A Contradiction in Adult Terms

My wife's best friend is very strict about what games her kids, who are 11 and 13, play. I am okay with this for the most part, because I believe you should know what your kids do and play. My issue is that she goes strictly by the ESRB rating, and makes no allowance outside of that.

I understand that without knowing a game's content it is difficult to make an informed decision about what games one should let their children play, but I think there is some room for discussion, and the need for flexibility in that process. After all, by severely restricting the games they play, I think she is driving the kids to play those particular games elsewhere without her knowledge, and they are less likely to pay attention to her rules than if she said "I will allow you to play THESE games, but THIS one I find very inappropriate because of X, Y, and Z, and I ask that you please not play it."

Perhaps I am naive, and the kids will play whatever they want at their friend's places anyway, but I think respect and communication go far.

This brings me to a game I have been playing lately called Persona 4. This is a 'Mature' rated game, and for good reason. The list of content has such things as Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Alcohol References and Violence, all of which it has. (What is partial nudity, though. Isn't that like being a little bit pregnant?) I have no problem with the rating. It is a rather mature game. But what does that really mean?

I pulled some relevant definitions from Dictionary.reference.com:

–adjective
1. complete in natural growth or development, as plant and animal forms: a mature rose bush.

3. fully developed in body or mind, as a person: a mature woman.

4. pertaining to or characteristic of full development: a mature appearance; fruit with a mature softness.

7. intended for or restricted to adults, esp. by reason of explicit sexual content or the inclusion of violence or obscene language: mature movies.

8. composed of adults, considered as being less susceptible than minors to explicit sexual content, violence, or obscene language, as of a film or stage performance: for mature audiences only.

–verb (used with object)
13. to bring to full development: His hard experiences in the city matured him.

–verb (used without object)
16. to come to full development: Our plans have not yet matured.

I realize that 'Mature' in this sense is intended as in definition #7, that is 'intended for or restricted to adults', but let me tell you something about Persona 4...

P4 is about a high school student fighting monsters and saving the world, which is typical RPG fare. Where it deviates is in the inclusion of elements from Japanese dating sims, where one talks to people and develops relationships with them over the course of the game. Typically in a dating sim, they are female, but here there are people of all types, and while there are love interests in the mix, many of the relationships have no sexual aspect in the slightest.

What makes this more interesting is that over the course of developing these ties, you discover... depth. There's the class clown who hides his anxieties beneath his jocularity. There's the punk who, because of how sensitive he is, and the fact that he is good at 'feminine' tasks, questions his sexuality. There's the teen Idol (actor/celebrity) who wonders who the real person is behind the acting. There's the young wife who is having trouble relating to her stepson, and the flirtatious nurse who can't remember why she chose her career, and on, and on.

This is a game about finding out who you really are, and how much of who you are is what you decide to be. This is a game about finding out that everyone else has the same hang-ups and worries as you do. This is a game about growing up... about MATURING.

Despite this being a Mature rated game, this is a game I think I would want my teenagers to play. Hopefully they would see and understand the themes presented in the game, and relate to them, and mature a little from the experience. Compare this to a typical shooter, where the whole game is 'Kill X' or 'Don't BE killed by X'. Isn't there a difference? Is it fair to rate both 'Mature'?

I don't blame the ESRB for this, for they have an impossible task. Play a game and rate the content, that is their job, but to themes have an mitigating or occasionally detrimental effect? Would parents see the difference, or even care?

For now, I'm glad I don't have kids, so that burden is not yet mine, but when I do, I am in a better decision than most to do actual research, and not just look at the rating.

I hope I always take the time.

Some Simple Updates

I appologize again, to the zero people reading this blog, that I haven't been updating. Really, there hasn't been all that much going on. That is not to say there have not been a few points of interest:

I've attended my first seminar/session/whatever at with Right Management, a transition service that my previous employer contracted to help those that were laid off. The first session was Career Assessment. Prior to attending the class, I had to take the Myers-Briggs, and do a value assessment exercise. The result were rather interesting. I have taken the Myers-Briggs before, and the results changed since the last time I took it. Previously, I came up as a classic Engineer. This time, I tested as a ISFJ, "The Protector", most apt to health care, and LEAST apt for Engineering and Computers. I think it is a reflection of the issues I had with my previous employment, and not an indication that I am not fit for my chosen career path.

Also interesting, is that my wife, who was four credits short of a Master's in Clinical Psychology, had never heard of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. There were other tests that she specialized in, which I understand. Certain schools will prefer different tests over others. What I find confusing is that she had never had the test discussed in class. Even if you didn't want your students to use a particular test, wouldn't you at least cover the test to discuss its weaknesses, and explain why you don't want them to use it? Odd.

I am finally playing along with the Game Club at Eat-Sleep-Game, previously 1UP FM's backlog. I've been meaning to play for some time, but this time I actually ran across a copy of the game for a bargain before they started discussing it. The game, which is Rockstar's Bully, is pretty much, from what I can tell, classic GTA formula in a different setting. I'm not big fan of GTA. I haven't played a GTA since the first one, where I had fun torching Hari Karishnas with a flame thrower, and watching my roommate going on a cop-killing spree till here were none left in the city. (Don't think I don't know how bad that sounds, but the first GTA was pretty abstract.) I've seen people play others, but they never really appealled to me.

Some thoughts on the game:
1) I'm not sure how I feel about the mission-based structure yet. I've not been a big fan of it in the past, with other games. Jak 2 was partly the reason for this. Jak and Daxter was a competent platformer, and 2 had such an artificial grafting of mission based structure and dark, angsty story that I stopped playing really early. We'll see what happens here.
2) Save Algie. Dear God, why an escort mission? I hated them in X-Wing, I hated them in Tie Fighter, and an escort mission was the OTHER reason I stopped playing Jak 2.
3) Why is every person in the school a psychopath? I'm walking along, minding my own bi'ness, and some jerk hits me from behind, out of the blue. What did I ever do to you? Why do people try to beat me up for no apearant reason, even in the middle of the school, with prefects standing right there?

More later, as the game progresses.

How are there Midi-chlorians in a rock?

"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hm? Mmmm. And well you should not. For my ally in the Force. And a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. It's energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you...me...the tree...the rock...everywhere! Yes, even between this land and that ship!" Yoda

This has been a pet peeve of mine for a while, and I'm sorry that this is a bit geeky. Well, I'm not THAT sorry that it's geeky. I am a geek, after all.

One of the things that's bugged me about the Star Wars prequels, is the way Lucas contradicts himself, and the demeanor of the Jedi. In the above quote, taken from Empire, Yoda speaks of the Force being all around us, not just around the people with Midi-chlorians. It is a unifying, universal thing, not a segregator. The other thing that is contradicted, is the peaceful, almost submissive nature of the Jedi.

"You will know. When you are calm, at peace. Passive. A Jedi uses
the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack." Yoda

A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense. In the prequels, the Jedi are constantly shown charging in, lightsabers swinging. How is that passive? How is that defense?

That was what I liked about Timothy Zhan's "Hand of Thrawn" Duology. In those stories, Luke Skywalker find new power and abilities in the Force by NOT using it. He finds that flaunting his power causes fear in those around him, and that using the Force in an overt, even agressive method, stifles his powers, even as great as they are. (The books are set later than most, after Luke as defeated clones of the Emperor, and attained Master status. Basically, he had the ability to rip a ship apart with the force. Makes things a bit too easy, doesn't it?)

Not that my opinions matter, of course. Lucas has already chosen what he wants his 'vision' to be, and I"m just one more "angry geek" that goes a-ravin' at the drop of a hat [/sarcasm]

I guess what it boils down to is: I'm sad that something that instilled such wonder in me as a child went in such a different direction. I realize that the original movies weren't exactly deep, but they hinted at depth that the prequels definitely did not live up to. I suppose that's a selfish bent to take, but there you have it.

And don't get me started about Jar-Jar.