Buying 18 rated games for the under aged.

[The Liberal Elite]

In Holland nobody will ask you anything if you buy something with an age rating, except for alcohol, cannabis or cigarettes. I was pretty shocked and offended when I came to England, bought a OPM2(!) with a rating on the disc, and the woman behind the counter asked me my age, even though I was 24 at the time. When I buy something, I don't feel like I owe an explanation to anyone, and rather have people mind their own business instead of mine.

Different countries have different rules and boundaries. the germans don't like blood, the french are more likely to let kids see sexually explict material, but the UK is undoubtedly the most puritanical of the lot in europe. That doesn't neccesarily mean that we 'care' more about out kids, and for all I know, kids aren't particularly likely to go out and start chopping people's heads off, but there HAS to be a line drawn somewhere. yes, your child might well understand something, but up to a certain point, you have to say, 'hmmm. no'. Would you show them Audition or Requiem for a dream?

games are given an 18 certificate for a reason. These aren't people just pulled off the street - they're child psychologists, and professionals form all different walks of life - they represent US. and in that respect, they are us and our attitudes. as are the newspapers that we read (well, some of us, anyway), and we KNOW that there's nothing more they like than a nice juicy story of a kid hitting someone because of games. Therefore the attutude of the general public is such that games such as backyard wrestlying are deemed suitable only for people of 18 and over, and NOT suitable for children.

[squirtle]

That's the most stupid analogy ever.

Possibly.

But it's not as stupid as some of the views in this thread, IMO.

And Ste Pickford, you're against all rating and the like? So you'd be quite happy with your little uns wandering into a cinema and watching Kill Bill, or Baise Moi or Irreversible, would you?

[PaB]

but there HAS to be a line drawn somewhere. yes, your child might well understand something, but up to a certain point, you have to say, 'hmmm. no'. Would you show them Audition or Requiem for a dream?

Of course, and there is - What we are differing is who that responsibility falls upon. The parent, or the state. IMO it is the parent who decides what a child can or cannot see. After all, in the home, with tv, this is the norm. It is only when purchasing films or games where this effects them at all.

games are given an 18 certificate for a reason.  These aren't people just pulled off the street - they're child psychologists, and professionals form all different walks of life - they represent US.  and in that respect, they are us and our attitudes.

No they effing well do not. They do not represent me, they are not me. They represent the current "thinking" behind what people shoudl and should not see. To me that is fundamentally wrong - It is Big Brother, it is information control.

as are the newspapers that we read (well, some of us, anyway), and we KNOW that there's nothing more they like than a nice juicy story of a kid hitting someone because of games.  Therefore the attutude of the general public is such that games such as backyard wrestlying are deemed suitable only for people of 18 and over, and NOT suitable for children.

It is only due to the popularity of games that these sort of stories happen. What do you think is going to happen if that kid who Goaty helped out kills someone with amove out of backyard wrestling? Total ban on videogames? Of course not. I tellyou what will happen - Bugger all - The industry is too big and powerful for any sort of restrictive legislation now.

Remember "Childs play" and the Jamie Bulger case? Did it change anything? no.

The general public let children of, say, 13 and above watch 18 rated films, which the parent deems suitable. It is not "the general public's" decision to make. There are 18 rated films I would not let my son see, and there are 18 rated films I would happily let him see. There is not one 18 rated game I would not let him play.

And Ste Pickford, you're against all rating and the like? So you'd be quite happy with your little uns wandering into a cinema and watching Kill Bill, or Baise Moi or Irreversible, would you?

Why would they "wander in "? As a parent, you still have control, age ratings or no. Besides which, if they are old enough to make thier own way to the cinema, pay for a ticket, and make thier way back home, I would suggest they are old enough to watch Kill Bill without being mentally scarred for life.

[squirtle]

You must be some kind of uber parent, Pete, to know where your kids are at all times . What about the thousands of single parent families, the latchkey kids etc etc where they spend a lot of time on their own. Once again, not all kids are the same. Some are very impressionable. Whilst I wouldn't say the media (films, games, TV) are in any way directly responsible for anything they do, I do believe that exposure to violent material may affect some people. The ratio that this will take when applied to Kids will rise a fair bit, IMO.

[Disgraced Toblerone]

Of course, and there is - What we are differing is who that responsibility falls upon. The parent, or the state. IMO it is the parent who decides what a child can or cannot see. After all, in the home, with tv, this is the norm. It is only when purchasing films or games where this effects them at all.

It's the parents responsabilty, yes, but it's a shame that they don't have a clue how a game could be unsuitable for children. Movies, they know, books, they might know, but the majority of people over 30 thinks that all videogames are evil, or all videogames are for children.

That said, for me nothing should be rated 18. At the very last 16.

[breaksmith]

Hey Pete, how would you feel about some random guy off the street buying your son an 18 rated game that the shop refused to sell him otherwise?

[PaB]

You must be some kind of uber parent, Pete, to know where your kids are at all times . What about the thousands of single parent families, the latchkey kids etc etc where they spend a lot of time on their own. Once again, not all kids are the same. Some are very impressionable. Whilst I wouldn't say the media (films, games, TV) are in any way directly responsible for anything they do, I do believe that exposure to violent material may affect some people. The ratio that this will take when applied to Kids will rise a fair bit, IMO.

Single parent families are no less able that those where both parents are together. Of course I don't know where my son is at all times - but I do 95% of the time - the other 5% I trust his good judgement. And until I have him brought home by the police I have no reason to doubt that.

The thing is, by the time a child is actually interested in watching/playing 18 rated films/games (around 12, 13) your work as a parent in terms of giving the child a sense of right and wrong is already done. If a child does not know by the age of 13 that he/she should go and steal a car, or chop someones head off, then youare going to have problems regardless of any media.

[PaB]

Hey Pete, how would you feel about some random guy off the street buying your son an 18 rated game that the shop refused to sell him otherwise?

Good question.

In terms of my son having an 18 rated game, I would not have an issue. As I said, there is not a game out there, available in mainstream shops, that I would be concerned about him having.

I would be far more concerned that he asked some stranger to buy it for him. In that, I beleive my son wouldn't do such a stupid thing. But then that is an issue of "talking to strangers" rather than anything else.

It's nothing new of course, I can remember buying fags on the bus when I was 13 from strangers for 10p ciggie...

[squirtle]

The thing is, Pete, I do agree with you. It is the parent's responsibility to make sure their kids grow up with decent values, morals etc. But, as someone pointed out earlier, this isn't a utopia we live in and a lot of parents don't give a crap about what their kids do or get up to. In every village, town or city we see kids without the above morals or values. I'm not saying the media is responsible for this, but I would not want these kids with even easier access to adult material. I know that if their parents don't give a crap in the first place, then they're probably already exposed to all kinds of crap, but I think we do need ratings and the like, if only as a guide of some sort. I'm not very good at writing arguments in a rush.

[PaB]

The thing is, Pete, I do agree with you. It is the parent's responsibility to make sure their kids grow up with decent values, morals etc. But, as someone pointed out earlier, this isn't a utopia we live in and a lot of parents don't give a crap about what their kids do or get up to. In every village, town or city we see kids without the above morals or values. I'm not saying the media is responsible for this, but I would not want these kids with even easier access to adult material. I know that if their parents don't give a crap in the first place, then they're probably already exposed to all kinds of crap, but I think we do need ratings and the like, if only as a guide of some sort. I'm not very good at writing arguments in a rush.

I know what you are getting at.

At its fundamental level is comes down to a simple choice.

Do you cater for the majority (Decent kids that know right from wrong).

Or for the minority (KIds that are lacking in moral fibre).

As things stand, it is the Minority that gets the vote - Not just for children either - What actually gets cut out of 18 films are scenes that are deemed unsuitable for you and me as adults to see. Through fear that someone somewhere might either take huge offense, or go on a rampage. It is the only "thing" in life that I can think of where this happens. I mean, you don't go into a pub and be refused alcohol just incase you might be a habitual wife beater do you.

[Sprite Machine]

At the moment though, the parents do have control, don't they? I mean, if your kid wanders into Game and wants to buy an 18-rated title, they'll get turned away; but if you want them to play it because you think they should be allowed to, then you can go and get it for them and legally they are allowed to play it.

Um... I guess it's different with going to the cinema.. as far as I know you aren't allowed to even accompany an under-18 child into an 18-rated film, right?

[The Liberal Elite]

When I mean they represent us, I mean 'us' as in they are the general public. Or, at least, that's what I'm led to believe by their website. If that's wrong, I stand corrected.

I still stand by my point that a free for all would be absurd. Not everyone is as well rounded as Pete's kids, and to that end, we need some kind of way of telling people what may or may not be suitable for different age groups. There's NO WAY of setting up a system on an individual's moral framework, and so, sure, some things might irk people who are more liberal, but that's apparently the way we as a *nation* - not individuals - are at the moment.

maybe it's the wrong thing to do. I mean, other european countries have lower ages of consent, but most do not have as high a level teenage pregnancy as we do. Is this because it's 'forbidden and dangerous'? or is it because we're stupid? late licences - are we though of as beered up drunks because of the early cut off point in drinking leading to a binge culture, or because we're too stupid?

And yes, sure, newspapers do try and push their agenda onto people, but there has to be something in there that appeals to people in the first place for them to want to buy it therefore they reflect us.

[squirtle]

For the record, I'm 100% censorship of any 18 related material. No film should be cut if it's awarded an 18 certificate. Simple disclaimers should suffuce - "Explicit sexual content." "Extremely strong gore," etc etc and then leave the film intact and let the public decide whether it's for them or not.

[The Liberal Elite]

For the record, I'm 100% censorship of any 18 related material. No film should be cut if it's awarded an 18 certificate. Simple disclaimers should suffuce - "Explicit sexual content." "Extremely strong gore," etc etc and then leave the film intact and let the public decide whether it's for them or not.

And that's basically what we've got now. if you're 18, you can see what the hell you want, as long as it's not deemed obscene (and that's *really* obscene). They're treating adults like adults and kids like kids.

[PaB]

I still stand by my point that a free for all would be absurd. Not everyone is as well rounded as Pete's kids, and to that end, we need some kind of way of telling people what may or may not be suitable for different age groups. There's NO WAY of setting up a system on an individual's moral framework, and so, sure, some things might irk people who are more liberal, but that's apparently the way we as a *nation* - not individuals - are at the moment.

Oh iI definitely think there should be a guideline. The 18 rating etc should stay. But I think the decision of whether the child can see the item in question should be left to the parent. As it is when you rent a DVD. Ie.e accompanied 14, 15 years olds should be allowed.

However, It is probably worth noting that I would not let my son see an 18 film that I have not already seen.... I do have some boundaries!

[PaB]

And that's basically what we've got now. if you're 18, you can see what the hell you want, as long as it's not deemed obscene (and that's *really* obscene). They're treating adults like adults and kids like kids.

Well - thats not strictly true is it. "The Exorcist" was banned from British cinemas for 20 odd years - why? Resovoir Dogs had the ear cutting scene censored for British cinemas - Why? And who decides what is or isnt obscene? In this country we are not allowed to see an erect Penis on screen because our "representation" has decided we cannot cope with such an abhorrent picture.

[The Liberal Elite]

Well - thats not strictly true is it. "The Exorcist" was banned from British cinemas for 20 odd years - why? Resovoir Dogs had the ear cutting scene censored for British cinemas - Why? And who decides what is or isnt obscene? In this country we are not allowed to see an erect Penis on screen because our "representation" has decided we cannot cope with such an abhorrent picture.

they're faaaar more liberal these days - have you seen what you get buy in sex shops?

Apparently.

As for reservior dogs, there never WAS an ear cutting scene in that. ever. it's all implied, and it definitely wasn't censored.

[Untogether]

Well - thats not strictly true is it. "The Exorcist" was banned from British cinemas for 20 odd years -  why? Resovoir Dogs had the ear cutting scene censored for British cinemas - Why?  And who decides what is or isnt obscene? In this country we are not allowed to see an erect Penis on screen because our "representation" has decided we cannot cope with such an abhorrent picture.

The Exorcist was banned for all that time because it was a different time. Do you remember why A Clockwork Orange couldn't be seen in the UK for a long period? As Harvest has all ready pointed out, the ear-cutting scene in Resi Dogs was never actually shown on screen, the camera pans away and you're left with your imagination to fill in the gaps from the screaming you're hearing. A far more horrifying way to present violence.

As for erect penises, well, again, times have changed and you are completely wrong. The Obscenity law now covers only three distinct areas of prohibition. Peadophilia, bestiality and 'forced' sex. That last only applies to rape scenes and a scene where one of the protagonists is wearing a ball-gag, for instance, and the ruling defines that by being gagged they are not in a position to say "No."

Rape scenes are, of course, allowed in a 'dramatic' presentation, where it is necessary to the plot. So, as far as pornography goes, you can fill your boots. (Or theirs, if you like.)

Quite why you're using such out of date arguments to decry the position of the regulatory authorities I don't know, especially when there are current arguments that would agree with some of what you're saying.

[breaksmith]

they're faaaar more liberal these days - have you seen what you get buy in sex shops?

Apparently.

As for reservior dogs, there never WAS an ear cutting scene in that. ever. it's all implied, and it definitely wasn't censored.

We still can't see an errect penis though and that sucks.

DYSWIDT?

[PaB]

Quite why you're using such out of date arguments to decry the position of the regulatory authorities I don't know, especially when there are current arguments that would agree with some of what you're saying.

I picked the first three things that came into my head. Can Television X or the Adult channel show penetrative sex? No - The argument still applies.

To take a more current film then, The Matrix Reloaded had a head butting scene removed - apparantly, so - its ok to shoot thousands of bullet sinto someone - Kick them in the face, punch them - but head butt? Oh no - cant have that.

Out of date or no - the fundamentals still apply - someone else deciding what you can and cannot see.

[The Liberal Elite]

I picked the first three things that came into my head. Can Television X or the Adult channel show penetrative sex? No - The argument still applies.

here's the current rules from the bbfc site re: the R18 rating:

The following content, subject to the above, may be permitted

aroused genitalia

masturbation

oral-genital contact including kissing, licking and sucking

penetration by finger, penis, tongue, vibrator or dildo

non-harmful fetish material

group sexual activity

ejaculation and semen

how times have changed...

[PaB]

here's the current rules from the bbfc site re: the R18 rating:

how times have changed...

Quite - but the BBFC does not regulate television - Which is why TVX , the adult channel cannot show these things.

[The Liberal Elite]

Quite - but the BBFC does not regulate television - Which is why TVX , the adult channel cannot show these things.

I didn't know we were talking about TV though. I thought it was media you can buy in general.

?

[PaB]

I didn't know we were talking about TV though.  I thought it was media you can buy in general.

?

Well, we sort of went from certification to censorship in general.

If you are talking about media, which can be bought (provided you are over the age required) , you cannot ignore the fact that underage people can turn on the TV and watch it anyway - relying soley on the regulation of the parent - which is what I am arguing for in all cases - not just the home.

The censorship side came in to convey that it is not just kids that have it deicded for them what they cannot see - it is adults too.

[The Liberal Elite]

I'm all for age certificates on movies etc. especially now the BBFC have loosened up a bit, but as of yet I don't think that games are at the stage where they need to be regulated so strongly.

So themes shouldn't be regulated then?

:|

[The Liberal Elite]

The most offensive thing about GTA:VC is the dialogue - for that reason I can see why it would need a rating.

Personally, I think a 15 would suffice.

There is a big difference between seeing a character you've connected with as part of a narrative getting shot to pieces in a movie, with shot composition, sound etc. prompting an emotional response, and watching a jagged, cartoony representation of a human scream comically whilst red polygons fly everywhere.

hmmmm...

so why did Evil Dead 2 get an 18 then? That's comical and very gory. Not particularly realistic either.

[Disgraced Toblerone]

hmmmm...

so why did Evil Dead 2 get an 18 then? That's comical and very gory. Not particularly realistic either.

What rating had Kill Bill?

18 for evil dead 2 seems silly to me, btw.

[Uncle Mike]

If you are talking about media, which can be bought (provided you are over the age required) , you cannot ignore the fact that underage people can turn on the TV and watch it anyway - relying soley on the regulation of the parent - which is what I am arguing for in all cases - not just the home.

Which is what we've got now. You can buy things and your kids can watch them. It'd be no good having a system where a kid can just go into a shop and say "My Dad says it's OK" is it?

[Crispin]

There are tons of drug references. You make money and suceed in the game by selling drugs. There is implied half on-screen sex. There are themes are racial rivalry.

By it's very nature, you begin to hate the ingame Haitians simply because:

a) They dress like prats

b) They shoot you just for being in a certain area.

Even as a 19 year old, I had to remind myself not to let the annoyance spill over into the real world

Then again, I did play Doom and Duke Nukem when I was 8. But it was a different time back then.

[squirtle]

As has been stated, Stu, it's possibly not the graphic depiction, but the implied themes in the game that got it the rating. That, and the fact that it is you committing the crimes in the game and maybe re-enactment of these acts in real life would be more likely to come from children than a grown adult.