- This topic has 24 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This kind of thing always makes me chuckle. I love games, but its not like a lifestyle choice or something. When people start treating gamers like an oppressed minority group, my reaction is to demand they go outside and do some push-ups.
If you want to know what legislation I’m talking about, go HERE
There is a lot of legislation trying to go through about video games. I keep up with it through several gaming news sites and a lot of the time the things proposed are based on unfounded reason.
It isn’t necessarily only government. The most recent thing I can think of is Here.
But really, that link to the photos comes from the main site. Video Game Voters
An interesting letter from Will Wright is Here.
There is a lot of legislation that gets put out each year trying to regulate, censor, and protect us from video games. The downside to this legislation is that most of the proposals would prevent adults (the majority of gamers) from actually playing non-censored games. The only reason I care is because I’m tired of politicians talking about video games as if they are drugs/malicious.
You say that you find it funny that there is a group of people who care about how games are legislated. How would you like it if a game you wanted to play effectively got banned or censored due to government regulation or if the gaming environment was regulated to the point of less creativity / fun in games? The problem is that politicians are trying to find a cause for a kids bad behavior and since children tend to play video games it must be the problem. No way could it be the fact that their parents aren’t being good parents or that the some people are just plain mental.
I don’t believe the government needs to be involved with the gaming industry. It doesn’t regulate music. It doesn’t regulate movies. It shouldn’t regulate games either. Leave the regulation to the ESRB and the gaming industry. This is essentially what that ‘wall of protest’ is against. Sorry if it seems stupid but some people actually care about whether or not good and interesting games are able to be produced without the government trying to control them.
Things like a federal tax on games are the reason I’m trying to stay informed, sorry that it seems stupid to you.
-Kappa
The problem is that there SHOULD be limitations and censorship in gaming. The original hardcore games that I remember that were advertised as being brutal had parental locks in them. Hell Duke Nukem 3D had parental controls in it. The problem is that developers have quit caring, it no longer matters the age of the buyer so long as the game is being bought.
Some places have carding proceedures in place but they are rarely used. When I bought Doom3 at EB Games I got carded, the 12 year old in front of me bought GTA3 and didn’t get carded. Which game is worse? Did it matter?
Until the government puts a process in place to require carding for games, like the process in place for drugs, the over-zealous political organizations are going to keep pushing for censorship. Instead of blindly bashing politicians for their actions, shouldn’t we be redirecting them in a manner that will really benefit all?
Besides, it is financially impossible for the government to place broadsweeping restrictions on ALL video games. There are simply too many international companies based in the US that depend on this not happening. I wouldn’t worry about any of these bills until they get enough steam to pass either the House or Senate. At that point it will be announced on the news and a *edited*ed off public majority will keep it from passing.
Does anyone remember the original Mortal Kombat? Unless you put in the “blood code” it was a pretty weak game. Maybe games need to have *edited* like that again. Officially, it is illegal to sell a game rated “M” or higher to anyone under 18. It isn’t being enforced. They need to stings like they do with alcohol and tobacco IMO.
aww your a nurse in the child care ward… that’s nice… oh what do i do? well i run sting operations on stores that sell mean video games to kids…
wait… can i get your number?! … wait… i slipped my card in your purse when you weren’t lookin!! call me!!!
Bottom Line: It doesn’t matter.
Do you honestly believe a group advocating “gamers’ rights” is going to get anything done in Washington? When a small group of obsessive hobbyists start churning out angry petitions to Congress, the only logical response is “Hahahahahaha! NNNNNNNNNERDS!!!!!” Legions of *edited*ed off parents will trump these *edited*ant organizations every time. This is a call-to-arms to about .001% of the population. I’m talking about geeks so geeky, they will never reproduce, nor should they. Of all the issues I am taking into consideration while contemplating who to vote for in the coming primary, the candidates’ positions on game legislation are not among them.
The trouble is that politicians don’t consider the complexity of the situation. The problem does not lie with the developers or the ESRB, but rather the retailers. It makes perfect sense that the parental groups are *edited*ed. Idiotic clerks are selling copies of M-Rated games to pre-teens behind their parent’s backs. I’m all for making the ESRB ratings legally binding. If some dumbass sells GTA4 to a kid, he should get fired and the store should be fined. Maybe then they’ll start doing their *edited* jobs.
On a similar note: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the ESRB rating system. AO is a necessary designation. In America, we do not ban games; we just keep them from being readily available. This means 1) Kids won’t see them on the store shelves and 2) Consumers can still buy them if they are willing to jump through an extra hoop or two. The AO rating has been given out only 23 times in the history of the ESRB. Almost all of them are PC porn games. Look it up. If you want to complain that you have to go all the way to the internet to order your copy of “WET – The Sexy Empire,” go for it, but be prepared to get singled out as a crybaby.
Before anyone says anything: I LOOOOOOVE GAMES. M-Rated games included. Two of my biggest interests are video games and politics. At times it seems the two subjects contradict each other, but there is no reason they can’t coexist. It just gets annoying how some people see it as some sort of civil rights issue.
wow… i can look up ao rated games… well *edited* – it’s a day before xmas and NOW i have my wishlist… thanks but a lil late ephraim
but good post
A link to the ESA website. If you want to know about any research done based on gaming/violence/who plays what the go here.
The ESA – All the facts you need to know about Gamers and Violence
The ESRB is not controlled by the Government. It is a self-regulated entity of the gaming industry.
I support the ESRB… There is not good reason for the government to get involved with the sale of video games to minors. No evidence exists to support any claims linking violence to M rated games. Every piece of legislation that has been proposed has been a waste of tax payers money, even a few judges have expressed their concern of this very issue. Violent crimes are down, game sales are up, games are more violent. Explain how this can be with so many ‘minors’ buying violent video games?
First off, in response to Kuros, it is not illegal to sell an M-Rated game to a Minor. It is regulated and agreed upon in the same way that movies and music are. The stores agree with the ESRB not to sell them to minors.
Second, I care because I am going to be a parent. I am involved with this group because of that fact. Do not take out personal attacks on me or this organization without any reason.
Parental Statistics: Go Here
Regardless of this, the percentage of minors buying games has dropped from 85% to 42% since 2000.
Violent crimes amongst teens and children is low, especially when compared to the sale of video games.
If it isn’t illegal to go to a R movie called SAW I, II, or III, then why should it be illegal to sell a game rated M to a minor? I don’t think its the governments right to keep the game out of the child’s hands. It is the parents responsability and right to decide what their child plays. The last thing I want is for the government to start telling me that I’m not allowed to buy X game for my son because there are dumb*edited* parents out there too stupid to care. If I deem him/her mature enough then it should be my choice.
Currently there is 0 evidence linking violent crimes to video games.
Games don’t breed violence
Muskogee Daily Phoenix, OK
June 20, 2006
“…Violent behavior is harmful to society and must be curbed, but despite many claims that violent movies and video games lead to violence, no one can make a direct correlation. It’s more complicated than that.
“Some have decried motion picture violence for years, but violent crime in the United States has declined in recent years. And if even 10 or 20 percent of the children playing violent video games and watching violent movies — just as children in the 1960s watched the Three Stooges batter one another — exhibited violent behavior, then we would be experiencing many more problems with violence than we see right now.
“Simply stopping the sale of violent video games to minors and hiding the games behind counters won’t stop them from getting into the hands of minors.
“…The game industry has established a rating system, and parents are responsible for managing their households and the things to which their children are exposed, and parents should be observing the warning labels.
If the rest of the entertainment industry is self regulated then why can’t the gaming industry be that way as well?
State shouldn’t assume parent’s role in picking which games kids play
The Delaware News Journal
March 21, 2006
“… Not too many years ago critics were blamed teen violence on rock and roll. Plenty of children have played these video games without any effect — other than wasting time. To link an argument about the proper way of raising children to a claim about brain waves does a disservice to the argument. Human beings, even young ones, are more resilient that that.
“The responsibility belongs squarely on the parents.
“…And if the state takes over this function, what kind of police powers would be involved? Will the state be supervising play dates? Would the state actually be effective in enforcing such a law? Or would the law become another dead-letter restriction that is revived periodically when someone raises a stink?
“Video-game supervision belongs in the family, not in the halls of the legislature.”
Rule of the games
Los Angeles Times
December 28, 2005
“When it comes to regulating violent video games, lawmakers are like slow-fingered players who never find the key to the next level. Last week, a federal judge in San Jose placed a temporary hold on a new California law that would make it illegal to rent or sell certain types of violent video games to minors.
“The courts have been unanimous on the issue, with U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte’s ruling being the sixth to find such laws unconstitutional.
“The issue is free speech… The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that states had a ‘rational basis’ for barring shopkeepers from selling sexually explicit magazines to minors, regardless of the 1st Amendment. But the courts have never applied the same rationale to explicit depictions of violence.
“The standard for laws against violent movies, lyrics or games is much higher: States must demonstrate that they have a compelling interest in limiting violent expressions, and that they’re using the least restrictive means to do the job. States cannot ban game sales to minors unless they can show a strong link between game playing and violent behavior, which has yet to be done to any judge’s satisfaction…
“Given the courts’ approach, however, it’s time for lawmakers and game manufacturers to find another way to address the issue. The industry has a more detailed ratings system than Hollywood’s, as well as agreements with numerous retailers to enforce those ratings. And the next generation of game consoles will enable parents to use the ratings to limit which games their kids can play.
“Ultimately, it is a parent’s duty to keep children away from inappropriate video games. Lawmakers who have tried to shift that duty to store clerks are now 0 for 6, and their average isn’t likely to improve — no matter how many times they swing.”
Locked In Mortal Combat With The Media Monster
By Paul K. McMasters
September 21, 2006
First Amendment Center
“….As much as political leaders, advocates, researchers and some parents would like to hope otherwise, sure proof of the cause-and-effect relationship between media content and bad behavior among adults or children remains elusive…. [W]e must not lose sight of the fact that millions upon millions of adults and children play video games….yet they never take up a gun and start spraying bullets into a crowd of innocents.
“….To argue that violence in media causes actual violence, or that indecency in media causes harmful sexual adventurism, is to argue that the cleansing of movies, TV, radio, video games, comic books, the Internet and even books will remove crime, perversion and other unpleasantness from our midst.
“….There should be no surprise or shock that human beings gravitate toward entertainment that reflects life, stimulates the senses, sparks a laugh, offers an excuse to waste a bit of time. It is somewhat of a surprise to realize that so many of us lack the confidence in our own ability to distinguish between life and fantasy or between cause and effect.”
America the Parent?
By Brian Glidden
July 12, 2006
Hawaii Reporter, HI
“…The gaming industry has already created an effective self-regulatory system. This system’s primary goal is to help parents make the decision about what is appropriate for their children by providing adequate information about the content of such games, on both the packaging and in various product reviews.
“…Particularly in an environment in which computer gaming companies have taken it upon themselves to inform their customers of what they are buying, the creator’s rights to freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution should be protected from political interference.
“…Parents, not video games, raise children. Video games, like movies, music, and novels, represent an escape from reality. Parents have the opportunity and responsibility to teach children fundamentals about fact and fairy tale, right and wrong, good and evil. Without these fundamentals, children will fail the test of life even if video games were banned altogether…
“Parents, who know their children better than do Washington lawmakers, must choose what is appropriate for their children. There is no need for new burdensome, impractical regulation that undermines the principles of liberty on which our country was founded—especially when the rules won’t work and are unconstitutional, anyway.”
Think twice before bashing video gamers
By Brian Slupski
July 2, 2006
Northwest Herald, IL
“…In case you missed it, video games have surpassed rap music as the leading bogeyman out to suck the innocence out of America’s youth.
“The theory goes that kids will play violent video games and become violent…
“I always have been incredulous about such arguments. Kids today seem the same as kids in the past.
“…Surely, if violent video games are a dangerous influence on this nation’s youth, there should be some indications of that. Juvenile violent crimes, particularly homicide, should be getting worse.
“So I went to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which is part of the Justice Department. My findings were shocking.”
“From 1994 to 2003, violent crimes by juveniles dropped 32 percent.
“…Murder committed by juveniles declined by 68 percent over that time period [1994 to 2003]. In fact, the number of juvenile arrests in 2003 was the lowest since 1987. Even more good news, the number of juveniles murdered in 2003 was at its lowest since 1984.
“…We often tend to focus on the negative. And we often tend to think that the times we live in are uniquely bad, while nostalgically thinking that yesteryear was uniquely good. Neither is true.”
Fact and Fiction in the Debate Over Video Game Regulation
Progress on Point, The Progress & Freedom Foundation
Adam Thierer
March 20, 2006
Complete report text at: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.7videogames.pdf
Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow and Director of PFF’s Center for Digital Media Freedom, identifies six myths commonly used in support of government regulation of game content and points out why each is flawed:
*
Myth: The industry’s voluntary ratings scheme fails to provide comprehensive information and is not stringently enforced.
To the contrary, the industry’s self-imposed ratings system is the most sophisticated, descriptive, and effective ratings system ever devised by any major media sector in America. In addition to a standardized ratings structure, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) also provides over 30 descriptors with detailed information on game content. The ESRB also imposes corrective action, including monetary fines, when marketing or rating industry standards have been breached.
*
Myth: The majority of video games contain excessive violence or adult-themed material.
In reality, the vast majority of video games sold each year do not contain intense violence or sexual themes. In 2005, less than 13 percent of electronic games received a “mature” or “adults only” rating from the ESRB. Moreover, over 80 percent of the top twenty selling electronic games over the past five years have been rated “for everyone” or “teen” by the ESRB.
*
Myth: Proposals to restrict the sale of violent video games will be deemed constitutional in the courts.
State and local laws attempting to regulate video games have been struck down as unconstitutional. Of the six of the cases detailed in the paper, all the decisions cited First Amendment concerns, vague legislative language, and lack of scientific evidence of a link between aggressive behavior and video games.
*
Myth: Federal regulation will build on the industry’s ratings system, not install a burdensome regulatory regime.
Congressional intervention could cause game developers to abandon the industry’s voluntary ratings system because of fear of legal liability. If enough developers do so, it could lead to the adoption of a federally mandated regulatory regime / ratings system. Any government ratings system would raise serious First Amendment concerns.
*
Myth: There is a direct correlation between exposure to violent video games and decline in social and cultural indicators.
No correlation between video games and aggressive behavior has been proven. Moreover, almost every social / cultural indicator of importance, such as juvenile violent crime, has been improving in recent years and decades. These improvements have occurred even as media exposure and video game use among youth has increased.
*
Myth: Video games have no social or educational value and instead reflect a new societal preoccupation with violent entertainment.
Contemporary electronic games often require the player to use complex cognitive skills, such as analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, and tracking subtle narrative intertwinings and patterns. Some scholars also believe games can have cathartic benefits. Finally, contrary to what some critics claim, violent themes and images have been part of literature and other forms of entertainment for centuries.
Thierer concludes that legislative proposals to regulate electronic games are driven by myths and misinformation regarding ratings, content and possible effects of the games. The industry has established an independent, comprehensive ratings system that provides extensive descriptive information about game content. This system has so far been effective. A federal regulatory regime could prove to be cumbersome, unconstitutional and have a “chilling” effect on expression and creativity.
A bill of rights for parents, not the feds
Philadelphia Inquirer
By Robert D. Richards and Clay Calvert
January 4, 2006
In the waning weeks of 2005, four different federal courts across the country issued rulings that, viewed collectively, reinforce the right of parents to make private choices regarding their children’s lives, free from government-imposed intermeddling.
While these cases should be heralded by pro-family organizations that routinely rail against government interference into the parenting process, they instead are lambasted by these same groups, as well as some sympathetic lawmakers who find political expediency in catering to a small yet vociferous faction of the electorate…
When it comes to video games depicting images of violence, it is somewhat easier to sympathize with legislators wanting to impose government-mandated ratings on the games and to prohibit minors from purchasing them. Many adults, after all, would find the content of some games such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas offensive, disagreeable or repulsive.
But that is precisely the point. Since we cannot all agree on what speech is offensive, disagreeable or repulsive, we should not allow the government to impose its determinations and ratings about those subjects on consumers, including parents.
…When the government imposes its own ratings on video games and determines what’s appropriate entertainment for minors, it has stepped firmly and deeply into the culture wars and interfered with decisions affecting the First Amendment freedom of speech. Once again, the proper arena for setting the bounds of personal culture is neither the courts nor the schools nor the legislatures. Rather, it is the home, and the right and duty falls to parents. We should trust parents to make their own decisions about what games their children should or shouldn’t be allowed to play.”
I argue that the government has no place in regulating the video game industry. There is no proof or evidence of a causal relationship between video games and violence. The government currently has NO control over any electronic entertainment and I see no point in its involvement with the gaming industry.
The Xbox 360 has parental controls that allow you to set a password stopping the play of M rated games. It also has a way for parents to limit the amount of time spent playing per day. The ESRB is doing more now than it ever has to keep games out of minors hands without the permission of the parent.
I say that if the parent deems his/her child mature enough to play the game then it is not the place of the government to say otherwise, unless they have proof that it is damaging to the child.
No evidence exists to support government regulation. No laws should be passed that stifle gaming creatitivity and tell me what I can buy for my children.
-Kappa
PS: Please have some facts before you start responding off of emotion. I have studied and kept up with this topic for about three years. If you don’t know what your talking about, don’t waste your time here.
Oh, I’m not saying there is any solid evidence linking real life violence to violent games; I’m saying that parents have the right to protect their children from games they find innapropriate and retailers who ignore common sense hinder this. The government itself should not assign ratings, but fining stores that sell M-Rated games to kids is just a good idea. The jist of my post was that these organizations you have linked to have no power and never will because they take this stuff way too seriously (see previous post
) and can’t compete with the parental groups that oppose them. The game industry is bigger than movies and the top-selling game of the year was Halo 3. I see no eminent crisis.Edit:
Oh, yeah. This guy scares the hell out of Joe Lieberman. “Look out fascists! Here comes the Gamertrain!”
well… my plasma grenade is complete… it just won’t stick to anything… so crisis is almost eminent…
but being serious…
I think we’re all agreeing here, Kappa everything you’ve posted says the same thing as everyone who’s posted on here. The rating system works, laws won’t pass, it’s the parents duty. It always has been, when I was young I couldn’t watch the terminator until like 2 years after it came out. My parents didn’t want me to see the violence or whatever. Porky’s was kept on a higher shelf (thank god for stools), and we kept the guns locked up. I mean it’s basically common sense will prevail. Look around you, i’m sure you’ll see 3+ game boxes in plain view, grab one of them and see how long it takes you to find a rating… 10 seconds for all 3?? And it’s not like we hide the boxes so a parent can’t walk into the room and see an ma rating and just say, look i don’t think this is appropriate for you, let’s get you something else instead that you’ll be happy with. I completely agree with kappa that it’s the parents responsibilities. Would you see your child playing with a random weapon and not give it a second look? Maybe it’s an airsoft gun he got with his friend… maybe it’s a nerfgun. Regardless if you didn’t know about it i’m sure you’d ask a question or two. I’m not trying to compare video games to guns or anything else. But it’s the same thing about parents not caring… It seems that parents nowadays (possibly because when we were growing up there was a lot of teenage pregnancies, more than any other time – i’m 23) but the expect everything to be done for them. It’s not someone else’s fault your kid is watching girls gone wild and playing san andreas. Talk to the *edited* kid.
Ok well that’s my rant/look on things.
Yes. Parental responsibility is the core of the issue. However, kids are surprisingly resourceful. If the parents say no, they can simply head on over to a game shop and pick up the game behind their parents’ back. That or go to their friend’s house. That’s how my friend’s grandson got his hand’s on 50 Cent: Bulletproof. The thing that puzzles me is how making the ESRB legally actionable somehow takes power away from the parents. If a parent still wishes to buy an M-Rated game for their kids, they can. If they don’t, their kids can’t go behind their back and buy it themself. It seems to me that this law would actually give the parents more power.
…
Oh, I can’t resist another dig at the Wall Of Shame. How can anyone look at that thing and not see a comedy? If you replace the words “Video Game Voters Network: Wall of Protest” with “God’s Mistakes: A Gallery of Horror!” the effect is largely the same. Meditate on that a while.
Well as a guy that’s going to be a dad in a mere 2.5 months, I wouldn’t want my son going into a game store and picking up some crazy game and me not know about it. Let’s say his friend’s mom takes them and she’s less than up to speed on what ratings are and what is in video games. Now my kid has a game I don’t want him to have at his particular age because there was nothing to prevent him from getting it. I think it should be regulated to protect kids. Just a parent’s POV. I’m all about freedom to put whatever you want into a video game. I just don’t think that some games are for all ages, and I’d like to know that the gaming community has my child’s interests in mind.
Kuros said:
Well as a guy that’s going to be a dad in a mere 2.5 months, I wouldn’t want my son going into a game store and picking up some crazy game and me not know about it. Let’s say his friend’s mom takes them and she’s less than up to speed on what ratings are and what is in video games. Now my kid has a game I don’t want him to have at his particular age because there was nothing to prevent him from getting it. I think it should be regulated to protect kids. Just a parent’s POV. I’m all about freedom to put whatever you want into a video game. I just don’t think that some games are for all ages, and I’d like to know that the gaming community has my child’s interests in mind.Thats why the ESRB exists, to regulate the sale of games. Your child will be more likely to get into an R rated movie than be able to buy a M rated video game. He will be a lot more likely to be able to buy a unrated or R rated movie before being able to buy an M rated game. There is even a greater chance that he will be able to buy an explicit CD. The ESRB is the best in the business for regulating ratings and they are getting better.
No law is going to prevent a kids, friends, parent from buying a game and him/her being exposed to it. That will simply be up to each individual parent to control as best they can. It is the parents responsibility, especially in their own home, to monitor what their child plays/does.
I find it pretty hard to believe that my kid will be able to get the transportation and the money to buy an M rated game without me knowing about it. If he/she is that resourceful and I’m that blind then I would think they would find any means to get the game, regardless of the laws against the store. If he has the money and it disappears I’ll be suspicious and look into it. Really there is no excuse for a parent not knowing that their child is playing some game they don’t want them to be playing. With the parental controls on consoles and the ability to limit what is installed on a PC, I really don’t see this being a problem for a responsible parent.
Also, based on my personal experience of not being limited what I could watch/listen to/play when I was a child, I have not once thought of killing another person. I have never wanted to steal a car. I get queasy at the sight of real blood or bad injuries. My personal experience is part of my own decision that games are an outlet and not an influence, at least not an influence to any lasting degree. At most a person will be upset in an immediate sense of losing a game, but thats normal for any game, digital or not.
The way I see it, the parent is the only real control over games. The fact that there isn’t any ‘proof’ of harm to a minor when playing an M rated game makes it impossible for any law to be passed currently. I guess I feel more inclined to parental rights and parental responsibility over the government telling me what media is safe for my child. Hell the news is often more harmful, because its real, than most M rated games. But thats just my opinion.
Either way, let the parents be parents. *edited* nanny states.
Consider two examples:
A: A 12 year old asks his parents to get him the latest GTA. The parents say “We don’t want you playing those games until you’re older.” The kid gets mad, but relents. The next day, he goes to the mall with his friends and picks up a copy. He plays only when he is at his friend’s house or when his parents are asleep.
B: A 12 year old asks his parents to get him the latest GTA. The parents say “Sure thing!” The next day, the parents pick up the game and present it to their kid. The whole family spends the night running over little old ladies and beating police officers with rubber phalluses. A grand time is had by all!
Now, ask yourself: Which example is more commonplace? Now ask: The parents of which example stand to benefit more from the criminalization of selling M-Rated games to minors? Do you understand why this law would help more people than it momentarily hinders?
The key flaw of Kappamerc’s logic is that parents who are fine with their kids playing GTA and Bioshock still have the authority to let them. They simply have to purchase the game themselves. Heaven forbid they actually have to go all the way to the store and hold the case in their hands. Think about how gamers in general will benefit: If selling the games direct to kids are actionable, then less clerks will be inclined to do it. Less incidents where parents find their kids playing these games behind their backs means the industry itself will gain a more responsible reputation. The parents still have control over their kids; the gamers still get to play all the M-Rated games they wish; the developers get less hate letters. Everybody wins.
PS:
This ain’t helping your argument.
its up to the parents…not the government. Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton can go to hell…that is all
Honestly, I do believe some bad behavior in children is based on overly violent video games (however, these children most likely have had some behavior issues anyways). God, the number of times I’ve been in a pre-game lobby of Gears of War with a bloodthirsty 8-year-old. Something’s wrong with that. However, I propose that it’s not the lack of enforcement of the ESRB standards. Nearly every store I’ve been to upholds that rule. The problem is that parents are ignorant and weak. It makes my heart warm when I see a Gamestop employee sit and explain what all is in that Grand Theft Auto game Timmy wants for Christmas to his naive mother, and then suggest other age appropriate games he might/should enjoy.
The government needs to stay out of the gaming industry, I agree. If there was only legislation that could regulate better parenting, well then, we’d all be better off. The government only exists for a system of rules with built in institutions of punishment as well as providing defense for personal properties and even a judicial system. Nothing more. They can’t babysit everybody and nor should they. They do a hell of a lot more than they should.
Some sort of survey should go out across homes asking
1) If they know what kind of content is in “insert title here”
2) If they own it, why did they buy it?
3) And who is it for? Who plays it?
And I’d bet you’d find the homes where an overly violent child is. Especially one who plays said game over Live or on servers.
Granted, some children do age and mature faster than others. That’s why ultimately the parent gets to say what is appropriate for their child. Some can handle Halo and Gears at ages below 18 (but no younger than 13/14 I’d imagine). Meanwhile, I believe what games the parents buy should be limited by their morals and virtues, specifically in games of extreme realism (i.e. mainly GTA). Honestly, I refuse to play that game because of its story and content, just because I know my nephew looks up to me and I have to be careful what I play and expose him to, even if his parents don’t really care.
———
Bottom line/Shorter version for those who don’t care to read that much:
Government shouldn’t regulate anything. Parents need to step up and become educated while getting a backbone and spanking the kid who’s throwing a tantrum over wanting the newest GTA.
I agree with ephraim’s point of what will be done about the game in question… which is why there should always be a counter-point. That’s how you win any argument in anything. I want this, no you can’t have that, but since i wanted to get you something, how about this….. Make a strong counter-offer for something they also want that you can agree with, and you completely avoid the issue. They might play it at a friends house that has it, but they will be happy with their new purchase. How many times do kids want candy or something, and the parent says no, but then comes up with some other way to make the kid happy… it’s the same thing.
You are right ephram, my logic in that regard is flawed. Parents can still buy the game for their children. However politicians, as they always do, will use this law as a stepping stone for more control out of a needless fear that the youth of the nation will turn into freaks of nature. Below I talk about the newer laws proposed that seek to give government control of the ESRB. This isn’t needed because the ESRB is doing its job. Given that this kind of law is already being proposed, the needless law for fining a manager because an employee sold an M-Rated game to someone under 17 would only give it more strength in being passed.
Oh and that picture doesn’t help my argument because of how the guy looks? Hell my brother looks like an emo depressed suicidal freak but hes smarter than most people I know. I see no flaw in his actual statement and I’m sorry but I try not to judge a book by its cover.
I think that most M-Rated games end up in kids hands because of dumb parents or an older friend/relative buying it for them. Most kids don’t have the resources to actually get to a store and buy the game on their own.
Since there is no proof to a threat in the child’s safety the government has no place getting involved.
As far as carding goes, I’ve been carded to buy every mature game this year. WalMart is die hard at carding me and the few times I made the trip to Gamestop I also got carded. I can see me at 60 with white hair getting carded for the latest game! xD.
Moving on the the real issue:
The new thing that politicians are trying is to get government control over the ESRB. Politicians have been treating the ESRB like it isn’t doing its job without any evidence of their claims. In fact all the evidence points to the fact that the ESRB is doing more than any other rating organization. If the government starts controlling how games are rated, what is allowed in a game, etc… then a lot of companies will be forced to cookie cutter their games based on some guidelines for what can and cannot be in a game. What if they decide that blood and gore should be AO content? Then the US never gets any games because console makers don’t support AO rated games and stores in the US won’t sell them. Since consoles are localized you can’t buy a foreign version and expect it to work. Above all else, I want games to be fresh and new with new ideas that aren’t limited because of some regulations that tell gaming companies what is appropriate and what isn’t. I think the government having control over the ratings system isn’t part of their jurisdiction unless the ratings pose a real threat to our society.
How many people never saw porn until they were 18?
How many people never saw violence until they were 17?
How many people never heard cursing and hateful language before they were 17?
28.2% of gamers are under the age of 18 and the average player age is 33 according to the ESA. Laws that are proposed that would limit content allowed in games is aimed to protect children. I simply don’t want it to turn out that I can’t play a game with its full content because little Johnny’s parents are too stupid to raise their child properly. Total censorship is wrong. The ability to control the content from the console or computer is the best solution. Laws are stepping stones, once one is passed a new one with more restriction will be proposed. This always happens and we have to be careful when we start supporting and throwing out laws just because they make things a little easier. With the current progress of the ESRB there isn’t a reason to have the law. Companies are abiding by the carding rule most of the time. Even with the law there still wouldn’t be a 100% guarantee that a kid can’t buy the M rated game. I know lots of underage people that have always found ways to get porn, cigarettes, and alcohol. We don’t need the law. Our youth aren’t going to be crazy gun shooting maniacs. (Well some of them might because they are crazy)
No matter what laws we make, our children will still be exposed to the content. At least in gaming, it isn’t real. A kid can better distinguish real from fake in a video game than they can from a live action movie, the news, or any television show. For any console game the parents CAN put parental controls on. Even if their kid buys the game, they can’t play it if it is mature. A kid cannot play the game in the middle of the night, without the code. In the case of playing at a friends house, this will still be a problem regardless of a law forcing retailers to card for M rated games. (Which they do most of the time anyways).
I stand by the fact that laws won’t prevent a kid from playing a game but having informed parents will.
The ESRB is doing its job. The game stores are getting better and better at carding. Why should the government get involved? I have yet to hear a good reason. We don’t need to give the government a precedence on which it can ultimately control the gaming industry through controlling the ESRB. One law always leads to a more strict law. Parents need to be informed, kids should be carded, between the ESRB, parents, and the game stores we can regulate this without government involvement.
I don’t want the government having any say in this industry unless the gaming industry poses a real threat to society. The fact is, it doesn’t, and the government has no place getting involved.
Either way, I’m not trying to convince anyone one way or another. I simply believe that this law is not needed given the gaming industries progress with regulating its game distribution and its ability to rate games. I support the gaming industry fully. I support the ESRB fully. Given how the government has mismanaged many other things in recent memory I don’t think giving more responsibility there is a good idea. The more red tape we put in front of the gaming industry the longer it takes to create content and the less freedom there is for new creative ideas to be put into games. These are just things to think about.
-Kappa
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.