (a.k.a. Tweens)…KidzWorld is a safe and secure portal to the best the web has to offer. Parents can be confident that KidzWorld is an online global community providing only positive experiences.”

The site offers a section on games, including game reviews. Of the five games featured on the review page when I visited, three were rated “T” (13+), making them inappropriate for 67% of the site’s target audience.

One of the games reviewed by KidzWorld is EverQuest. The review starts thusly:

“It’s better than good, it’s a digital addiction. People have ditched school, missed practice, even skipped dessert to play this game. It’s started fights, split up friends and sucked up more spare time than TV.”

This kind of thing is considered safe, secure and positive? Not from where I sit. KidzWorld rates Everquest four joysticks, which I presume must be favorable.

I then came across something called an “Everquest Rant” entitled Suspended From Everquest. The kid who wrote it had let a friend use his password in violation of SOE’s Terms of Service, and was upset because his account had been suspended. The kid was 12 years old.

With that, I hope not to write another thing about EverQuest…well…ever.

PART XV

~NEW LEGISLATION IN ILLINOIS

On May 28, 2005, legislation to restrict the sale of violent (and sexually explicit) video games to minors, already approved by the Illinois Senate, received final approval via the state House of Representatives. The bill is entitled the Safe Games Illinois Act. Governor Rod R. Blagojevich confirmed that he would sign it into law. It was to have gone into effect on January 1, 2006 (see next section for update).

I feel the need to address a couple of potentially confusing points about this legislation. By this time, what else would you expect of me?

The law carries a $1000 fine for retailers that either rent or sell violent or sexually explicit games to children under 18. Please note, however, that games rated “M” by the ESRB are deemed inappropriate for those under 17. Why the age difference, I wonder? Could this not represent an unnecessary complication?

This might a good time to point out something that’s been bugging me throughout my research on video games: a lot of the material I’ve read has used the word “minor” without defining it. I’ve even done it in this article when referring to such material.

According to Merriam-Webster Online, a minor is “a person who has not attained majority.” The age of majority is determined by state governments and is either 18, 19 or 21.

Once a person reaches the age of majority, that person has attained legal adulthood. This carries with it the ability to vote, enter into legal contracts, make a valid will, buy alcohol, and enlist in the armed forces. I don’t know of a place in the U.S. that considers legal majority to be reached at age 17.

The ESRB does have an Adults Only (AO) category for games “that should only be played by persons 18 years and older.” Between 1996 and 2004, only 18 AO-rated games were released. The only title I’ve heard of is Vivendi Universal’s Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude Uncut and Uncensored (PC), released 08/13/2004. (An M-Rated version was also released for PC, PS2 and XBOX).

I’ve examined the front and back covers of the game boxes of both versions of LSL: Magna Cum Laude. Aside from the ratings, the only differences between them are that the AO-rated version has the words “Uncut and Uncensored” in place of the revealing halter tops worn on the M-rated version by two generously endowed blondes who bookend Larry’s face, and images on the back of the AO-rated version are ever-so-slightly more suggestive. I saw nothing to indicate full nudity or sex scenes in the AO version’s packaging. In fact, ESRB content descriptors are identical for both the M and AO-rated versions of the game. How does this help people know the difference between the two versions? Well, it doesn’t.

Be that as it may, no one is talking about AO-rated games. Everyone is concentrating on M-rated games, saying they shouldn’t be sold to “minors.” So, does that mean people under age 17, 18, 19, or 21?

Update! On July 20, 2005, the ESRB revoked GTA: San Andreas‘ “M” rating, replacing it with “AO.” See GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS HITS THE FAN a little further along in this article.

Here’s something else I’ve been wondering. According to the ESRB, M-rated titles “may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language,” and AO-rated titles “may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.” Well, considering there’s only a one-year difference between the “M” and “AO” ratings, is something profound supposed to happen during that year that enables 18-year-olds to handle prolonged intense violence, graphic sexual content, and nudity where 17-year-olds cannot? If so, I don’t remember it happening to me. But, come to think of it, I could always handle prolonged intense violence and graphic sexual content and nudity. Never mind.

Further, why are blood, gore and strong language omitted from the AO description? I mean, couldn’t a game contain those things and prolonged intense violence/graphic sexual stuff? I dunno…maybe I’m just splitting hairs. But as we know, these kinds of details can drive me nuts.

Anyway, the Safe Games Illinois Act also mandates something that you’ll know, if you’ve read this whole article so far, is one of my favorite things: a task force “to gather information on the impact of violent and sexually explicit video games, develop strategies for parents, and give recommendations to the Governor.”

Oh, joy. Another study. Maybe the task force should hook up with Hillary Clinton.

The law also calls for retailers to appropriately label the games they sell, and states specific penalties for not doing so, as follows:

“A retailer’s failure to properly label games or place proper signs [explaining the ratings system] is punishable by a $500 fine for the first three violations and a $1,000 fine for every subsequent violation.”

Well, it’s my understanding that the ESRB assigns ratings to games submitted by publishers, who then reflect the ratings on the games’ packaging. The Illinois legislation isn’t clear about whether retailers are to assign a second rating, or what. If retailers are to assign their own ratings, this raises the question of which particular person should be doing the rating, and would appear to mean that at least one person at every retailer would have to play every game (or at least every M-rated one) sold by that retailer.

Whatever the case, the legislation does reflect specific definitions of “violent” games and “sexually explicit” games. But I feel that this further obscures already murky waters, because these definitions are not aligned with with ESRB ratings/content descriptors.

In the Illinois law, “violent” games are defined as “those that include depictions of human-on-human violence in which the player kills, or otherwise causes serious physical harm to another human, including depictions of death, dismemberment, amputation, decapitation, maiming, disfigurement, mutilation of body parts, or rape.”

Using this definition, and presuming that the legislation is calling for a second rating from retailers, what if such a rating turned out to be substantially different from the ESRB rating? Would this not just exacerbate the existing confusion about ratings?

I did discover a website devoted to the Act (http://www.safegamesIllinois.org), that includes a Governor’s Initiative page. This page states that the labeling requirement pertains to retailers and manufacturers. I have no idea why this isn’t stated in the actual legislation, unless, perhaps, it’s not a valid statement. Who knows?

The page goes on to say: “Parenting is hard work, and the state has a compelling interest in helping parents raise their children to be upstanding men and women.” Well, I’m sorry, but that statement gives me the creeps. I sure wouldn’t want the government involved in raising any kids of mine. (Yeah, I know that public schools, where kids spend lots of time [or are supposed to, anyway], are government-run — but don’t get me started.)

The page also states: “While helpful, ESRB ratings are inadequate to put parents on notice of each game’s contents. Nonetheless, parents ought to be aware of ESRB ratings and how they work. Making retailers post signs and make rating information available to parents on-site will assist parents in making informed decisions about the games their children play.”

So let’s see…the ratings are inadequate but parents should use them to make informed decisions? How does that work?

I also wonder how Illinois plans to apply this law to online retailers and MMOGs. This doesn’t seem to be mentioned anywhere — in fact, as previously mentioned, it might not even be possible — and leaves a yet another gaping hole through which kids can buy/play anything they want unless their parents are paying attention (although, as we’ve seen, some parents don’t care what kinds of video games their kids play).

As I’ve already mentioned, this legislation has an effective date of January 1, 2006. It remains to be seen whether it will succeed where others have failed and survive the appeal that’s sure to be filed.

Update: On July 25, 2005, the ESA published a press release saying it would be filing a lawsuit later that day alleging that the Safe Games Illinois Act is unconstitutional. The ESA will be joined in the complaint by the Video Software Dealers Association and the Illinois Retail Merchants Association. This came shortly after the bill was signed into law by Governor Rod R. Blagojevich.

Allow me to interject something regarding the First Amendment in conjunction with laws such as the above. In seeking to restrict sales of violent video games, no one is suggesting that game developers, publishers, etc. be prohibited, across the board, from creating and selling such games. These kinds of laws seek to keep inappropriate games out of the hands of minors, much as access to “R” and “NC-17” rated motion pictures is restricted.

I’ve done a lot of research for this article, and I have yet to see anything suggesting that violent video games should be banned altogether. However, I get the impression that many who are opposed to laws restricting access to violent games are making it sound as though a total ban is what’s being sought. I find this similar to the “all video games are violent” rhetoric I keep encountering.

~MORE ABOUT THAT ILLINOIS LEGISLATION…

On May 23, 2005 (prior to the passage of the Illinois law), an editorial appeared in the Herald & Review (Decatur, IL). Captioned Bill does nothing, except for politicians, it exposes the bill as a political statement that will do very little to keep violent video games out of the hands of children. State senators who actually think the bill is unconstitutional voted for it anyway, out of fear they would be branded as “pro-video game violence” if they didn’t. One senator who opposed the bill changed his mind after fifth- and sixth-graders told him that their parents would just buy the prohibited games for them.

The editorial goes on to say: “[T]he responsibility for keeping inappropriate games out of the hands of children belongs to the parents and adults who care for these children…There is no legislation that will cause parents to become better parents. This video game legislation will have little actual effect, but it will give the politicians a chance to say they did something. Unfortunately, that was the intent of this legislation from the beginning.”

Another update (and no surprise): On December 2, 2005, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly shot down the Illinois law by issuing a permanent injunction against it, saying it would violate the First Amendment and “have a ‘chilling effect’ on the creation and distribution of video games,” according to a Reuters story carried by CNET’s News.com. The story goes on to say, “Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has vowed to appeal the decision, saying, ‘This battle is not over.'”

I wonder if anyone is taking bets on how long it will take the Michigan and California laws, discussed in the next section, to suffer similar fates?

Page 2 | Table of Contents | Page 4