I still don't get it, we have the ESRB, people, that TELLS you if a game is violent, what level of violence it has, and what age group it is intended for because of that content, The problem I think it still the fact that parents of these underage kids that they're talking about are not being parents and paying attention to what their kids are playing, or what they're letting them buy, and maybe in some cases, what they themselves are buying for the. I just think making a law about it is excessive, the resources are there for parents to control the content coming into their houses is they so please, all they have to do is pay a little more attention and communicating more with their children, instead of letting the TV and the Xbox babysit for them.
Total agreement on that first point. These Supreme Court judges have surprisingly good senses of humour.
As someone who sells video games (albeit in Canada, where all of this shouldn't affect me), I have no problem with not selling M-rated games to minors and don't do it on principle even though our particular store has no official policy on such things.
That said, I really don't like the idea that if I did maybe sell one to someone I didn't card, and as a result could be criminally fined for that. To be told that I broke the law over something like this would be an extra kick in the teeth compared to any angry parents that might come back yelling and screaming at me.
Though to be quite fair, most parents just go "well, they're already playing it at their friend's house, so what can you do?" or something like that. Every time, I just tell them "if you're okay with it, then I'm okay with it."
Which then brings us back to an even bigger problem with this whole court case: this isn't about restricting "M-rated games", this is about restricting "violent games". Far trickier to define, as this hearing is showing.
My question, what do they think of violent? Something like Call of Duty and God of War or something like Brawl? Besides, it's the parent's fault for buying their children rated M games. They're like that for a reason! It's like rated R movies, minors shouldn't see it if it's too mature for them. If the parent is unsure, then don't let them watch/play it. Is it really a hard concept to follow?
Cure Neko (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 11/03/10 | Reply
I've spent my youth playing things like Doom and Duke Nukem. When my mom saw me playing she asked me whether I knew the difference between the games and reality.
It has always been my opinion that, for the most part (I am leaving out the total access the internet can provide), the game industry has regulated well enough. It is the parents that fail. They buy these games with little research and then get mad when they see what it is after they buy. Though I never played them, my mom told me she'd never buy the GTA's. She was pleased that I would never have asked.
One of the biggest flaws in the bill was brought up near the end of the trial, I think, and it's basically that it specifically covers deviant violence against human characters. Under this definition, a developer could easily just paint the characters green or give them pointy years and kids can rape, maim and pillage to their hearts' content. With a loophole that readily abused, I would say enforcing this one is going to be harder than cross-examining a mime.
Last edited by Ace at 11:15:40 PM CDT on November 3, 2010.
Most of the arguments on the censorship side of the fence seem to be circular from what I've read. They sound convincing at first, but I notice they tend to end up answering questions by bringing up points that had already been questioned earlier. They also bring up at least two flawed arguments.
1: Cartoons in general do not bring the level of deviant violence to the table that most of the games under scrutiny here do. I'm running under the assumption that this fella has never heard of Gantz, but even Bugs Bunny has been brought under the microscope when it comes to imitatable violence, and they had just brought him up moments before the statement was made.
2: Video game publishers rate their own games for the level of violence (in defense of a proposed jury ruling on whether a game should be fined for excessive violence). The publishers and developers don't rate anything, the Entertainment Software Rating Board does. If they rated their own games, what's to stop them from slapping an EC on any Grand Theft Auto?
This isn't to say that the defense's arguments are without flaw, or that none of the enforcement side's points are compelling. To some capacity, I do agree that this stuff shouldn't be made readily available to young children, the same way I believe the average episode of CSI is too graphic to be sandwiched between a couple of Saturday morning cartoons.
Oh wait, those don't exist anymore. I miss my childhood.
edelricsan
Otakuite | Posted 11/06/10 | Reply
Great, just what we need- a law doing people's parenting for them. /sarcasm
SG Creations
Otaku Legend | Posted 11/03/10 | Reply
I still don't get it, we have the ESRB, people, that TELLS you if a game is violent, what level of violence it has, and what age group it is intended for because of that content, The problem I think it still the fact that parents of these underage kids that they're talking about are not being parents and paying attention to what their kids are playing, or what they're letting them buy, and maybe in some cases, what they themselves are buying for the. I just think making a law about it is excessive, the resources are there for parents to control the content coming into their houses is they so please, all they have to do is pay a little more attention and communicating more with their children, instead of letting the TV and the Xbox babysit for them.
SomeGuy
Canadian Liaison (Team) | Posted 11/03/10 | Reply
@:
Total agreement on that first point. These Supreme Court judges have surprisingly good senses of humour.
As someone who sells video games (albeit in Canada, where all of this shouldn't affect me), I have no problem with not selling M-rated games to minors and don't do it on principle even though our particular store has no official policy on such things.
That said, I really don't like the idea that if I did maybe sell one to someone I didn't card, and as a result could be criminally fined for that. To be told that I broke the law over something like this would be an extra kick in the teeth compared to any angry parents that might come back yelling and screaming at me.
Though to be quite fair, most parents just go "well, they're already playing it at their friend's house, so what can you do?" or something like that. Every time, I just tell them "if you're okay with it, then I'm okay with it."
Which then brings us back to an even bigger problem with this whole court case: this isn't about restricting "M-rated games", this is about restricting "violent games". Far trickier to define, as this hearing is showing.
lunesoldier20
Otaku Legend | Posted 11/03/10 | Reply
My question, what do they think of violent? Something like Call of Duty and God of War or something like Brawl? Besides, it's the parent's fault for buying their children rated M games. They're like that for a reason! It's like rated R movies, minors shouldn't see it if it's too mature for them. If the parent is unsure, then don't let them watch/play it. Is it really a hard concept to follow?
Neko Nana Mode
Cure Neko (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 11/03/10 | Reply
I've spent my youth playing things like Doom and Duke Nukem. When my mom saw me playing she asked me whether I knew the difference between the games and reality.
It has always been my opinion that, for the most part (I am leaving out the total access the internet can provide), the game industry has regulated well enough. It is the parents that fail. They buy these games with little research and then get mad when they see what it is after they buy. Though I never played them, my mom told me she'd never buy the GTA's. She was pleased that I would never have asked.
My head hurts at the stupidity of the process.
NNM
Raindrop23
Resident Robot (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 11/03/10 | Reply
If violent video games were labelled illegal and subsequently banned, I think I may just have to leave the country.
Ace
Senile Hipster (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 11/03/10 | Reply
@:
One of the biggest flaws in the bill was brought up near the end of the trial, I think, and it's basically that it specifically covers deviant violence against human characters. Under this definition, a developer could easily just paint the characters green or give them pointy years and kids can rape, maim and pillage to their hearts' content. With a loophole that readily abused, I would say enforcing this one is going to be harder than cross-examining a mime.
Last edited by Ace at 11:15:40 PM CDT on November 3, 2010.
Ace
Senile Hipster (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 11/03/10 | Reply
Most of the arguments on the censorship side of the fence seem to be circular from what I've read. They sound convincing at first, but I notice they tend to end up answering questions by bringing up points that had already been questioned earlier. They also bring up at least two flawed arguments.
1: Cartoons in general do not bring the level of deviant violence to the table that most of the games under scrutiny here do. I'm running under the assumption that this fella has never heard of Gantz, but even Bugs Bunny has been brought under the microscope when it comes to imitatable violence, and they had just brought him up moments before the statement was made.
2: Video game publishers rate their own games for the level of violence (in defense of a proposed jury ruling on whether a game should be fined for excessive violence). The publishers and developers don't rate anything, the Entertainment Software Rating Board does. If they rated their own games, what's to stop them from slapping an EC on any Grand Theft Auto?
This isn't to say that the defense's arguments are without flaw, or that none of the enforcement side's points are compelling. To some capacity, I do agree that this stuff shouldn't be made readily available to young children, the same way I believe the average episode of CSI is too graphic to be sandwiched between a couple of Saturday morning cartoons.
Oh wait, those don't exist anymore. I miss my childhood.
Cosmic Moon
Something clever (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 11/03/10 | Reply
Insert usual "where do we stop" argument here.
Last edited by Kitsune24 at 4:43:58 AM CDT on November 3, 2010.