• 15Nov 08

  Underage Gamers: A Double-Edged Sword

  Underage gamers purchasing titles that exceed their age (sometimes by double figures) is a problem that, as the title suggests, has two aspects. Firstly, it introduces children to 18-rated material that should not be displayed to them. This has been argued and asserted to a great degree since the medium of video games came about, and thus is beyond the scope of this modest blog. Secondly, it introduces immaturity onto the Xbox Live and PlayStation online networks which is hugely unwanted thing. This problem has only really manifested in this generation of consoles, but is a significant issue to the video games industry.

  I recently read an article in a X360 magazine back-issue, in which Halo 3 was re-reviewed following the deflation of the hype and the introduction of new multiplayer maps and systems. The general theme was that multiplayer, supposedly a key factor of the Halo franchise, was ruined a) by the repetitive map structure and b) the wealth of immature and "racist pre-teens". The first point is contestable, but I'd be surprised if any seasoned Halo 3 online player was not sick to death of the immature, high pitched voices singing, slanging and baiting over the voice communication system. Sure, you can mute players. But why should I have to? If I had to mute all the annoying pre-teens on Halo 3 games, I'd have no time for playing. So what happens? The headset comes off. But then I can still hear them through the speakers. So what then? I don't play. And if I don't play, I don't buy the future games which costs the industry money.
  Now, I wouldn't be so presumptuous or self-important to suggest that my £39 will dent the industry. However, if my views are shared by others (and I've heard comments to support this), then a cumulative effect may result.

  Of course, if a pre-teen buys the game in lieu of myself, then the balance is returned. However, then the online side of the game (which is so glorified by Bungie) will be damaged to such an extent that new games will erode Halo 3's mantle. It was quite notable that when Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was released, the maturity levels were relatively high whereas the Halo ratio was significantly higher in favour of pre-teens. It should be recalled that the multiplayer quality of a game has as much to do with the calibre of the people playing it as the map design or balance of weaponry.

  Obviously Halo 3 is not the only example of this issue. It is, however, the most immaturely-populated Xbox 360 title that I have sampled. Gears of War and its sequel have been similarly hit. I was recently ejected from an online game hosted by a pre-teen for "pistol-whipping". He took issue at me legitimately using weapons simply because I dodged his sniper fire and caught him when he was reloading. If that was me, I would be angry at myself for not having the reflexes to switch to shotgun rather than the person who killed me. But then again, I'm old enough to buy the game...

  Which brings me on to the issue of shops. Whoever sells an eight-year-old a copy of Gears of War 2 has broken both legal and moral rules. But there is no punishment to deter the seller. I know barmen who have been fired and given a police warning for not ID-ing a 20 year old who "looked underage". What then happens to the store clerk who sells an 18-rated game to an obviously pre-pubescant male? Maybe a slap on the wrist from the boss, but no real action is taken.
  It is true that very little can be done about online transactions in relation to age verification (other than the far from idiotproof "verify your age prior to purchase" system), but certainly something should be done in relation to tangible exchanges. In fact, I was in a games shop today and was queueing behing a pre-teen who had a copy of Gears of War 2 in his hand. He was allowed the game, and he was on his way, most likely to pollute the servers with "witty" comments. So this clearly does happen.

  What, then, can be done? I'm afraid that the often-overlooked maxim "blame it on the parents" shall have to be revived here. Parents have a major role in this situation, as the average till-staff member at a games shop cannot stop a pre-teen from borrowing an 18-rated game from an older friend. I'd be surprised if most pre-teen purchases, particularly online, are through their own money. Parentally-granted cash or credit cards will be used. Thus the parent has a right to know what their money or credit is being spent on, and what their child is being introduced to. One scene in particular in Gears of War 2 shocked me, and I'm a relatively desensitised 21-year-old. It says "18" on the front for a reason.
  Therefore, parents should not (both morally and legally) buy games for their ten-year-old which has a big red "18" on the box. What annoys me to the bitter end is when parents complain about "violent video games" when it is them who have provided the material to their children. A good example is the grandmother who sued Rockstar for the content in GTA: San Andreas which her eight year old grandson was playing. The kicker is that she bought him the game.
  So, some form of parental oversight is required. Not to an obsessive degree wherein rooms are turned inside-out to hunt down copies of GTA, but a casual monitoring of both online and offline activities. Stopping pre-teens from having slanging matches over Xbox live not only helps them, but also more mature gamers who wish to use the headset for strategy and team bonding.

  Furthermore, more mystery shoppers should be used with real consequences for instances of sales to obviously underage people. If it means that I have to show my driving license every time I purchase a game, so be it. My quality of gaming will go up as a result. 

   

  • Posted Nov 15, 2008 1:44 pm GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 10Nov 08

  As the Autumn Rush Closes... (or 'A Look Back at the Last Few Months')

  What a few months we've had as gamers. This period (I define it as September 19 - November 14, 2008] has been one which has seen many big titles come our way. After a relatively dry summer (in the gaming sense, not the weather), the Autumn - or 'Fall' for our American friends - has seen a remarkable amount of games. Even bigger than this time last year (think Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed et al), in fact.

  But to call them 'big games' refers only to their status in relation to names. It was clear for all to see that this two-month period was a big time for Xbox 360 and PC gamers, but was it a good time? How good have the games really been?

  The first game of this 'era' was, for me, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. With big promises in relation to physics engines, graphics, AI and story, I was understandably excited. However, what came was a rather linear game with a predictable story and no replay value. "Ho-hum", I thought, "there's always next month".

  And what a month! October gave us so many treats. For me, these are: Dead Space, Fable II, Fallout 3 and the Call of Duty: World at War multiplayer beta. Hats off especially to Dead Space, as it was one of the less talked about titles of the aforementioned, but probably ended up being the best, or at least a close second. Indeed, October was a very good month as compared to September; most notably because of the 4:1 ratio of 'big games' (if you can count a beta as a 'game'), but also because of the consistent quality of the games. Perhaps, then, we should erase September from this 'era' of mine...

  Moving on to November (which we are only halfway through as of now), things got even better. Gears of War 2 was probably my most anticipated game of the lot, and I was richly rewarded. A longer, more challenging campaign, the same addictive multiplayer, and the addition of 'Horde' which I can only label as "inspired".

  "Why", I hear you say, "why put this entry when this 'era' of yours hasn't finished?" Well, mainly because I don't really want it to end. After such a dull summer of gaming (in which my only ray of light was the ever-delayed Battlefield Heroes - is that even out yet!?), I was rather excited to be in a period of time in which I only had to wait two-ish weeks for a new massive title to come out. And when Call of Duty: World at War is released, that era will have ended for me.
  Perhaps another reason is to celebrate this time, and bring it to some people's attention whilst it is still going on.

  So, thank you, gaming industry, for the last two months. You may contribute to the demise of my degree (I'll let you know in September 2009), but boy have you kept me entertained.

  Until Empire: Total War, then...

  • Posted Nov 10, 2008 6:28 am GMT
  • Category: Games
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 4Nov 08

  Why go back to World War Two?'; CoD: World at War and the Complainants.

  Since the groundbreaking release of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, the Call of Duty (hereafter 'CoD') landscape changed. The scene was no longer World War Two (WWII), it was a dreary vision of the future containing night-vision, nuclear weapons and attack helicopters. WWII was behind the series now; the future was, well, the future.

  Or so it would have seemed. The announcement of "Call of Duty 5" as Call of Duty: World at War (WaW) raised several thousand sets of eyebrows, and the subsequent revelation as to who was developing the game (Treyarch, the team responsible for Call of Duty 3) raised even more. Some saw the move as a step backwards, a review of something that had already been done. Is this strictly the case?

  The inclusion of the Japanese. Quite how so many CoD games centred on WWII (all of them, really, except CoD4) without including a Pacific campaign staggers me. I honestly expected CoD2 to be about the Pacific, especially after Medal of Honor's disappointing attempt at it a year earlier. The Pacific theatre was such a major theatre of WWII (debatably the longest as well, if you include the Second Sino-Japanese War into WWII) that its overlooking was somewhat confusing.
  Therefore, there is nothing "already done" about the American campaign in WaW. In fact, it's the biggest breath of fresh air since the announcement that CoD4 would be set in the not-too-distant future.

  The re-emergence of the Russians. Ah, to have a CoD game without Russians in it. Be they the good guys (all CoDs except 4) or the bad guys (CoD4), they have a repeated presence in these games. Nothing against Russians, of course; their contribution to defeating the Axis was unrivalled by any other power during WWII. However, I do agree in this respect with the nay-sayers that this has indeed been "done before". Why not just have the whole game as a Pacific conflict? It would not offend the CoD paradigm of showing multiple battles in one game (think CoD1, wherein you played as British, American and Russian privates) if you played both as an American soldier and a Japanese one. In fact, it would in itself breath new air into the series. So yes, Treyarch is guilty of reigniting old (perhaps unwelcome) flames in adding yet another Russian push into Germany.

  Call of Duty's roots, but next gen. Think back to all the CoD games up to the third installment. They were all what can be described as "last-gen". CoD4 converted the series onto the next-gen consoles and technologically able PCs. So therefore, does the CoD series not require a next-gen exploration of the very conflict from which it was born? To leave WWII behind on now archaic machines would surely be forgetting the game's license? Or even mandate?

  Development times. According to the CoD special in the Computer and Videogames magazine, Treyarch started WaW when Infinity Ward were about halfway through CoD4. WaW was not conceived in such a short time as CoD3; moreover it has been years in development. Therefore, at the time of development, the popularity of the modern theatre was unknown, so it was in no way a "step back" - it was a continuation of the series, to which CoD4 did not yet belong.

  
  Concluding remarks. Call of Duty: World at War is by no means a step back. Perhaps the Russians' omission in favour of a Japanese-centric campaign would have been preferable, but the very fact that this is a next-gen WWII conflict with a brand new theatre opened means that this is a highly original idea. And from what I have played of the multiplayer beta, just as addictive as CoD4.
  
  I look forward to playing with and against you all on November 14!

  • Posted Nov 4, 2008 5:54 am GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet

See Previous Blog Posts »