
Parents: Read the damn box - evo_9
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/126017-parents-read-the-damn-box
======
pavel_lishin
> “CONTAINS HOMOSEXUAL CONTENT. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME IF HOMOSEXUAL CONTENT
> OFFENDS YOU”

Well, then, you'd also have to include:

> Contains Aliens. Do not buy this game if the concept of extra-terrestrial
> sapient life conflicts with your religious beliefs.

> Contains women not covering their face. Do not buy this game if
> unaccompanied and uncovered women offend you.

> Contains the destruction of a historical site. Do not buy this game if poor
> archeological practices offend you.

You could go on forever.

~~~
maw
_> Contains the destruction of a historical site. Do not buy this game if poor
archeological practices offend you._

You know, there's probably the germ of a pretty cool idea for a game in that.

~~~
DanBC
I'd love to see a remake of "BomberHehhe!" -
(<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDFbFmZCsHY>). An option to play as evil and
destroy ancient monuments (or cause as much damage to non-target buildings as
possible) would be funny.

------
moxiemk1
One minor quibble: "sexual content" is a set that most definitely does include
"homosexual content". There's no need to grant Happeh the idea that they
weren't properly warned.

It seems to me that we should not feel any compulsion to cater to those who
think that there is inherent _moral_ difference in non-heterosexual behavior.

------
sopooneo
Orthogonal to everything brought up in the article: I'm still stunned by how
many parents have no problem with depictions of graphic violence but go nuts
over sexuality and nudity. Arab culture is the most sexually repressed I've
ever encountered, but we here in The States are not that far behind.

~~~
AceJohnny2
I keep wondering about this. The argument comes back all the time, and yet
sexual repression continues unabated.

I wonder if it's because violence doesn't provoke the same copycat response as
sexuality does. After all, the whole existence of porn is based on it being a
stimulant for sexuality. However seeing a violent scene doesn't stimulate you
to go beat something up. Or at least any human that I know of ;)

~~~
kappaknight
I don't know about that... as a kid, I would usually jump off the walls for
about 30 minutes after watching Jackie Chan flicks.

Luckily, he only fights bad guys. =)

------
astrodust
I thought the way these things were handled in the Mass Effect series was
good. You really do have to go looking for these sorts of things, they don't
force it on you in any way.

It's like paying cover at a strip club, going to the back room, and being
offended by nudity.

This isn't a case of not reading the box. It's a case of getting your
pitchfork because you heard a rumor.

~~~
rollypolly
I agree, but another problem is the fact that people read the box cover as
much as they read the game manual, which is to say, not at all.

~~~
sophacles
No matter how clearly labeled, common-sense, or standard practice something
is, people will always find a way to rationalize not knowing or push their
dislike of it on to someone else, usually an undeserving person. It is a
simple lack of personal accountability, and happens everywhere.

I worked for years at a bar, the number of people who tried get more scotch
put in the glass when they ordered it neat (no ice), because it didn't look as
full as their friend's on-the-rocks was astonishing (poured via shot glass,
simple displacement effects here). These were ph.d level people who should
know better. Of course the on-the-rocks people tended to complain about it
tasting "watered down"... sigh.

Anyway, there is a highly amusing website: <http://notalwaysright.com/> that
will probably provide insight into this phenomenon. I believe most of those
stories have happened, having witnessed most of the scenarios (albeit with my
own customers...)

Point being, excusing people for not noticing the big rating that is on the
front of the box is probably the wrong answer, at some point we have to accept
that someone needs to be responsible. Otherwise, we just keep passing the
buck, I mean how long until we can just claim "oh I didn't understand the
rules for labeling, it is obviously too much to expect me to read all those
rules, we need a better rule system from $oversight_org", and then the org
says, "oversight is too hard, how were we supposed to know that those naked
people actually meant nudity"... and on and on

------
gyardley
This argument has about as much chance of persuading the public as the 'read
the damn terms of service' argument.

People don't want clear warnings, disclaimers, or notices - they want the
things they dislike to simply not exist.

~~~
pjscott
ToS agreements are long, convoluted, and full of confusing legal verbiage.
Sentences like "Contains violence, sexual innuendo, and some nudity" are
short, direct, and easy to read, if a bit vague. That's a pretty big practical
difference.

------
slyn
I'm not hugely privy to the storyline, but it is my understanding a loose
group of forum-goers from reddit, 4chan, neogaf, and probably other
communities banded together to vote EA into the #1 status of worst company in
america for various legitimate reasons. EA then very shortly after (like
within a week) introduced this idea that they received the designation in part
because of backlash regarding homosexual content in one game (of a series that
has been featuring such content since '07). Now no one cares about why EA was
really voted into this honor, but rather all the issues related to this
(seeming) misdirection. This article is a perfect example.

EA: 1 Consumerist+Voters: 0

~~~
rmc
Oh yes of course, there are no people who oppose gay rights. There is a
complete equality, legally and socially among people of different sexualities.
No sir-ee, completly impossible that there are people opposed to gay rights,

------
stopcodon
The "consumers hate us because of homosexuality in our games" is a PR move
from EA to cover the fact they were voted worst company in America for reasons
that have nothing to do with sexuality.

They were voted worst company because of their spyware distribution service,
anti-consumer DLC practices, and ruining otherwise great developers by buying
them and forcing out lackluster sequels designed for profit over all other
considerations. I'm not saying that's wrong for a company to do, I'm just
saying that's why online communities are upset.

But as long as they keep claiming the people who don't like their company are
homophobic, they draw attention from these things in the media.

------
cantankerous
I find it intriguing that, in the Sci-Fi genre, for so long nobody has really
taken issue with the idea of inter-species romantic relationships, but yet
when homosexuality is thrown into the mix, some people who probably wouldn't
care about humans in relationships with robots or aliens really get bent out
of shape.

I guess the upshot of my comment would be: If you're so worried about a child
bumping into deviant views on anything, why are you exposing them to science
fiction?

I'm sure there's sci-fi written to abide by current moral bounds, but I find
it somewhat less "believable" than sci-fi that leaves all options open.

------
InclinedPlane
The funny part of all of this is that games like Mass Effect barely brush the
PG-13 barrier in terms of depictions of sex. What people are the most upset
about is the frank and open acceptance of homosexuality. To which I say: go
crawl back under your rocks, and good on EA/Bioware for not being bigoted
asses.

------
natesm
Good reply to the original comment:

> Do you have a big sign on your head that says "CONTAINS BIGOTRY. DO NOT
> APPROACH THIS PERSON IF BIGOTRY OFFENDS YOU."?

------
zdgman
I am still a bit shocked that this is an issue. As clearly pointed out, if you
don't want to see homosexual content it is not forced upon you.

The fact that homosexual content is in the game is great because it allows the
user to direct the relationships as they see fit. This is a huge selling point
for the Mass Effect series in general.

Corin_11 hit the nail on the head though, they are not surprised because they
were not warned about the content. They are using that argument to mask the
fact that they don't want any homosexual content in the game at all.

------
ChuckMcM
I resonate with the rant (not so much the light grey text on white theme but
that's something else) which is that many parents are not proactive in their
kids upbringing with regard to morals or societal expectations. But lets look
at that part of it for a moment.

Parents are really busy these days, most often they both work, a depressing
number are single parents, they have a certain amount of 'parent/child
interaction' time available when they are both in the same place as their
child and they are not asleep. Further, the normal foibles of kids consume
some of that time uncontrollably (you have to go to the doctor to get that
bean pulled out of your nose, you have a history project due tomorrow that
needs help, going to and from soccer / band / daycare / school Etc. Parents
also need times for themselves to process work stress, spouse stress, family
issues, etc.

Now in that environment your kids like to play computer games (seems pretty
common) and the friction of getting games is fairly loose, but games (like
books) can introduce your kids to concepts before you as a parent have had a
chance to put some structure around it. That will lead to questions and
discussions that really do have to happen 'right now' because not giving kids
any guidance when they encounter those questions is really bad parenting. My
personal opinion is that 90% of a parent's 'job' is to prepare your kids for
the society they are about to enter, poor preparation reflects badly on them,
on you, and is generally a losing proposition for society in general.

So 'read the box' as an indicator for 'good parenting' is not sufficient.

We always made dinner time a time when everyone got together, had a meal, and
_talked_. We have an old copy of the World Book encyclopedia, a dictionary,
the CRC Handbook of Physics and Chemistry, a world atlas (post USSR breakup)
and the desktop science reference all to settle arguments of fact :-). But
more importantly as our children aged we talked about money, violence,
relationships, crimes of intent, crimes of passion, morality vs legality,
responsibility, politics, civics, religion, and books. The goal was to have
the conversation about a topic started _before_ it came up as a question so
that when it did come up they would bring it to the table and we'd talk about
it.

So exhorting someone to do that, embrace parenting as your primary
responsibility to your children, its a good thing. But I totally understand
when folks are so exhausted from the rest of their life that it takes a back
seat.

So read the box, talk about 'cartoon violence' versus 'real' violence, go sit
in the local ER some time if you're in a major metropolitan city to see what
'real' suffering looks like rather than on screen, add a med kit and blam back
into the action. Most kids can separate imaginary from real at a pretty young
age. Personally I don't think it is inappropriate to understand reproduction
and sex fairly young, it's probably not worth trying to explain the impact on
ones brain until puberty since it's really hard to convey that the chemistry
of your body can work against your judgement.

Understand that when you have kids it is a bigger commitment than just saving
money for them to go to college. :-)

~~~
timwiseman
You make good points. As a busy parent, I certainly sympathesize with people
that feel like they have too little time to monitor what they're kids are
exposed to.

I think one very significant factor is making sure that they can come to you,
as a parent, when they come across a new concept. Of course, as you said, I
would prefer to introduce the concepts on my timeline, but I also need to be
ready to deal with them whent he come up. More than that, I need to make sure
my kids feel comfortable coming to me when they come up. Otherwise, it won't
be a discussion I need to have "right now", it will be a discussion that
happens with other friends that are probably just as confused and unprepared
as mine are.

------
kaeluka
As a company, I want many people to buy my game.

If some homophobes feel cheated -- that's even better than the money they
payed for the game.

------
kappaknight
For those that think they can control EVERYTHING their children will ever see,
hear and experience - I have news for you, you're going to fail. Not only will
you fail in your attempt, your children will most likely be handicapped living
in your bubble that lacks critical thinking.

Also, while you may be a Christian/religious person here on Earth, I don't see
how that applies to a future with aliens, other planets, etc. With the way
things are going, it's almost guaranteed that religious power will be a thing
of the past as soon as we can prove other life/civilizations exist besides the
one here on Earth.

One obviously does not need religion to have good morals or good values.
Different doesn't mean wrong, and certainly not in this case. Homosexuality,
polygamy, asexuality, and natural gender change (clown fish) already exists
here on Earth in one form or another. It's not hard to conceive that these
behaviors also exist on other planets even if we don't get to witness it
firsthand today.

Anyway, if you want to live in a bubble, make yourself blind and deaf and just
don't buy anything. If you choose to interact with the growing, ever changing
world, expect to learn something new when you do it.

~~~
philwelch
> With the way things are going, it's almost guaranteed that religious power
> will be a thing of the past as soon as we can prove other life/civilizations
> exist besides the one here on Earth.

OK, I'll bite. Why?

~~~
tdfx
Agree. They've so far been able to reinterpret religious writings to encompass
pretty much any development, regardless of how illogical it sounds. I don't
think the discovery of life elsewhere would break this trend.

~~~
kappaknight
You're right - they have been able to spin things to their advantage. However,
to my understanding, many are still based on the geocentric view of the
universe and that we are a very special exception to every other planet we've
observed w/o life.

We are just now discovering that planets are actually abundant and are all
around us. A thought that seemed alien just years ago when we thought every
other star lacked planets.

While I can't predict what aliens will be able to teach/tell us when they
arrive (or when we find them), I do feel that a real "first contact" will
change or make a lot of people rethink what they really think they know.

~~~
ars
Other _intelligent_ life will probably have a huge effect. But simply finding
life, even complex life, won't.

The question now is the reverse - suppose we find nothing? Suppose we find no
life even in an environment that should have it?

~~~
kappaknight
Finding life will be the prequel to finding intelligent life. You're right
that finding life itself won't change the views of people who choose to close
their minds, but it will be the start of many realizing we're nothing special,
but rather, something very common.

Also, I'm almost certain there are life in other planets in our solar system.
It'll just take a few (relatively speaking) more years to prove it.

------
darklajid
"one would think the presence of any sexual content at all (to say nothing of
“partial nudity”) would convince most parents that Mass Effect 3 isn’t right
for their children"

Fun. Dismissing weirdo homophobic comments and ending with weirdo "nudity is
certainly bah and not for kids".

For me, both is a reason to shake my head in disbelief.

------
RedwoodCity
Of course having games that encourage killing people is better than games that
might have sexual undertones.

------
adestefan
The front of the box could be nothing more than a giant M ESRB logo and these
parents would still buy the game for their kids.

------
bashzor
_I hugely disagree with this._ I'll give 3 examples and some more explanation:

I'm not sure about others, but playing GTA 1 at 10 years old didn't make me a
serial murderer as far as I know, nor did it offend me to shoot people's heads
off on the PS2 with GTA III later. My parents did actually return this game
though, they thought it went a bit far. Or my father did, my mother never got
to see it, probably for the better.

Earlier, I think at about 7-8 years old, I played Command and Conquer 2:
Tiberian Sun. I think it was 16+, might have been 18+. Yeah you really could
see a few pixels blood for like two fifth of a second. Now that made me a real
dictator, and afterwards I was screaming under the table. Sure...

Then the last game I really played a lot is OpenArena, mostly a Quake 3 copy.
So with real pixels resembling some 90's version of blood and gore. Must say I
never noticed it until I started playing a bit more pro, and I noticed the
gore was actually in my field of sight. Then I set com_blood 0 and my
visibility was improved... I was about 15 when I started playing. The game is
17+ but I only noticed that when I was 17 (I'm 18 now). That, too, didn't
quite offend me.

So WHY do I ask? Why are we even bothering to print these things on the covers
anymore? It is a very slight indication of what age category the game is for,
but much more useful would it be to put on the covers something like "Blatant
sex" or "Dull game good for children under 10". Now that won't happen, but the
equivalents wouldn't be such a bad idea. Then they could stop making judgments
of which size fits all (since you can hardly put up a personality test in the
shop before getting an age recommendation).

Also something people apparently fail to notice how it's called an age
_recommendation_. Here at least. Still though, as 15-year-old you won't be
able to buy a 16+ game. Like the expansion pack for Command and Conquer 3. It
doesn't even contain blood or sex or anything! Maybe in the cut-scenes of the
campaign, but I never even played that (skirmish and online ftw). How could
they know? They can't! So why make anymore judgment than a recommendation?

 _Moral of this rant:_ Parents: Don't you dare looking at the age rating! If
it says what's in the game, like drugs or violence, that might be of some use.
Best would be to just watch a gameplay trailer someone put on Youtube, then
make the best decision for _your child_. Can you really trust other's to make
the best decision?

~~~
nitrogen
Some of the video game ratings here used to include a more detailed summary of
the content, with meters indicating the level of language, violence, sexual
content/nudity, etc. in the game, making it easy to decide if a game had too
little or too much of a particular category of offensiveness for one's tastes.
These days, though, all I see is the unhelpful letter "M", or maybe the
occasional "T".

~~~
ctdonath
Those letters are helpful in making the snap decision as to whether to even
bother investigating the content further. I can't give every
game/book/movie/whatever proper review, so it helps to know that some sane
adult marked it with an easily-understood cue. If there's an "M" or "T" on the
box, I don't want to waste another second wondering if it's suitable for my
toddlers.

Example: "Happy Tree Friends" is advertised & starts with cute forest animals
in simple & colorful renderings; an appropriate parental cue helps prevent
having to explain other definitions of "rendering" to a kid who can barely
talk and is wondering why seconds later that cute squirrel is shrieking,
spewing red, and has a bad case of the ouchies. A prominent "T" would be
helpful to those adults who don't know the show and are being pestered by a
3-year-old to watch it on Netflix.

~~~
bashzor
True, an indication of recommended age may help in the Happy Tree Friends
case. But I think some 10-year-olds might also not like it very much, and they
are teens already. If it said "strong violence", that probably works even
better.

Of course the best thing is watching a trailer on Youtube, but you can hardly
do that for every series the children ever watch. This is more realistic with
games, at least until they start buying or downloading their own games.

