Meant to be Seen

Post your thoughts on this interview! Do you think the trends match up with the US and Europe? Are you surprised by the non-violent nature of most video games? Do you think games are still inherently violent, but just happen to fall in line with the ESRB guidelines?

Do you think an immersive stereoscopic 3D experience with video games can alter their ESRB rating?

Regards,
Neil

Very interesting read. I would have never guessed that 57% of parents play video games with their children now, but it does make sense. The average age of a gamer in Canada is what really surprised me, 40.3 years wow! That still seems a bit high to me but its close. I would have guessed low 30's. I think they hit it on the head when they said the Atari generation is playing games with their children. Do you think parents would really spend $400-500 on their kids a Xbox360 or PS3, if they couldn't play it too? Nope, thats one of the reasons why the Wii's have done so well, price. Sure some would, but not nearly as many. I really think PS3 would be dead in the water if they would have not chosen to include blu-ray with their console.

As to violence, not really. I think family oriented Wii games and interactive games like Guitar Hero/Rock Band have really helped to lower that percentage. Every day they are coming out with some new non violent game line Scene-it or Little Big Planet. Xbox Live Arcade has a ton of non-violent simple games that anyone can play too. I do think there are more violent titles out there, but people are just buying more non-violent games. This is kinda objective and just my opinion. I guess it all depends on what your definition of violent is. Is Ratchet and Clank violent? I hope not. I think the ESRB guidelines give us a good measure as they currently are.

Adding S-3D to games will probably not change the ratings on games much. Graphic is graphic whether its in 2 or 3 dimensions. It might raise the ESRB on some games. Adding dimension to a female body could raise some eye-brows. Even if there isn't blood, seeing dead limbs twist in un-natural ways might also raise the rating. I just think games that do those things are designed to be more mature in the first place. On the flip side, would S-3D raise the rating on say a Mario Bros or Tiger Woods? Nah, not so much.

-----------
Off-Topic
-----------
I think S-3D would help the console video game industry and perhaps provide an edge to whomever adopts it first. Tons of games could benefit from 3D. Boxing in 3D would be great, Punch Out 3D anyone?

About a year ago, I read an article put out by Texas Instruments showing their 3D enabled DLP tv's producing 2 separate images on the same display and using shutter glasses to block the 2nd image. Games like Madden would be great for this, so you can't see the other person's playbook. Co-op games like Halo would be fantastic too. You could have 2 people playing against each other and they would not be able to see each other's screens. 8 player split screen anyone?

A decent interview, but I am beginning to lose confidence in the ESA (at least the US branch). They have not being representing the industry properly and it seems they no longer have the same interests as the game development community. Many publishers have ditched the ESA after the whole moving the E3 fiasco (which cost millions for their breach of contract with the LA convention center). On top of this, they have not provided adequate PR or lobbying duties. For example, when there was massive dis-information spreading about an alleged sex-scene in Mass Effect the ESA was no where to be found. For almost a week the mainstream media went on a frenzy spreading blatant lies bordering on libel yet there was no legal representation from the ESA at all. Beyond this, they are in concert with major retailers (like Walmart) in effectively banning all Adults Only games from retail space. This, to me, is akin to censorship so in this way I do not support the ESA and I think they are hurting the game industry by not properly providing the services they claim.