Little Johnny shouldn't play '25 To Life'
by Conrad Quilty-Harper 
{ Jul 2nd 2005 at 9:00AM }
Gamecloud has published an extensive article on the intense media
storm that has been created around the upcoming 'Cops n' Robbers' shooter, 25 To Life. The article has pretty much
every quote you could find on the matter, including the contradictions and ironies. On the one hand Senator Schumer
(the guy who's trying to ban the game before it even
hits the shelves) is quoted as saying "Little Johnny should be learning how to read, not how to kill cops". Whilst on
the other hand he realises that the game is already rated as Mature (So that children under 17 cannot buy the game).
How can a game that is rated Mature be targeting a metaphorical kid called "Little Johnny"? The fact is that this game
has had nearly zero publicity (from Eidos) beyond the media tornado that has been created by the self imposed
anti-violent gaming police. Their work in trying to censor the game will inevitably lead to higher sales and result in
a greater amount of younger kids playing the game. The quote that the Senator and Co. should be reading is: "There is
no such thing as bad publicity".
[Thanks, John Callaham]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
SkyFire @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
I wrote a similar opinion piece based on an earlier Joystiq post on my blog.
http://infinisphere.com/skyfire/blog/2005/05/constitution-vs-video-game-ban
Myria @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
"How can a game that is rated Mature be targeting a metaphorical kid called Little Johnny?"
Let's at least have some minor modicum of honesty here. M-Rating or no, games like this are primarily targeted at and will primarily be played by teenage boys. This is hardly a secret, even the article you linked to in your previous post on the subject states "However teen-agers who are most likely to play the game say they are anxiously waiting its arrival.".
Oh, and Schumer isn't trying to ban the game (id est, prohibit it legally), he's trying to get retailers to voluntarily not carry it and Sony and MS to voluntarily pull licensing. That's a very different thing.
Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
"M-Rating or no, games like this are primarily targeted at and will primarily be played by teenage boys."
Of course, that's a given although I disagree about the targeting bit. I have a bone to pick with the Senator's intentionally emotive language. "Little Johnny" sounds like he expects 6 year old kids to be playing the game and his earlier words suggest that Eidos is targeting these kids.
"Instead he hints that despite the games rating, 25 to Life is being aimed at minors."
I, for one, have not seen a single bit of publicity coming out of Eidos' marketing department. Especially not aimed at younger kids. You can't even get into the website without putting your age down as 18+. Is it Eidos' fault that kids find violent games appealing?
Regarding the ban statement I was merely referring to the title of this article: http://culture.joystiq.com/entry/1234000417047417/
jayis @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
*yawn*
Can't you come up with something new other than "there's no such thing as bad publicity?" Everyone knows that, and it's not the point. The point is these (M)ature games are indeed getting in the hands of "Little Johnny", says the FTC in a report to congress last year:
(1) As part of an undercover survey of teens shopping for games, the FTC found that 69 percent of unaccompanied shoppers under 17
were able to buy an M-rated game at a retail outlet.
(2) The FTC also found that ads for M-rated games continue to appear in game enthusiast magazines popular with teens.
Source: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/07/040708kidsviolencerpt.pdf
Doing nothing isn't going to change these statistics much, regardless of whether you think trying to do something about it actually makes it worse. Raising awareness of violent material is the best way to get the information to the parents, the ones who should be policing what Little Johnny plays after school.
Unfortunately, leaving it entirely up the parents doesn't work either since there are many parents out there that don't give a damn what Little Johnny is doing.
A more concerted effort across the board in regulating the advertising and sale of these games is obviously needed.
Craig @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Guns don't kill people...people kill people.
Yada.
Yada.
Yada.
Point is if you are so out of touch with your kids that you can't screen what's acceptable entertainment for them, then who's at fault? And while we're at it, if Eidos really wanted to go out on a limb and be COMPLETE pricks, they'd lap this attention up - maybe point out that you don't just play as gangsters but as cops as well. And when you play as a cop, the goal isn't to "Rodney King" your advisaries, but in contrast, arrest them and use the least amount of force neccessary to get the job done - i.e. tazer.
Why not commend Eidos for building a game that depicts the real world of Cop vs. Bad Guy?
Why? Because that's about as ludicrous as a Senator clawing for attention by suggesting our government has a right to censor what we can and can't play.
Hank Mohaski @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
From the linked article:
"When contacted by Gamecloud, TASER Foundation Executive Director Geraldine Anderson admitted that she had not actually played 25 to Life but had read about it and seen screenshots. She also dismissed the games M rating and as for the police as being playable, she said that didnt matter. 'We feel that most players will play as criminals,' she said."
I believe that last comment is a telling one, and one that I think strongly hints at the mindset of anti-gaming crusaders. The opponents of this game apparently believe that most players will play as criminals, an indictment of gamers (and society in general) that is wholly divorced from this game, and others like it. This comment reveals their opinion of gamers/people in general: That given the choice between "right" and "wrong", most players/people will choose the latter.
"25 To Life" is inconsequential to their cause. Violent video games in general don't matter. Taken further, pornography itself doesn't matter, violent and sexualized films don't matter, etc...Again, the mindset of these people is that given the choice between right and wrong, most people will choose that which is dirty, sinful, and wrong. They believe this regarding the (apparently) soft minds of children and teenagers, as well as adults. In their minds, we're all sinners, and will only sin more and more unless all the objects of our various desires are removed. Most people, these crusaders are constantly implying, are incapable of making the "right" decisions, and so they believe it has fallen upon them to help protect us from ourselves.
When I think about these sorts of things, I cannot help but think about the old anarchist axiom that states "Laws are useless. Good people don't need them, and bad people won't obey them."
In other words, truly dangerous and anti-social people don't need to play games like these in order to condition themselves to criminal activity, and in fact, I'd be willing to say these kinds of people don't particularly "get off" on violent video games. Despite the advances in gaming technology, it still ain't better than the real thing as far as criminals are concerned.
Charles Manson never had a gameboy.
chill @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
#2 Oh, and Schumer isn't trying to ban the game (id est, prohibit it legally].
He cant ban it legally, its protected free speech. So asking Sony/Micro to pull licensing and retailers not to carry it, is in effect, trying to ban it...
Tim Shundo @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
This is sad. The way the world has been going. It has gotten to the point where we can no longer entertain ourselves but playing with marbles in the dirt, or playing a quick game of stickball in the backyard. We have to pretent to kill police men, the people that are trying to keep our cities in good hands. Play this game in front of a cop, and then ask them what they think.
What a wonderful thought.
misasfasise @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Games do teach violence. I even learned that through passive aggressiveness, that my anger can be saved up for a "special attack".
EzChile @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
As a store manager of a videogame retailer in the UK, Having to ensure that my staff adhere to the VRA and BBFC ratings systems, I'd like to just add that at least 75% of parents that both I and my staff have to serve could not care less about what 'little Johnny' plays.
Litterally, on a daily basis we refuse to sell games to 'minors' just for them to go get thier parents... We explain the law, the reasoning behind the ratings, and the true content of the games... The usual answers...
Oh, that's ok.. He's already played it round a friends house / Oh, he's seen worse / It's a game after all / He loved Manhunt / Yeah, boys will be boys / That's ok, I'll decide what he can see / Oh, I'll make sure he doesn't play it... Smile. (hands it to son)
It makes our blood boil.
If we get caught selling one to anyone underaged, we (not the company) are ellegible for a 5k fine and a custodial sentence.
If they're seen handing the 'merchandise' to a minor.. what do they get?
Nothing. Just a child that gives us a dirty look and grins.
Yet we're educated in the content of the 'games' where as 99% of the time the parent knows jack about the game.
They're just doing it to 'shut them up'
A busy Saturday can really drain your belief in society and it's breeding laws.
Why is it that we're accountable, yet parents who break the law aren't?
l0tus @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
games are now rated just like movies. if you would prohibit your children from watching a R or NC-17 rated movie, then they shouldn't be playing M or AO rated games. as video games have evolved, they have become a part of the mainstream and are no longer simply targeted at "young teenage boys." it's time for parents to get involved instead of using the game console as a babysitter; it's time for parenting to evolve...
Lil Johnny @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Im 17 and my parents wont let me play any pointless violent games. i have to play the real war games [ex] Socom, Battlefield, Desert Storm... but i find those more fun anywayz
jayis @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
To Lil Johnny (#12) - how do you find the real war games more fun if your parents won't let you play the others? Hmm?
tpp @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
#10
It's not against the law to be a bad parent. I would, however, welcome a slight change to that, if any politician would be willing to score easy votes.
Would it be too much to ask to hold parents liable for violent crimes committed by minors living in their household? I believe parents are already liable for property damage done by their children, why not for all crimes?
OtakuCODE @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Little Johnny should definitely play it. If kids don't experience fantasy, they will not learn to differentiate it from reality. If the kids see these efforts to ban some jostling pixels, they will rightly get the idea that the people rallying against it believe it to be a thing of power. A thing with abilities. It's not. It's a game. You sit in front of a TV and push buttons and pixels move. People don't die. There are no repurcussions.
If the difference wasn't that great, all game players (not just children, who are probably LESS likely to be affected by violence than older people who have grown up in a relatively safe society for so long... children have nothing to contrast it to... take a city 20-something and a farm kid to watch a pig be slaughtered, the reactions will be different) would be suffering from post traumatic stress disorders. They're not.
Killing people takes a psychological toll understood by few. If commanding some pixels to do things to other pixels were equivalent in any way to doing them with real people, our mental health facilities would be overloaded. There would be over a hundred million people roaming the streets, unable to care for themselves.
So let Little Johnny play what he wants. Don't talk about videogames being the same as real life, because Little Johnny thinks that's the dumbest thing he's ever heard. Until you start demanding it's true, he won't even consider it. He can't jump over buildings and shoot lasers from his eyes (though he may enjoy PRETENDING it is so, he doesn't believe it) and he knows that is why playing games are fun. He knows the difference between videogames and reality, but if you agree with banning games from him, you are the one that can't tell the difference.
dan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
I think the worst part about all this is that the periodic panic over how Johnny's gonna play 5 minutes of PS2 then pick up a gat and cap the neighbors tends to preclude any kind of rational discussion on what effects videogames actually do/don't have on the people who play them (kids and adults).