N'Gai Croal (of Newsweek) and Stephen Totilo (of MTV) once again match wits in a textual format, this time over the Manhunt 2 controversy. In Round One, the two reporters discuss the process of playing the game for the first time, and wonder what the experience must have been like for the ESRB raters. Round Two sees them take things up a notch, discussing what exactly it is about the game that's so violent. Round Three ... has them questioning the nature of gaming itself. As always, these are two smart guys with some interesting insights into the medium. Well worth your time. From N'Gai's final letter: "It's difficult to 'read' or derive much meaning from a game. That's why in our three Vs. Modes, we ultimately don't spend very much time talking about or analyzing the experience of playing a game, because it's hard to do so without turning our emails into "I went here. I did this. I picked that up." Which is, after all, what games are. So if the essence of a game is located in what we do, is a walkthrough--go here, do this, pick up that--the most truthful way to write about the experience of playing a game? I hope not. But it's something we should consider. Once again, if the essence of any game is located in its action, reaction, interaction, and the rules which circumscribe those three elements, what does the narrative do?"
Once again, if the essence of any game is located in its action, reaction, interaction, and the rules which circumscribe those three elements, what does the narrative do?
Here's an example of a writer trying to sound smart by taking something obvious and "deconstructing" it to make it look not obvious. ("Deconstructing" is in quotes because that's not actually what deconstruction is, but it's how some writers define it if they don't know any better.)
The answer is the narrative guides your action, reaction and interaction, and it describes the rules which circumscribe those three elements.
There - happy? It really is that simple. The narrative exists for the purposes of guiding you to various places to do various things, and to tell you what you are and aren't allowed to do in those places and with those things with which you can interact.
Which is just a fancy way of saying what we've all known narratives do since time began. Questioning it now doesn't make it any less true.
(You can question anything - is the sun hot? Is ice cold? Does gravity = 9.8? But those questions don't in themselves form indictments or arguments against tradition or fact, which means they really have no point.)
I don't believe that the ESRB plays the games that they rate at all. They are sent video footage by the developer of what is the most objectionable content in-game and base their opinions on that. Furthermore, their opinion is probably entirely politically motivated in this case, as Manhunt 2 has already been made out as a poster child of video games that influence mass murders.
From what I've heard before, you are correct about them not playing the game. It is up to the developer to give them a sample of the game (in video format) that they could expect the user to see. The rating is based on that. As for the 'political' motivation... What political motivation is needed to rate a game? They didn't sit down and say 'Well, we hate them, and AO will basically ban their game, so let's do that.' They watched the video, it was beyond M rating, and they rated it appropriately.
Wrong. AO is for essentially the NC-17 of the video game ratings board; extreme violence or nudity are what will get you this rating. It's also worth noting that an AO rating is only the "kiss of death" for CONSOLES. There's nothing to prevent you from releasing a game on the PC with an AO rating, and in fact there are quite a few games that are rated AO released for the PC; most of which are porn games, mind you, but some of which are simply too violent for a mere Mature rating. If you ask me, Rockstar
I believe ANY nudity at all will automatically bump it up to AO... If you recall the nipple textures found on the Oblivion disc got it bumped up to AO temporarily after it was release...
I haven't gotten that far in the game yet and so cannot speak from direct experience, but several reports online have it that the sex scene was removed from the North American version to get the M rating. European censors are more tolerant of sex in entertainment.
And as counter argument I give you God of War 1 and 2, both of which have naked breasts at multiple points. And both have "sex games" to earn experience.
Let's face it video game ratings are just done using a bag of popcorn a 10 sided die factoring in the phase of the moon, just Film ratings.
AO does NOT mean that the game cannot be released. It means that most retailers will not sell it in the store. This kills the profit of the game if it can only be sold in porn shops and mom and pop's who wish to seel it.
Also, and I may not be 100% correct here but, I think that I read that neither Sony nor Nintendo will allow an AO game on their platform.
Actually, Sony Nintendo and Microsoft have stated that they will not allow Ao games to be licensed for their consoles. So if you get an Ao rating in essence you are banned from all the major consoles.
As for the 'political' motivation... What political motivation is needed to rate a game? They didn't sit down and say 'Well, we hate them, and AO will basically ban their game, so let's do that.' They watched the video, it was beyond M rating, and they rated it appropriately.
You're correct, without having played it myself I can't say for sure. However, my point was that the controversy that had already erupted over the game prior to even being finished or rated very well may have resulted in clouded judgments. Raters go into work with "this game is sick and disgusting" already repeating in the back of their mind because of the reputation that it may have already developed from not only being what it is (a sequel to a controversial game) but also coming from a company that seem
"As for the 'political' motivation... What political motivation is needed to rate a game? They didn't sit down and say 'Well, we hate them, and AO will basically ban their game, so let's do that.' They watched the video, it was beyond M rating, and they rated it appropriately...
"...As for the AO rating itself: What point is there in having that rating exist if they aren't allowed to use it when warranted? I seriously doubt they are flippant with their ratings. They don't just watch video while eating popc
Word has it that they didn't play Manhunt 2 but just watched the video trailers. That's usually how it works, right? They try to shoehorn video games into the same ratings mechanic as movies just because they have graphics and then boost the rating 2 or 3 levels because it must be worse because you're "interacting" with it. You know, I'd do a better job than the ESRB just by looking at the cover art and back of the box. Sure there'd be a few titles rated AO just so they wouldn't get released (like if they
I think you miss several points to be made about this. It's "obvious" but at the same time it's obfuscated. How often when playing games, or at any time for that matter, do gamers stop and consider the "obvious" in full detail? Despite the fact that the repetitiveness of many games is clear to the player and any viewers nearby, how often does anyone bring this up?
Despite being "obvious", or perhaps because it is, no one stops to actually talk or discuss these things. Decomposing the essence of video games in
Here's an example of a writer trying to sound smart by taking something obvious and "deconstructing" it to make it look not obvious. ("Deconstructing" is in quotes because that's not actually what deconstruction is, but it's how some writers define it if they don't know any better.)
Here is an example of a slashdot poster trying to sound smart by taking a snippet of someone's work and "pwning" it to make him look superior. ("Pwning" in quotes because that's not actually a word used in association with Slas
I read and re-read the gp, and nowhere did it imply that its writing was somehow "superior" to the article in question's. ("superior" in quotes because I'm quoting you). The poster seems annoyed by assholes, and doesn't at all bring up whether or not/he/ may be an asshole, as it is not strictly relevant to his annoyance.
Anybody see anything wrong with this? It's a quote from Croal in the article:
It's hard to argue that games have anything approaching the depth of theater, novels, movies or television given the medium's newness; its requirement of repetitive action, reaction and interaction to maintain the player's interest; the thinness of its characters; the perfunctoriness of its plots; the lack of complex or even complicated psychology. It would be like arguing that an activity--a mountain hike, laps in a pool or a game of chess--is profound.
That makes me unsure whether or not I actually want to RTFA. I haven't read much of what Croal or Totilo have said in the past, but I had the impression Croal wrote some good stuff.
Please tell me that the rest of his words don't come off as an uninformed diatribe to those of us who are able to appreciate gaming..
Only read "Round 1" so far, but the article is, dubious quotes that really don't give a fair impression of the article aside, pretty much one of the most interesting things I've read in a while. I do recommend RTFAing.
The quote is missing context. I'm not sure I can do his position justice through a summary and highly recommend you RTFAs. It's probably the best set of articles on Video Games I've read in ages. That said, here's my limited understanding.
Croal's position is not that video games, hiking mountains, etc. can't be profound or deep. It's that they are not analogous or similar to movies, books, theatre etc. in that regard. In movies and books, we are merely viewers who are plunging the depths of someone else's co
No. Croal is pretty much straight on the mark with his assessment of the current artistic value of video games for two reasons:
1. Video games have only been around in any meaningful form for about 30 years. Television has been around for over 60 (disregarding the fact that it's a fairly natural extension of cinema anyway), cinema for over 100, theatre since centuries before the birth of Christ, and prose (whether spoken or written) since the dawn of civilization. In
Have you ever played any RPGs(especially Japanese/console RPGs) or advendure games?
Yes. A lot of people would argue that those are closer to movies than games. Certainly the literary aspects of both generally require little to no interactivity (offering a "choose your own adventure" style of plot branching at most), while (for example) the plot elements of FPSes tend to progress during gameplay with few cutscenes breaking up the action.
In other words, the fact that most of the games that have strong liter
the article discusses what the raters "were thinking as they played the game." and i know exactly what they were thinking: nothing! the ESRB raters don't actually sit down and play, instead, they watch a several-minutes long reel featuring the most violent stuff from the game. does anyone else see a problem with this method?
its fairly common knowledge. do a bit of research on the ESRB ratings system, you'll find it. this is how things like Oblivion got re-rated after release: the video may not have shown the rotting zombies with the bones and meat sticking out of them, but rather, just the basic up-fronts of the combat system.
Yeah after doing my research I found that you are correct. Which really disturbs me. Because although the game may be gory and violent, how are a group of video game raters supposed to come to a conclusion of whether or not it is acceptable amount or not if they don't even see the true context of what they are rating.
If the people rating games decide to give a game a rating of AO there needs to be some sort of appeal process that forces the raters to actually play the game and work through the levels, ra
" In Round One, the two reporters discuss the process of playing the game for the first time, and wonder what the experience must have been like for the ESRB raters."
Actually, the ESRB rarely, if ever, actually plays the games it rates. They look at footage sent to them by the publisher.
These letters were a surprisingly broad look at the issues surrounding video games. What I thought was especially nice was some discussion of implications on the gamer who chooses to play the game, which is rare since most of the time these are just defense or attack pieces. It's funny because this sort of discussion is what actually makes me interested in the game. When the previews came out it always centered on action and mechanics which were quite frankly droll in the first game. In Manhunt the killing
Just finished reading round 1, I'll get to the other rounds soon. Something I am in complete agreement with though was this statement...
"Unless they have good reason to believe that this game is an imminent threat to the public order, or that it will in and of itself incite adults to violence, their decision seems to me to be based on taste, and I will never believe in substituting anyone else's tastes for my own."
As far as I know, there is no true scientific evidence that videogames are indeed the cause
"And when you think about the amount of clinical death and destruction in real-time strategy games like "Supreme Commander" and "Command & Conquer Generals 3," perhaps Stalin was right: one death is a tragedy, 200 gruesome deaths is ban-worthy, and a million clinical deaths is E10+ for Comic Mischief, Fantasy Violence, Mild Language."
Perhaps the most entertaining and also most insightful comment in round 3. Enough said.
I was disappointed to hear that N'Gai found Manhunt 1 a more engaging experience
I applaud your post sir. Indeed, your point about you playing the good guy vs the obvious bad guys means it's ok, but it's wrong the other way around is indeed a load of crap because, when is it ever ok to carry out vigilante justice? Even if you're the "good guy" in a first person shooter, you're still killing hundreds of people.
I cannot agree more when you ask, rhetorically, who can decide what's moral. Freedom to think, to decide, to choose, and to act, these are what make America great. What may m
Obvious... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an example of a writer trying to sound smart by taking something obvious and "deconstructing" it to make it look not obvious. ("Deconstructing" is in quotes because that's not actually what deconstruction is, but it's how some writers define it if they don't know any better.)
The answer is the narrative guides your action, reaction and interaction, and it describes the rules which circumscribe those three elements.
There - happy? It really is that simple. The narrative exists for the purposes of guiding you to various places to do various things, and to tell you what you are and aren't allowed to do in those places and with those things with which you can interact.
Which is just a fancy way of saying what we've all known narratives do since time began. Questioning it now doesn't make it any less true.
(You can question anything - is the sun hot? Is ice cold? Does gravity = 9.8? But those questions don't in themselves form indictments or arguments against tradition or fact, which means they really have no point.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the 'political' motivation... What political motivation is needed to rate a game? They didn't sit down and say 'Well, we hate them, and AO will basically ban their game, so let's do that.' They watched the video, it was beyond M rating, and they rated it appropriately.
Without
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And as counter argument I give you God of War 1 and 2, both of which have naked breasts at multiple points. And both have "sex games" to earn experience.
Let's face it video game ratings are just done using a bag of popcorn a 10 sided die factoring in the phase of the moon, just Film ratings.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As for the 'political' motivation... What political motivation is needed to rate a game? They didn't sit down and say 'Well, we hate them, and AO will basically ban their game, so let's do that.' They watched the video, it was beyond M rating, and they rated it appropriately.
You're correct, without having played it myself I can't say for sure. However, my point was that the controversy that had already erupted over the game prior to even being finished or rated very well may have resulted in clouded judgments. Raters go into work with "this game is sick and disgusting" already repeating in the back of their mind because of the reputation that it may have already developed from not only being what it is (a sequel to a controversial game) but also coming from a company that seem
Re: (Score:1)
"...As for the AO rating itself: What point is there in having that rating exist if they aren't allowed to use it when warranted? I seriously doubt they are flippant with their ratings. They don't just watch video while eating popc
Re: (Score:1)
You know, I'd do a better job than the ESRB just by looking at the cover art and back of the box. Sure there'd be a few titles rated AO just so they wouldn't get released (like if they
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an example of a writer trying to sound smart by taking something obvious and "deconstructing" it to make it look not obvious.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
Re: (Score:2)
It's "obvious" but at the same time it's obfuscated. How often when playing games, or at any time for that matter, do gamers stop and consider the "obvious" in full detail? Despite the fact that the repetitiveness of many games is clear to the player and any viewers nearby, how often does anyone bring this up?
Despite being "obvious", or perhaps because it is, no one stops to actually talk or discuss these things. Decomposing the essence of video games in
Re: (Score:2)
Here is an example of a slashdot poster trying to sound smart by taking a snippet of someone's work and "pwning" it to make him look superior. ("Pwning" in quotes because that's not actually a word used in association with Slas
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I defend because I can sympathize.
Wit? MTV? (Score:1)
Re:Wit? MTV? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure. After all, it's not music...
Parent
Ouch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Please tell me that the rest of his words don't come off as an uninformed diatribe to those of us who are able to appreciate gaming..
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, here's my limited understanding.
Croal's position is not that video games, hiking mountains, etc. can't be profound or deep. It's that they are not analogous or similar to movies, books, theatre etc. in that regard. In movies and books, we are merely viewers who are plunging the depths of someone else's co
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Croal is pretty much straight on the mark with his assessment of the current artistic value of video games for two reasons:
1. Video games have only been around in any meaningful form for about 30 years. Television has been around for over 60 (disregarding the fact that it's a fairly natural extension of cinema anyway), cinema for over 100, theatre since centuries before the birth of Christ, and prose (whether spoken or written) since the dawn of civilization. In
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. A lot of people would argue that those are closer to movies than games. Certainly the literary aspects of both generally require little to no interactivity (offering a "choose your own adventure" style of plot branching at most), while (for example) the plot elements of FPSes tend to progress during gameplay with few cutscenes breaking up the action.
In other words, the fact that most of the games that have strong liter
I know what the raters were thinking! (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If the people rating games decide to give a game a rating of AO there needs to be some sort of appeal process that forces the raters to actually play the game and work through the levels, ra
Actually... (Score:1, Informative)
interesting read, makes me want to play it (Score:2, Interesting)
speculation (Score:1)
"Unless they have good reason to believe that this game is an imminent threat to the public order, or that it will in and of itself incite adults to violence, their decision seems to me to be based on taste, and I will never believe in substituting anyone else's tastes for my own."
As far as I know, there is no true scientific evidence that videogames are indeed the cause
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps the most entertaining and also most insightful comment in round 3. Enough said.
I was disappointed to hear that N'Gai found Manhunt 1 a more engaging experience
Re: (Score:1)