CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I was wondering what the general consensus is here for M-rated games. I personally avoid them myself, because I remember how as a child all I needed to enjoy a game was challenge, fun, and graphics. I think M-rated games have pretty much hurt the industry, because now video games are blamed for what bad parenting should be blamed for. What say you?

I don't think they have, really. If anything, the backlash is an indicator of the medium getting ready to finally come into its own as a serious artistic medium*. Comics, movies, and music have all gone through this in the past. All of them came out arguably better for it.

* Serious artistic medium: Art that is made in order to explore or expose our largest beliefs, ideas, or questions. Also known as "high art".

This is a pretty overused argument, but I don't think M-rated games have hurt the gaming industry any more than R-rated movies have hurt the movie industry.

Comercially, M-rated games can be tons of fun, and a lot of games just wouldn't be nearly as good with a lower rating. Most survival horror games, for example. This is why they sell, and sell a lot. I'm willing to bet Bioshock sold just a couple more copies than Anubis II, but that's just a hunch.

And children playing these games? It's the parent's fault. That's it. There's nothing more to it. It isn't the game's fault. That's just idiotic.

Nope. Higher levels of violence or swearing etc. isn't hurting it any more than it has in books, movies, and so on.

Oh crud I chose yes. Going against the crowd.XP I can't see how this is any different from the same content in books, comics, and any other form of entertainment. If it troubles you, then do not play the game. Some M-rated games like Mass Effect and Metal Gear look very interesting.

Yes and no. Depends on the game, the subject matter, and the cultural context which is judging the game.

Ultimately, I think that M-Rated games are unavoidable. People want them, companies want to make them, people buy them.

And besides, where would we be without Doom, Halo, Half Life, and the rest? I got nothing against Mario Kart (WHY HASN'T ANYONE MADE A THREAD ABOUT MKWii YET?!) and such, but plumbers on shrooms and tie-dye hedgehogs can only go so far in my book.

"M-rated games" is too broad a category to make a sweeping generalization like "M-rated games hurt the industry."

.rai//

They are the most popular in my opinion, but they are bringing down the industry's standards of restraint...

I dunno. It just depends on why it's rated M. Like... There's a big difference between GTA and Halo (I still think that shoulda gotten a T rating) and Playboy Mansion, or whatever that retarded game is called, and they're all M rated.

Are you people saying that Metal Gear Solid 3 - Snake Eater hurt the gaming industry?

Because I sharply disagree.

CRAP. I accidentally voted "Yes".

Fudgenuggets!

Anyway, I say no way. There's no way MGS, Half-Life, or GTA is hurting the industry.

Just look at Halo, for instance. M-Rated games are actually supporting the industry, and a good number of today's top-rated games are M.

Well, it's true that "M-Rated game" is a really really broad comment. Some games do hurt the public repuation of the gaming world more than others. For example, Halo's awesome and not many people go after it. GTA, however, has received a lot of bad media coverage. Not saying that either one is good or bad, but that's just the way things have gone for the two.

I kinda disagree with the comment about M-Rated being the most popular tho. I mean, look at Brawl; it's an E-Rated game.

A majority of M-rated games are helping the gaming industry. In fact most of them are very realistic.

Hmm, I own most of the Grand Theft Auto games, as well as all the God of War games. I wonder which option I will choose?

Seriously though God of War would not be as awesome if it was rated anything other than M.

My main problem with M-rated games is that I read about a psychological study where they showed kids a video of adults attacking a boppo doll (one of those inflatable dolls that come right back up when you hit them because they have sand in the bottom). Then they put a boppo doll in the room and the kids imitated the video exactly. When I read about that, it totally shot down my view that violence in TV and video games can't influence children.

The Only things that suck about some M-Rated games are the glorifying of evil and the F-bomb being dropped too many times. Other than that,M-Rated games are fine. They are neither helping nor hurting the Industry.

rocklobster (post: 1230013) wrote:My main problem with M-rated games is that I read about a psychological study where they showed kids a video of adults attacking a boppo doll (one of those inflatable dolls that come right back up when you hit them because they have sand in the bottom). Then they put a boppo doll in the room and the kids imitated the video exactly. When I read about that, it totally shot down my view that violence in TV and video games can't influence children.

That's Albert Bandura's famous 1961 experiment on observational learning. Children that were shown a video of an adult beating up a bobo-doll imitated the adult when it was their turn, whereas the children that did not watch the video played nicely.

However, this must be taken into consideration

Bandura and his associates never successfully supported their theory of social learning in that specific behaviors such as aggression can be learned through observing and imitating others even if reinforcement is not used either on the model or the subject. They came to the conclusion that children observing adult behavior are influenced to think that this type of behavior is acceptable thus weakening the child's aggressive inhibitions. The result of reduced aggressive inhibitions in children means that they are more likely to respond to future situations in a more aggressive manner.

In a follow-up study, Bandura (1965) found that when children viewed aggressive behavior and then viewed that behavior being either rewarded or punished that children were less likely to emit aggressive behaviors when they had viewed an adult model being punished for aggressive behavior. Children who saw the model rewarded did not differ in aggressive behaviors from those that saw a model receive no reward. Bandura then offered an incentive for all three groups of children to recall what had happened in the video, and all three groups recalled the modeled aggression at approximately similar levels.

Either way, M-Rated games are not supposed to be played by young children, rather those that are 17 years old or older. Irresponsible parenting can be a big factor when it comes to little kids getting their grubby hands on some GTA IV.

Mr. SmartyPants (post: 1230049) wrote:That's Albert Bandura's famous 1961 experiment on observational learning. Children that were shown a video of an adult beating up a bobo-doll imitated the adult when it was their turn, whereas the children that did not watch the video played nicely.

However, this must be taken into consideration


Either way, M-Rated games are not supposed to be played by young children, rather those that are 17 years old or older. Irresponsible parenting can be a big factor when it comes to little kids getting their grubby hands on some GTA IV.

Well Spoken,MSP.

rocklobster wrote:My main problem with M-rated games is that I read about a psychological study where they showed kids

Stopped reading here. M-rated games are for 17 and up. 17 and up is NOT A CHILD.

By the way, you do know that even E-rated games supposedly increase aggression in children according to studies, right? So if you're going to blame M-rated games, you have to blame ALL video games, even E-rated ones.

Or you could just realize that correlation does not imply causation.

Nate (post: 1230061) wrote:Or you could just realize that correlation does not imply causation.

While that is true, there is certainly a difference between a heavy correlation and a slight correlation. The more times different studies show similar results, the more likely it is for two things to correlate even closer; even to almost the point of causation.

Not saying GTA IV will make you a serial killer or anything, but I believe that a child growing up being exposed to violence will most certainly have a higher chance of themselves being more aggressive as they age.

Mr. SmartyPants (post: 1230085) wrote:While that is true, there is certainly a difference between a heavy correlation and a slight correlation.

Not saying GTA IV will make you a serial killer or anything, but I believe that a child growing up being exposed to violence will most certainly have a higher chance of themselves being more aggressive as they age.

This goes back to why kids should not play mature games.

Fish and Chips (post: 1230090) wrote:This goes back to why kids should not play mature games.

Haha, hey, you're right!

Not to be pedantic, but what exactly do we mean by "M-rated games"? As in you think it would be better if all the games given that rating in the US had never existed? Or is the problem the rating itself?

What I'm getting at is this: M-rated content is inevitable. Studios are going to create it regardless and I'm not sure if it's meaningful to even consider otherwise. For that reason, I think it is a good thing that the rating exists - it implies that the content is mature and is not appropriate for all audiences.

Also, I've modified the poll to reflect those who said they voted for the wrong option. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is absolutely nothing more important in the world than the accuracy of an online forum poll.

rocklobster wrote:My main problem with M-rated games is that I read about a psychological study where they showed kids a video of adults attacking a boppo doll (one of those inflatable dolls that come right back up when you hit them because they have sand in the bottom). Then they put a boppo doll in the room and the kids imitated the video exactly. When I read about that, it totally shot down my view that violence in TV and video games can't influence children.

In addition to all the other points made in response to this, I'd like to add that violence in entertainment is nothing new. Public hangings were viewed as fun events to take your kids to in many cultures and time periods throughout the world. In the Post-Reconstruction south of the US, we have records of popcorn sales at lynchings. The same elements have been condemned in pulp fiction, radio, comics, television, film, and now video games.

I don't want to say that what we consume has no effect on us, because that certainly isn't true and I think discretion is necessary. But too many people idealize the past and that leads them to false conclusions.

No, I don't think that M-rated games have hurt the video game industry; their sales far exceed the occasional negative backlash.

Rocklobster wrote:My main problem with M-rated games is that I read about a psychological study where they showed kids a video of adults attacking a boppo doll (one of those inflatable dolls that come right back up when you hit them because they have sand in the bottom). Then they put a boppo doll in the room and the kids imitated the video exactly. When I read about that, it totally shot down my view that violence in TV and video games can't influence children.

While this study does imply a correlation between media violence and reality violence, kids aren't supposed to be playing M-rated games in the first place. It says 17+ right on the package. You can not blame the game makers if an "underage" kid plays God of War then decides to go bully someone.

uc pseudonym wrote: But too many people idealize the past and that leads them to false conclusions.

Idealization of the past is something that I have run into many times. In fact, one of my female teachers frequently remarks about how she wishes she lived in Renaissance period, "Because back in that day all the men were genii and knew how to treat a lady right." The funny part is, I think she actually believes it. I didn't mention that the bathing customs of that time period would have lead to very smelly 'perfect' men. Some opportunities are lost forever, it is best take them when you get the chance.

Just out of curiosity. What do you like about the GTA series and its clones?I cant think of any good that can come out of those games. I mean wouldn't it be Unchristian to actually enjoy doing those terrible things (drug deals,picking up hookers,etc.)? Even if it is just in a video game.

Look,I have nothing against M-rated games,but Christians should be careful about how they entertain themselves. Didn't Jesus teach that? or somthing like that?

If I sound judgemental,than I'm sorry,but this is somthing that I had to get off of my chest.

I actually like GTA IV. It's quite a fun game. I'm not condoning the actions performed in the game or anything, but I do hold a high-enough maturity level to know what's a game and what's reality.

Christisright (post: 1230289) wrote:Just out of curiosity. What do you like about the GTA series and its clones?I cant think of any good that can come out of those games. I mean it would be Unchristian to actually enjoy doing those terrible things that those series are known for.

Interestingly, GTA has been called an "Artistic Social Commentary" by quite a few people now. It is eerily accurate in it's depiction of modern life, modern politics, modern crime, and modern concerns about life. All within a neat, dark comedy package of a game.

Art helps many people grapple and think about the difficult questions. If GTA is art, then it just might be an important one for this generation.

(It should be noted that I have yet to actually play the GTA games, but I thought I'd make a case for it anyways. I honestly don't know if GTA is art or not, but this was the case that has been presented to me in the past. It seems fairly reasonable.)

I view a GTA game as a narrative. It's a single player game and so it's largest draw has to be the plot and the development of the characters it introduces and how it portrays the world it's set in. The story and setting are not very different from, say, a movie about the same thing. What games do better than movies is allow you to explore the world that it's set in. Just like a movie can tell a story differently from a book, a game can tell a story differently from a movie.

Most people object to the violence in GTA and cite that as a reason to ban it with fire. I counter that the amount of violence in a work isn't determined by the medium. I'm pretty sure I could go and make a movie about GTA and make it far more violent than the games. And I would likely get far fewer objections to the movie than to a game. Why? Because it's understood that film is art.

I think the problem is that we still view games as either toys for children or murder simulators. To critics of gaming and a lot of the general public, there is no middle ground. The kids games vs. adult games debate that rages between gamers is an indication that even we can't seem to examine games properly.

Interesting points of veiw.

Christisright wrote:Just out of curiosity. What do you like about the GTA series and its clones?I cant think of any good that can come out of those games. I mean wouldn't it be Unchristian to actually enjoy doing those terrible things (drug deals,picking up hookers,etc.)? Even if it is just in a video game.

Here's something interesting, that further makes the "M-rated games are bad" argument totally invalid.

I can play a GTA game for a week, constantly doing different things, and never once have to kill someone or commit a crime. I can drive around and listen to the radio, I can drive people places in a taxi, I can save lives with an ambulance, I can deliver pizzas on a bike, and I can even put out fires with a firetruck. Aside from a few storyline missions, you never have to kill anyone at all in GTA.

Super Mario Bros., considered to be a family-friendly game and is E-rated, forces you to kill your enemies. You can make it through the first three boards without stomping a single Goomba or Koopa, but once you hit World 1-4 you have to dump the fake Bowser into the lava pit, thus killing him.

Isn't it interesting that you don't have to kill anyone in an M-rated game, but you are forced to kill someone in an E-rated game? Which is more "evil?"

Food for thought. :p