Got an e-mail from Blizzard today with several product announcements inlcuding the Diablo comic book coming out in November. I followed the link to check out the few pages they have made available:

Sample of Diablo Comic

I'm sorry, but who is Blizzard targeting with this comic. It looks like it is for kids not the aged 17 and up crowd that bought the game. I was expecting something dark and sinister, not bright and "cartoony" (to make up a word). We are talking about Hell's minions here, not Pokemon.

Do I care that much? Not really, but I do like the Diablo franchise and would not mind reading an adult comic or graphic novel set in that universe. It just a little disappointing - they tease with the e-mail, but don't follow though.

-DavidCPA

Man, that's an odd comic. The artwork's nice, but what's that little Anakin Skywalker dude doing in it? I agree -- they didn't hit the mood I was expecting.

Maybe the comic book people assume that gamers are 8-14. Maybe they think they need to aim at the Pokemon crowd.

...which brings up an important point. The game is rated M for Mature. Kids really shouldn't be playing Diablo or Diablo II. So why would the comic be targeted toward a younger audience?

The people who claim that ultra-violent games are marketed toward kids seem to be on the right track. This isn't a kids game and from reading that comic, it seems someone thinks it is.

--Dave

>So why would the comic be targeted toward a younger audience?

Is it really safe to make that assumption based on five pages of a story? Just because a boy is featured in the story doesn't mean the comic is geared for a younger audience.

"...which brings up an important point. The game is rated M for Mature. Kids really shouldn't be playing Diablo or Diablo II."

I spent Labor Day weekend at a summer camp type thing with a bunch of kids. At one point, I overheard a seven-year-old girl explain to a five-year-old boy all the classes in Diablo II and what they could do.

"The there's the paladin..."

"What does the paladin do?"

"He's an up-close fighter with magic auras. Then there's the, um, sorceress."

I told them about the Druid and Assassin in the expansion pack. Now I'm reminded it's M rated. Great. Glad to see I'm doing my part for the children of America.

-Tom

I dunno Billy, that first few pages wasn't exactly Shakespeare, even for a comic book. The art-style is fine, but the dialog certainly seems aimed at a younger set.

I guess we'll find out when it's released. Still, the game is rated M. That puts it squarely in adult territory. Since you have claimed in another thread that most comics readers are older (20 and over), wouldn't it make sense to target the comic there? Game = adults, comics = adults... Diablo Comic = adults.

Tom, you make a great point...simply because it never dawned on you that the game was rated M says a lot about how people perceive games in general. Obviously, some parents are letting their 7 year old play DII. They probably thought about that as much as you did before you saw it here. :)

--Dave

---

Quote:

Is it really safe to make that assumption based on five pages of a story? Just because a boy is featured in the story doesn't mean the comic is geared for a younger audience.

---

---

Quote:

Glad to see I'm doing my part for the children of America.

---

---

Quote:

Answering the questions that came out of that experience pales in comparison to anything Diablo 2 might dredge up.

---

>Real life is much more complicated.

Absolutely, David. But the ratings are an important element in helping parents monitor what fantasies they'll allow their children to indulge.

The latest ESRB ratings include a list of specific content that might be objectionable: animated blood, use of alcohol, profanity, or what have you. The M rating is a warning that parents might want to consider whether they're comfortable exposing their pre-teen children to the specific content.

IMO, the massive slaughter in Diablo II is cartoony and laughable, but I don't expect all parents will see it this way. There are screams, shreiks, blood, ghosts. So I welcome the M rating. I should have been more careful talking up the Assassin to a five-year-old boy. If his parents don't want him playing games like that, it's their prerogative and I'd never dream of disputing the decision.

-Tom

>I dunno Billy, that first few pages wasn't exactly Shakespeare, even for a comic book. The art-style is fine, but the dialog certainly seems aimed at a younger set.

Actually, if anything is responsible for that slant, it's the art, not the writing. The kid is just a plot device so the writer can explain the history of the Druid. I've read a variation on that exchange in hundreds of comics; it's not geared toward anyone, it's just mediocre comic book writing. (And just because a kid appears in a story doesn't mean the comic is geared toward kids. The main character in my graphic novel is a kid and that story is definitely not for kids; just ask Bub.)

That said, if the art was done in a darker style, say something like Jae Lee would do, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because Lee's dark and twisted art would completely overpower the crappy writing.

>Since you have claimed in another thread that most comics readers are older...

Yeah, it would make more sense. But most of the things comic companies do don't make a whole lot of sense. That's why the whole industry is in the toilet right now.

I don't mean to start a major debate about this, but I do think it's awfully premature to say that the comic is being specifically marketed toward kids based on five pages of below-average writing and art. If they start running excerpts of it in Disney Adventures, then I'll buy into that argument. Until then, it's just a crappy comic and a missed opportunity.

Before I conjure up an image of me playing D2 with my daughter on my lap, she is around me from time to time while I play but never actively involved.

Dave, you are probably right about being a little more careful about the visuals. I do play with the sound off because, based on prior experience, scary music or sounds have more of an impact on my daughter than anything.

In terms of screening images, we will not her see The Wizard of Oz due to the scary witch and the flying monkeys. Several of our peers let their children watch it, but it seems a bit extreme for most younsters. My primary pet peeve is the inclusion of sexual inuendo and foul language into children's films. In most cases it has no bearing on the story and only leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

-DavidCPA

---

Quote:

Until then, it's just a crappy comic and a missed opportunity.

---

---

Quote:

It certainly wasn't as readily available (and so easily dismissed) as it is in today's society

---

No, our childhood is most certainly filled with guns. Land of the free, home of the brave and all that...

What I'm more concerned about as a parent today is the breakdown in common sense when it comes to where this imagery shows up. Just turn on some kids cartoons on a Saturday morning or flip through Cartoon Network, even when Scooby Doo is on. Typically, the advertisements are far, FAR worse than many of the shows that are on at later hours. In fact, the sexual innuendo is so strong, especially in ads for prime time television shows, that I'm flipping to something like The Weather Channel as soon as the commercials come on during a NASCAR race. My son likes racing...I love it. He watches with me whether it's Formula One, NASCAR, IRL or CART. But here I am screening the damn commercials because they show everything the 10PM viewer of that show is going to see in graphic detail.

This is kinda all over the map and I apologize if I hijacked this thread in some way. I'm glad to see that there are others aware of this. I mean, I always figure that my kids are going to be naive and innocent for such a short time in their lives. Let them enjoy it. I'll do whatever it takes to maintain that innocence as long as possible. I'm sure when they hit school age things will change. But for a three year old...heck even Tom's five year old campers...it just seems too early for that stuff. Better to be watching Elmo or wondering how Arthur and Buster are going to get out of their latest jam. And if they have to play games, there's plenty of stuff that's exciting and enjoyable that doesn't feature blood, gore, pentagrams and magical burning.

--Dave

Is everyone's bar for acceptable comics quality lower than mine? Good lord, that's a terrible comic. What's up with that odd, detached, 8th-person tone to it?

Now that I think about it, all comics talk like that.

Anyway, to content control for kids: why does anyone care? I honestly don't get it. Kids experienced cow-slaughtering, hearing/watching their parents have sex in the other room, watching relatives die of horrid diseases, and became more worldly on "adult" topics back in, oh, the 1700s than they did today.

The rise of Victorian child-innocence fetishization just seems to keep getting worse and worse. Does reading Brothers Grimm fairy tales warp children? Sheesh. 5 year-olds probably will be healthier if they don't have to think about genocide, but everyone's bar for what's unacceptable for kids strikes me as ludicrously low.

What's driving this, I think, is that now kids are being scared/sexed up/whatever for someone's profit margin, which is mostly new. Little Jimmy reading a book with lots of gorey descriptions of death probably doesn't offend the average person as much as him watching a gorey cartoon trying to sell him toys, even though they can be the functional equivalent in content. One is the kid being "forced" into adulthood to make someone money, and the other is forcing himself into adulthood. Maybe.

Just commentary, not criticism.

Dave,

You didn't hijack the thread at all. You make some very good points. Those of us with children or who interact with children often (Tom) only want the best for them and their young minds.

I have DirecTV and the extra $5 a month for the package that includes PBS
Kids is well worth it. The commericals (sponsors on PBS) are tame and kid oriented. The programming is as safe as you can get. You can turn it on at anytime and not be worried what will pop up. My daugter has a healthy appreciation for all things Arthur, Elmo, Jay Jay and Barney.

My daughter is in daycare for 4 hours a day and she has already come home with some interesting tidbits from the other kids. Kindergarden should be fun.

-DavidCPA

I care because I have kids and I care about their well-being. My bar isn't "ludicrously low". Are you legitimately arguing that Diablo II is kids fare?

Reading about death, dismemberment, etc. is also a lot different from experiencing it first hand through visuals. It's one thing for an author to describe someone getting blown to itty bitty bits. It's another thing entirely for a child, with limited capability to understand what he's witnessing, to see it first hand.

You know, I got lambasted in another thread for noting that if you don't have kids, you can't understand this, but I'll say that again. I really don't think one can have the same perspective on life without them. You just can't. I know I was a totally different guy when it came to these issues before I had three boys making me think about them daily. I see how it affects them just like DavidCPA notes above how other kids are nutsed up by The Wizard of Oz.

I also think society has done a really good job of convincing everyone that all kids are the same and they're all smart and they all reason things out, etc. That's bull. Some kids are simply at the bottom end of the gene pool and we really should try to protect them from some influences. That doesn't mean censorship, it means responsible advertising, appropriate content placement, etc.

We're still animals, but we've evolved a lot since the 1700's. Part of that evolution involves us being responsible for our own children as well as those less fortunate...single parents, neglected, etc...to whom something like television, games or film can be a world changing influence.

--Dave

"Are you legitimately arguing that Diablo II is kids fare?"

I let my then 9 year olds play it. I really don't see anything objectionable in it. It's cartoon violence directed at monsters.

'Are you legitimately arguing that Diablo II is kids fare?'

Except for the assassian class, which raises all sorts of ethical issues kids lots of kids won't have thought about before, it strikes me as suitable for 8 year olds or so. Before that the shock value of the graphics would really scare them, depending on the kid.

However, if it scares them terribly, will they keep playing it?

'Some kids are simply at the bottom end of the gene pool and we really should try to protect them from some influences. That doesn't mean censorship, it means responsible advertising, appropriate content placement, etc.'

.....which is censorship by another name. Hey, you can do whatever you want for your own children, but legal solutions to limit kids' access to various forms of information really bothers me. This is probably because it really pissed me off when I was a kid, but there's also other good reasons.

As to protecting kids with bad genes, single parents, bad parents, etc: this is pretty much word-for-word what people said the influence of shocking pulp novels in the 1800s(I think?) on working-class children. "We're not worried about what *those* people's kids will turn out like. Our kids can handle it, but there's can't." There's a long history of class snobbery here. Ditto for comic books in the 40s, television since then, etc, etc.

Maybe it's just my personal experiences, but all the "bad" kids I've met are that way because a)their parents were bad or b) they fell in with a "bad crowd" of kids whose parents stunk. That's it. I've never seen any examples of media sex/violence influence on children that wasn't *completely* drowned out by their parents and friends.

Dave Long wrote: "[Protecting children from certain influences] doesn't mean censorship, it means responsible advertising, appropriate content placement, etc."

Jason McCullough wrote: ".....which is censorship by another name."

Bullshit. That's not censorship. The word gets kicked around and abused all over the place. Using it in this discussion cheapens its impact.

"legal solutions to limit kids' access to various forms of information really bothers me."

No one brought this up, Jason. But since you mentioned it, I think most of us agree that kids' access to various forms of information *should* be limited. You want to teach holocaust denial to seventh graders? Condom use to second graders? Zipgun construction for kids in high school?

Children should be protected by the government and by their parents. If Hollywood, musicians, game makers, etc., push inappropriate material on children -- as they have very clearly been doing -- then the government should do exactly what it's doing now: threaten them with the FTC. Self-righteous cries of censorship are grossly inappropriate in this situation.

Not that I'm saying this is what you're doing, but you got me on a minor rant...

-Tom

I'm with Dave and Tom on this one. My wife and I will limit information for my daughter until we feel it is appropriate for her to handle. Is it censorship? Don't know, don't care. We will do what we believe is in her best interests.

Jason, I might agree with you when people are limiting information to their kids when they should have it. Should parents speak to an eleven year old girl about sexual matters? I think so. My wife matured early and was a bit confused by the attention she received from older boys. If parents don't own up to the reality that they need to cover some basics with their daughter, they are only hurting her. I don't mean giving her the Karma Sutra either. I talking basic biology and consequences of sexual activity.

There is a time and place for everything. It just shouldn't be too early when it comes to some of the harsher realities in life (death, violence, sex, abusive language).

-DavidCPA

Wow, Tom, you articulated my thoughts better than I would have - who would have thought that a young hip bachelor from LA would be such a great spokesman for an old married guy in the Midwest? -g-

I alternate between weariness and anger at the casual misuse of the term "censorship." Sorry - keeping Screw magazine out of reach of my 9 year old is not censorship. Nor is deciding that I don't want a 4 year old in pajamas in my lap watching a special on the medical tortures of the concentration camps on the History Channel while I read her Goodnight Moon. On the other hand, I will watch that same show with my 15 year old son and discuss it with him. I don't want my 15 year old son to have easy and free access to bestiality photos.

BTW - and this will make me seem like the old right wing conservative that my liberal friends think I am (although I also confound my conservative friends with liberal views on many issues) - I don't consider refusing government funding for certain arts to be censorship. There may be other problems associated with it, it may not be the right choice in some situations, but sponsorship is not a right and the lack of sponsorship is not censorship. Nor is putting ratings on movies or TV shows (or games) censorship.

>Hollywood, musicians, game makers, etc., push inappropriate material on children -- as they have very clearly been doing -- then the government should do exactly what it's doing now: threaten them with the FTC.

The thing that pisses me off about this whole debate is that parents bitch and moan about the horrible things that are being marketed at their kids, and then with the next breath they (the parents) turn around and behave in a way that only serves to reinforce those marketing efforts.

When I was in college (and this was in the early 90's) I worked at Sears and occasionally helped out in the video game area selling the Genesis, SNES, etc. It blew me away how many ten or eleven year old kids came in with enough money to buy a couple games at a pop. And where were the parents? No idea, but they sure weren't in the store. (And before anyone thinks I'm talking about a free-wheeling area of the country like San Francisco, I'm not. This all happened in good ole Lincoln, Nebraska, which I doubt anyone would confuse with liberalism or free-wheeling ideals.)

Ending the marketing efforts aimed at kids is quite simple: Don't give your kids fifty bucks and send them to the mall unattended.

(BTW, none of these comments are meant to be a slam against any of the parents present here. You all seem like good folks who actually take the time and care to be a decent parent.)

Funny, but almost every example of "limiting information" that people gave involved a parent doing what he or she should be doing, and that is BEING A PARENT. Wow! Wild concept here but stay with me...

Why should it be then that government needs to step in a take on the role of a parent? If you don't want your kid seeing pictures of a horse schtupin some women then don't make available access to that kind of material in your home. Period. If that material is available down at the local gas station get the local people together and force the owner by petition or boycott to remove them. Period.

We DON'T need the government to do this for us! They shouldn't be determining what we should and shouldn't be allowed access to. WE should be deciding that for ourselves AND our children.

Basically it goes like this.. Government RIGHT NOW could remove the laws for restricting material to be shown in public (i.e. naked chicks) but that doesn't mean the Target down the street is gonna have a beaver shot up in front of the store in 15 minutes. Target won't do it! And why? because we as a society would not stand for it and thusly Target business would suffer.

Now I am not saying that this is fool proof, or would work completly. I am just using it as an example to show that we, as parents and members in society, can have an impact on and influence the availability of pictures and literature WITHOUT government getting involved.

Hell, if you don't want you kids exposed to this stuff than take an active role in thier life and prevent them from being exposed from it. Also, set an example for them and if they choose they will follow it.

So much of this issue I believe comes down to parents and communities doing thier jobs and not letting "Big Brother" muscle in to "take care of us becuase THEY know what is best". BS.

This country is so flippen Puritanical it makes me really hate being an American somtimes to point where I wish I was French. Geezus! What did I just say! Nooooooooooooo!

Jeff

Just to clarify: I have no problem with parents controlling what their kids see: it's a free country. I *do* have a problem with the government controlling what kids can see regardless of their parent's wishes. Most of the actual questions here fall in the "keeping kids from seeing it unless their parents specifically indicate they should have it" area, and where actions there cross the boundary from "prior consent from parents" to "effective prior restraint."

You can't have "censorship" of children, by the legal definition, because the US government has repeatedly ruled that children have limited first-amendment rights; I agree to some extent. However, if go by the non-legal definition everyone uses, "the government keeping you from seeing something," and the government is the one limiting access, I fail to see what the difference is. Censorship is one of those words that's loaded and carries a full pejorative context, so everyone jumps through hoops to avoid having it applied, but the end result is the same.

To take an example: Cleveland suggested taxing games based on their violent content. Most people (and legal opinion) would say that taxing fiction based on how violent the content is censorship/prior restraint; what's the difference?

'No one brought this up, Jason. (legal solutions) But since you mentioned it, I think most of us agree that kids' access to various forms of information *should* be limited. You want to teach holocaust denial to seventh graders? Condom use to second graders? Zipgun construction for kids in high school?'

How is it going to be done? Voluntary industry standards? I don't see Lieberman getting all fired up about standards - it's a fallback position for the true believers on this subject from government regulation. Requiring parental consent for kids to check out books on controversial subjects is no big deal. Requiring that *no* children can check out books on those subjects is a completely different thing, as the censoring agent is now the government, not the parent. You can go the entire range here, too: requiring parental consent, not having the book in the school library, not having it in the public library, and on up.

Which brings me to:

'Some kids are simply at the bottom end of the gene pool and we really should try to protect them from some influences. That doesn't mean censorship, it means responsible advertising, appropriate content placement, etc.'

When I read things like this, I don't think of "industry groups voluntarily agreeing to rating standards," or even "the FCC imposing broadcast standards based on time of day." I think of absurd prior restraint cases like Cleveland taxing games extra for having blood in them, because *that's what I hear about discussed in the media.* Every time another absurd study comes out suggesting that playing violent games rots kid's brains, the subtext is "games like this should be banned from production," or "games like this should be legally forbidden from sale to those under 18, because there's no telling what the lower-class kids will do when they get a hold of it. Additionally, parents who have no problem with their kids looking at this should be declared unfit by the government."

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you said, Dave, but talking like that about overriding other parents decisions as to what their kids can see is about as inflammatory as you can get on this topic. It also doesn't even separate the group by the guilt standard: bad parents who let their kids watch Stephen King movies because they think they'll enjoy it/get some good out of it get lumped in with the negligent ones that don't think about it.

As for parents limiting more information for their kids than society thinks they should, per sex education and the like, I think that's mostly a different issue. Legally, parents can currently raise their children however they want as long as they're not abusive and send them to school.

I'm pretty liberatarian wrt the government: I don't particularly want them stepping in and making the rules. But it's difficult when some industries display a complete lack of self-regulation.

It's tough raising a kid these days. There are so many influences that try to teach them so many different messages. Schools have decided to start teaching everything from morals to social standards, etc. The problem with that, of course, is that even when I agree with what they're teaching, I still think they should stick to teaching the cores (math, science, history, arts, etc.) and leave the morals education to the parents.

BTW, while I disagree with taxing games or books or whatever based on content, I still think it's a step from censorship. Perhaps because I had quite a few friends in the old Eastern Europe that tasted real censorship - we're definitely spoiled in what we take for granted over here.

Oddly enough, I had exactly two instances of being taught "morals or social standards" the entire time I was in school.

1) That time they let the Gideons talk to us about Jesus right after lunch, on school time, back in 3rd grade. It's amazing they managed to get away with this; mysteriously, they don't do it anymore.

2) Being required to watching a self-loathing HIV+ woman try to scare us into abstinence, or if we really really just *had* to have sex (as an almost aside), to use condoms. The highlight of this one was one of the more clueless seniors asking what "worshipping the one-eyed monster" was after the speaker used the phrase.

Did I luck out by going to the only school in the US without a values agenda?

> Schools have decided to start teaching everything from morals to social standards, etc.

Is the introduction of teaching social norms/morals/whatever a result of the schools wanting to dictate moral standards, or is it because there is a growing reality that parents are completely and utterly failing to do their primary job, which is to be a parent?

From speaking to teachers I know (all of whom are either family members or close friends) it's the latter. A history teacher wants to teach history, period. But in the void created by crummy parents, teachers are under increasing pressure to do something.

"Is the introduction of teaching social norms/morals/whatever a result of the schools wanting to dictate moral standards, or is it because there is a growing reality that parents are completely and utterly failing to do their primary job, which is to be a parent?"

Either way, it isn't the role of the schools. I've got friends who are great teachers, but once you have the schools teaching morals, ethics, politics, etc. you have a school board somewhere deciding what should be taught - and that is fraught with peril. Who is to decide that most parents aren't doing their job? That's a truism we hear a lot - but is it true? Most parents I know and know of are trying their hardest to raise their kids well. If there are a few who aren't, who's to say that the school boards are qualified to decide what should be taught?

In theory I completely agree with Lackey and Chick's posts, but can you name a concerned politician who also happens to be well-informed?
Lieberman has called movie and game ratings systems "Obscure and hard to understand"... what's difficult to understand about E(veryone), Y(oung) A(dult), T(een), M(ature)? I haven't read or seen anything to convince me it isn't merely a way to score points politically, the easy way, so I'm leery of whole thing.

Self-regulation is probably the best way, but historically it's only muzzled and stifled creativity (Comics Code). And I'm frightened by the power of massive retail chains that refuse to carry certain products they deem objectionable. It isn't hard to imagine a day when a producer decides: "We can't afford fund a limited stocked Mature-rated game like Max Payne."

Anyway, I don't find that scenario any more incredible than believing Lieberman truly has my daughter's best interests at heart.

I also agree with Billy above... how do kids (and I think we're mainly concerned about pre-teens here) GET $50 to spend unsupervised?

-Andrew

'From speaking to teachers I know (all of whom are either family members or close friends) it's the latter. A history teacher wants to teach history, period. But in the void created by crummy parents, teachers are under increasing pressure to do something.'

Yep. The old method of dealing with this was just to ignore it, as it's not really the school's responsibility. Where did the push for this sort of thing come from? Some wierd mix of goo-goo liberals "root causes" theory and fundamentalist "values education"?

'I also agree with Billy above... how do kids (and I think we're mainly concerned about pre-teens here) GET $50 to spend unsupervised?'

Parents who aren't concerned about what they spend it on, I guess. This covers both the lazy ones and the ones that trust their kids as mature. ;0

It's impossible to remove the discussion of ethics from schools. Didn't you guys have grade school teachers who told you it was wrong to make fun of a classmate? Wrong to fight? Wrong to not obey the rules?

How can you teach A Merchant of Venice to high school kids and not discuss the ethics in the play? How can you teach WWII and not mention the Holocaust, and how can that not spark a discussion about morality?

You have to give teachers leeway to be teachers. You can't teach literature or history or sociology or any one of a number of disciplines without touching upon society's view of ethical behavior from time to time. If a discussion about Napster comes up in a classroom, why can't the teacher weigh in with his or her views on piracy and intellectual property rights?

'It's impossible to remove the discussion of ethics from schools. Didn't you guys have grade school teachers who told you it was wrong to make fun of a classmate? Wrong to fight? Wrong to not obey the rules?'

Sure, but they did so as asides, or occasional reinforcement when I did something wrong. I never had to set through hour-long pre-emptive strikes where I learned it's bad to lie, for example, with dancing bears and the like.

Merchant of Venice? Talking about the Holocaust? We were lucky if we managed to cover basic math in rural Texas.

---

Quote:

We were lucky if we managed to cover basic math in rural Texas.

---