Senator Leland Yee Urges Parents to Avoid Violent Games at Christmas

California State Senator Leland Yee, a noted critic of the videogame industry, has issued a press release urging parents not to purchase violent videogames for their children.

"Eighty-seven percent of children between 8 and 17 years of age play video or computer games and about 60 percent list their favorite games as rated M for Mature, which are games designed for adults," Yee said. "It is vitally important that parents and grandparents consider the content in videogames before making holiday purchases."

In the press release, Lee made particular note of the recently released Manhunt 2, claiming that "many have called [it] the most violent game ever produced." Noting that the game has been banned in England and that Target stores are no longer carrying the game, the press release criticizes the ESRB for its refusal to re-rate the game despite the fact that it has "accessible content designed for an Adults Only (AO) rating."

"Unfortunately, some parents don't realize that in many top selling games, the player actively participates in and is rewarded for violence, including killing police officers, maiming elderly persons, running over pedestrians and torturing women and racial minorities," he said.

The Senator also included a checklist for parents unfamiliar with videogames who may be purchasing them for their children at Christmas:

• Be aware of advertising and marketing to children. Advertising pressure contributes to impulse buying.
• Check the age ratings video game descriptors found on the box. Read other reviews, such as www.mediafamily.org, www commonsensemedia.org, and www.familymediaguide.com.
• Become familiar with the game.
• If there are violence and sexual themes in the title and cover picture, you can assume these themes are also in the game.
• Look for games involving multiple players to encourage group play.
• Pick games that require the player to come up with strategies and make decisions in a game environment that is more complex than punch, steal, and kill.
• Avoid the "first person shooter" and "third person shooter" killing-machine games.
• Discourage games that reward the player with more points or new scenes for anti-social and violent behavior.

The full text of Senator Yee's press release is available at his official California State Senate webpage.

Permalink

Wow, there's actually a fair bit of common sense there, rather unusual to hear that from a politician regarding video games.

It does hit the nail on the head as far as the violent game issue is concerned, that the main cause of the issue is parents who don't take the time to familiarise themselves with the games content before they buy them and then act surprised when they see what their kids can do in these games.

JT has painted such a bad image for anyone who speaks out against video games it makes you think they are all bat-shit crazy. But there is nothing in the senator's advice that I would really disagree with. Young kids shouldn't be playing those games any more then they should be watching Saw. So good for him.

Well, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems a bit focused on "violent games are bad," rather than "violent games aren't for children," but he does address the latter significantly. All in all, he's said what makes the most sense, don't buy M-rated games for persons not of the M-rated age. Wow, what a concept, taking the advice of the ESRB rather than trying to fillet it with criticism.
Good job on realizing that Monsieur Leland Yee, now if only more people who try to stab at the game industry would realize that too.

Yup, just common sense.

However, this is a bit worrying:

"Unfortunately, some parents don't realize that in many top selling games, the player actively participates in and is rewarded for violence, including killing police officers, maiming elderly persons, running over pedestrians and torturing women and racial minorities," he said.

Which "many games" did he have in mind? GTA, GTA, and GTA?

I'm off to play...um...Kane & Lynch...(damn)

J

I dont really have a problem with the concern with violent games and children. Its just statements like these generalize video games as violent and mindless to the public, and we all know that video games are SO much more than that.

jezcentral:

"Unfortunately, some parents don't realize that in many top selling games, the player actively participates in and is rewarded for violence, including killing police officers, maiming elderly persons, running over pedestrians and torturing women and racial minorities," he said.

What game allows you to "maim elderly persons" and "torture women and minorities"? even Gta doesn't do that. I've never seen or heard of a game that allows either of these things (though I havent played manhunt yet... so who knows.)

He's about 75/25 reasonable/bullshit. Which is an incredible ratio for a politician.

Leland actually has a reputation for being more or less reasonable on the matter, particularly when compared to maniac-blowhard Jack Thompson. As xbeaker said, Thompson lowers the tone of the debate so drastically that even someone like Yee, who is really pretty much in line with what most adult gamers believe anyway, end up tarred with the same brush. He does lose points for his conspiracy-minded attitude toward the ESRB and most especially for trying to criminalize the sale of M-rated games to people under 18, but by and large he's not a frothing, delusional demagogue like... well, you know.

"Unfortunately, some parents don't realize that in many top selling games, the player actively participates in and is rewarded for violence, including killing police officers, maiming elderly persons, running over pedestrians and torturing women and racial minorities," he said.

If globally, I agree with the man, that bit above is overblown. His speech clearly makes violent games look bad.
But it's relative to the group he attempts to protect, reasonably, the less than 17 years old.

Globally, more communication is what he's asking for. Now, would retailers behave that way? Would they bother telling a mum that the game she's about to buy is violent?
Considering the pressure put on personnel, the real best option would actually to put an information campaign everywhere, even on the TV, and force retailers to display the ESRB rating scale in a clear view for consumers, so that they're informed from the moment they step in. Flyers should be distributed.

Certainly no Wacko Jacko, something I must say I'm a lot happier with. For the most part his arguments are fairly reasonable, if slightly uneducated. Although I really shouldn't be endorsing his arguments, as I am fourteen, and agreeing that I shouldn't play great games like Assassin's Creed and Bioshock is condemning myself to a cold, horrible fate.

Malygris:
Leland actually has a reputation for being more or less reasonable on the matter, particularly when compared to maniac-blowhard Jack Thompson. As xbeaker said, Thompson lowers the tone of the debate so drastically that even someone like Yee, who is really pretty much in line with what most adult gamers believe anyway, end up tarred with the same brush. He does lose points for his conspiracy-minded attitude toward the ESRB and most especially for trying to criminalize the sale of M-rated games to people under 18, but by and large he's not a frothing, delusional demagogue like... well, you know.

Careful there Malygris. Remember if you speak or write his name 3 times he will appear before you and strike at you with implausible harassment lawsuits

Arbre:
Considering the pressure put on personnel, the real best option would actually to put an information campaign everywhere, even on the TV, and force retailers to display the ESRB rating scale in a clear view for consumers, so that they're informed from the moment they step in. Flyers should be distributed.

The ESRB does have programs like that in place, and offers POP material and signage to retailers to help make people aware of the ESRB rating system. Compliance varies, of course, but these tools are available. The real problem is parents who can't be bothered to learn about the system, or worse, just don't care. If they can't be bothered to make sure their kids are playing games appropriate for their age, why should some low-wage guy behind the counter at EB?

Finally, some one who has a head on their shoulders. while i don't fully agree with everything the dear senator has to say, i will give him credit that he's headed in the right direction. at least he recognizes the lack of research done by parents into a game their kid wants before just getting it for them. however, he does fall short by placating to the panic-stricken masses of parents, acting as if all games have inappropriate or immorally violent behavior. he focuses on the negatively moral games, and refuses to mention the rather small percentage of the gaming pie that these games create. while a probable majority of games have violence in them, most of these are not advocating or displaying morally reprehensible behavior or deviancy. cleansing the galaxy of evil aliens who wish to exterminate humanity is not unethical in philosophy. its self preservation. alot of violence in games could be argued to be results of primal instincts, kill or be killed. its when they enjoy the killing and do it without need is when it crosses the line. but this doesn't happen nearly as often as the media would like everyone to think.

xbeaker:

Malygris:
Leland actually has a reputation for being more or less reasonable on the matter, particularly when compared to maniac-blowhard Jack Thompson. As xbeaker said, Thompson lowers the tone of the debate so drastically that even someone like Yee, who is really pretty much in line with what most adult gamers believe anyway, end up tarred with the same brush. He does lose points for his conspiracy-minded attitude toward the ESRB and most especially for trying to criminalize the sale of M-rated games to people under 18, but by and large he's not a frothing, delusional demagogue like... well, you know.

Careful there Malygris. Remember if you speak or write his name 3 times he will appear before you and strike at you with implausible harassment lawsuits

I thought that was Derek Smart.

Malygris:

The ESRB does have programs like that in place, and offers POP material and signage to retailers to help make people aware of the ESRB rating system. Compliance varies, of course, but these tools are available. The real problem is parents who can't be bothered to learn about the system, or worse, just don't care. If they can't be bothered to make sure their kids are playing games appropriate for their age, why should some low-wage guy behind the counter at EB?

The point of a correct campaign would be that bothered or not, they couldn't miss it.
Parents aren't that stupid, even if these days, it seem everybody has to be taken by the hand and be politically correct. If they're told that certain games contain inappropriate violence for their kids, I don't think they'll shrugg it off. But someone has to make sure they get the point.

I can't fault the guy for trying to talk some sense into parents regarding buying certain games for their children, even if he does come across somewhat as blaming the games for existing rather than blaming the parents for not paying attention. Still, one can't help but imagine what would happen if someone DID lay things down for parents:

"Look, sir/ma'am, these games aren't made for kids. Your kids shouldn't ever have access to them. It's up to you to control what your child plays, which requires you to pay attention to what you buy him/her instead of just blindly plunking down cash for whatever they beg for and then getting angry later when you finally realize what you've bought."

"AHHHHH! No, I can't be bothered to read ratings and find out for myself what's inside a game! I'm too busy jabbering away on my cell phone about celebrity marriages and reality TV! Just ban all the bad stuff so I don't have to worry about it!"

Until we get around this mindset that "video games are for kids", this sort of thing is going to continue to happen. Parents need to get up off their lazy tailbones and start finding out that Mario and James Earl Cash would NOT be the best of friends.

Arbre:
The point of a correct campaign would be that bothered or not, they couldn't miss it.

It doesn't matter whether they miss it if they don't care about it in the first place, and I think you grossly underestimate both the ability of kids to effectively pressure their parents and the inherent willingness of parents to believe that their kids are smarter and more mature than the average and are therefore better equipped to handle the M stuff.

Yeah, I can't miss the hundreds of blue political signs that line every road in my city each election. It doesn't mean I care about them, or even read them.

Malygris:
[ I think you grossly underestimate both the ability of kids to effectively pressure their parents and the inherent willingness of parents to believe that their kids are smarter and more mature than the average and are therefore better equipped to handle the M stuff.

That's fine. I have no problem with a parent buying an M-rated game for their kid, which is plainly happening every day. If the parents are informed and decide to make that decision anyway, that's their prerogative.

I DO think that selling an M-rated game to a minor should be criminalized, just like porn.

Maybe then M will mean Mature, and not "violence is ok, but if you even say the word sex, you're fucked, and no one will sell your game ever ever in the history of everything that is, has been or will be."

In the end, it's important that kids don't have unsupervised access to these games, but it's equally important that the game designers be given a free hand to create and not be restrained by knee-jerk politicians and lawyers looking to make a quick buck/ get into office.

If globally, I agree with the man, that bit above is overblown. His speech clearly makes violent games look bad.
But it's relative to the group he attempts to protect, reasonably, the less than 17 years old.

Globally, more communication is what he's asking for. Now, would retailers behave that way? Would they bother telling a mum that the game she's about to buy is violent?

Sometimes, yes. I actually read a pretty long thread about game store clerks who would be asked a question about a game by a little kid's mother, tell them something like "decapitations are the least of your worries"(actual quote), and then the mother would buy the game anyway coming back later to harass the clerks about the content.

Like most of the people here, I think that this is a step in the right direction. Even though there's still a touch of sensationalist fear-mongering in this, the basic message is good: Know what you're getting for your children, because believe it or not, they're still your responsibility and no one else's.

The target demographic for videogames is now between 18 and 32. People need to realize this

strayjay:
I DO think that selling an M-rated game to a minor should be criminalized, just like porn.

But wouldn't it be simpler to make AO a viable and useful rating, rather than the censor's stamp it is now? Solves the problem so much more easily: No pesky First Amendment beefs, the ESRB can start using the rating more liberally because it's not an automatic kiss of death, designers get their free hand to make the games they want without worrying about being shut down before their games even hit the shelves, and adult gamers have access to adult games without all the fuss.

Too bad nobody (that's going to be making the decisions mind ya) wants an everybody wins scenario. They want a they win scenario.

Malygris:

Arbre:
The point of a correct campaign would be that bothered or not, they couldn't miss it.

It doesn't matter whether they miss it if they don't care about it in the first place, and I think you grossly underestimate both the ability of kids to effectively pressure their parents and the inherent willingness of parents to believe that their kids are smarter and more mature than the average and are therefore better equipped to handle the M stuff.

I wouldn't underestimate the parents' ability to forgive their kids and pander to their whinings. I see that happen everyday. Quite pisses me off a lot.
Mummyyyyy, I want that toy up there. I want it! I want it! I want it! Wah Wah Wah!
OK here's your toy, with a plastic gun and a fake vagina cause I really don't give a flying **** about what you play with.

We can't police people either. :)

What I'm talking about is that video games are a product of mass consumption, and the only way to strike parents is to intrude into their own life.
The magazines they read? I don't know. Moms read Vogue? Then put some eye catching ESRB ad in there.
The family watches the TV every night? Then put ads there too.
I mean, hell, there's plenty of campaigns about tabacco, alcohol, AIDS and road kills.
What's so alien about having information about games, really?

If they still don't care, then so be it, they couldn't say we didn't tell them.
The thing is, when the video game industry will have enough evidence that they have done their part of the job (information, sensibilisation, etc.), it will be even easier to dismiss unwarranted parental offuscations.
As long as the industry tried to make them aware of what they're buying, essentially, for their kids, it's their choice.
Now, that's the same story. Everybody needs to do something on his side.
As far as the AO rating is concerned, I look towards the console builders for the ridiculous situation they put the industry into. They don't know what they want. Reaching adults by preventing adult games from being sold.
Makes sense, doesn't it? :)

xbeaker:
Yeah, I can't miss the hundreds of blue political signs that line every road in my city each election. It doesn't mean I care about them, or even read them.

They're hardly the same thing. They don't have the same goal. They don't even seek to give you the truth, but only what they want you to hear, or what you want to hear.
Ignoring information is not necessarily good either.

Malygris:

But wouldn't it be simpler to make AO a viable and useful rating, rather than the censor's stamp it is now?

Well, we're really talking about the same thing here. Potato, Potahto.

I just think it's more viable to get one law passed than it is to get the ESRB and (nearly) every game retailer to change their attitude towards AO games.

Arbre:
If they still don't care, then so be it, they couldn't say we didn't tell them.

Well, the point is is that they circumvent that point totally and fight against the premise and execution rather than the point most of us are trying to make in that people should consider the percieved consequences of their actions.
The problem with bringing this point to light is that it would basically be telling people how wrong they've been going about things, and nobody wants to hear that. Any politician that said that would have to be completely insane, he might as well be handing in his resignation slip at the same time.
And as for the political signs on the sides of the road, they are a bit different of a category, in that they give you the least amount of insight into what their point is, but something like a press interview, a forum, a debate, etc. is a much more reliable source of information than a sign on the side of the road.

strayjay:
I just think it's more viable to get one law passed than it is to get the ESRB and (nearly) every game retailer to change their attitude towards AO games.

I think getting the ESRB to change its attitude would be quite simple - make the rating viable. When the console manufacturers are willing to license AO games, and the major retailers are willing to sell them, I absolutely guarantee you the ESRB will start throwing the rating around like its going out of style. (Of course, there'd likely be a major overhaul of the current rating standards first to justify it.) If the US government seriously wants change, they're going after the wrong people.

You know...
I live in Sweden and to say the least I've never ever seen a sales clerk sell a game to a minor that he shouldn't play. And clerks always ask if the parents actually know what they're buying for their kids.

I think the American government need to stop babysitting their people. So if a parent buys a violent video game for their kid. And then comes to complain or sues the store or game company all they have to say is: It is your damn responsibility, so start doing your job as a parent.

If someone brought a lawsuit against a game company in sweden for making a game that they bought for their kid, the judge would just laugh and tell them to get the f**** out of his courtroom.

So I believe that the responsibility is the parents and the parents alone no one elses. I don't see people buying alcohol and cigarettes for their kids so I don't understand what the damn problem is with people taking the responsibility they have to their own kids.

I sure hope it changes for the better.... which highly doubtfull

Well good to know there are sane people *SOMEWHERE* in the world. >=P
With respect to certain issues that is.

ESRB Unveils New Oklahoma Senator PSA.

At last.

Coupled to this:

Microsoft Launches Xbox 360 'Family Timer' For Parents.

What I find very positive about Leland Yee's statement is that he actively encourages parents to buys games for their kids that are multi-player and that give you more choices than just killing. This is really great and insightful stuff - he seems to be really following his own advice of being familiar with the games.