(left out all the rest it was getting too long to quote)
The outcry is not for the rating system itself as it's redundant as something almost exactly like it is already in place. It's the idea that it goes from a guidance program where parents police their kids to the goverment policing the stores sales. Trust me if the goverment gets involved it gets messy real quick. They like to throw fines like it's no tomorrow. Then theres ease of blaming the store for selling the game instead of the parent policing their child removing that responsibility that should be on the parent instead of the store. The store is selling the product, it's behind closed glass cases or behind the counter in most cases or somewhere where the kid can't get a hold of it. So the current rating system should be enough
Then you got special interest groups coming in trying to change the meaning on things. It's not the here and now we "knee jerk " to it's the possible things this kind of thing can lead to. Better to nip it in the butt now before the dam breaks so to speak.
Movie theaters are not allowed, by law, to allow minors in to see a rated R movie without a parent or guardian present. And they do get fined for it if they are caught doing it. Just like on Television, the broadcasting companies get fined if they let the F-bomb slip without censoring it. This is nothing new, and the laws are catching up with the technology is the only difference.
Edit: tricky person, edited on me while i was typing. Yes a parent should be there to buy something above the rating. The rating system as it stands is teen, mature, adult only with everything else being everyone with only E10 being for 10 and above. That means the content for teen is suitable for ages 13 and up, mature 17 and up and AO 18 and up, this is how it works in movies, no reason to change just change the name. If the kid is young enough (below 16) to purchase a game that will have violence where are the parents? why are they not with that kid to inspect what he buys? I know you want your kid to be safe when he goes out but frankly making the stores liable for a product is just going to make them not want to carry the product for fear of getting fined if one of their employees accidently sells a game mixed in with other games to a minor. Thus lowers sales, thus makes games like the ones others might enjoy more scarce to find.
That's the problem. In the current situation, a parent does not NEED to be present for a child to buy an adult game. That's what this bill is intending to fix. The problem with the bill is that it's trying to crudely emulate a rating system which the ESRB rating system should be its basis.
That comes back to the question why is the parent not with that child when the child goes shopping? Granted the store shouldn't sell it to the child. I don't fault you there but then the parent should be there to say no, you shouldn't be selling this to my kid. Only the parent knows whats right. The rating system as it is now just tries to catogrize the things in the game down to rating system. It's up to parent to decide whats right and whats wrong for said person.
Putting the rating system in the hands of the goverment will makes the stores watch what they sell but also will make them more skiddish about what they sell at all for fear of the fines.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
(left out all the rest it was getting too long to quote)
The outcry is not for the rating system itself as it's redundant as something almost exactly like it is already in place. It's the idea that it goes from a guidance program where parents police their kids to the goverment policing the stores sales. Trust me if the goverment gets involved it gets messy real quick. They like to throw fines like it's no tomorrow. Then theres ease of blaming the store for selling the game instead of the parent policing their child removing that responsibility that should be on the parent instead of the store. The store is selling the product, it's behind closed glass cases or behind the counter in most cases or somewhere where the kid can't get a hold of it. So the current rating system should be enough
Then you got special interest groups coming in trying to change the meaning on things. It's not the here and now we "knee jerk " to it's the possible things this kind of thing can lead to. Better to nip it in the butt now before the dam breaks so to speak.
Movie theaters are not allowed, by law, to allow minors in to see a rated R movie without a parent or guardian present. And they do get fined for it if they are caught doing it. Just like on Television, the broadcasting companies get fined if they let the F-bomb slip without censoring it. This is nothing new, and the laws are catching up with the technology is the only difference.
Kids still do get in to the movies and they still do get around this so the law saying a movie threater gets fined doesn't stop the kid from getting it. It just makes the threater held accountable instead of the parent.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Edit: tricky person, edited on me while i was typing. Yes a parent should be there to buy something above the rating. The rating system as it stands is teen, mature, adult only with everything else being everyone with only E10 being for 10 and above. That means the content for teen is suitable for ages 13 and up, mature 17 and up and AO 18 and up, this is how it works in movies, no reason to change just change the name. If the kid is young enough (below 16) to purchase a game that will have violence where are the parents? why are they not with that kid to inspect what he buys? I know you want your kid to be safe when he goes out but frankly making the stores liable for a product is just going to make them not want to carry the product for fear of getting fined if one of their employees accidently sells a game mixed in with other games to a minor. Thus lowers sales, thus makes games like the ones others might enjoy more scarce to find.
That's the problem. In the current situation, a parent does not NEED to be present for a child to buy an adult game. That's what this bill is intending to fix. The problem with the bill is that it's trying to crudely emulate a rating system which the ESRB rating system should be its basis.
That comes back to the question why is the parent not with that child when the child goes shopping? Granted the store shouldn't sell it to the child. I don't fault you there but then the parent should be there to say no, you shouldn't be selling this to my kid. Only the parent knows whats right. The rating system as it is now just tries to catogrize the things in the game down to rating system. It's up to parent to decide whats right and whats wrong for said person.
Putting the rating system in the hands of the goverment will makes the stores watch what they sell but also will make them more skiddish about what they sell at all for fear of the fines.
a 14-year-old can go to the mall with his friends on his own, but I would have a problem with my kid being able to walk into a store and buy alcohol. Just the same, I have a problem that my kid can walk into a store and buy a game that's not appropriate for him.
Movie theaters are not allowed, by law, to allow minors in to see a rated R movie without a parent or guardian present. And they do get fined for it if they are caught doing it. Just like on Television, the broadcasting companies get fined if they let the F-bomb slip without censoring it. This is nothing new, and the laws are catching up with the technology is the only difference.
Kids still do get in to the movies and they still do get around this so the law saying a movie threater gets fined doesn't stop the kid from getting it. It just makes the threater held accountable instead of the parent.
I'll quote what I said with my original post, "Of course kids can work around it if they're really dead set on getting what they want (like alcohol and ciggs), but it's a deterrent, not a infallible system of corporate parenting."
Movie theaters are not allowed, by law, to allow minors in to see a rated R movie without a parent or guardian present. And they do get fined for it if they are caught doing it. Just like on Television, the broadcasting companies get fined if they let the F-bomb slip without censoring it. This is nothing new, and the laws are catching up with the technology is the only difference.
Kids still do get in to the movies and they still do get around this so the law saying a movie threater gets fined doesn't stop the kid from getting it. It just makes the threater held accountable instead of the parent.
I'll quote what I said with my original post, "Of course kids can work around it if they're really dead set on getting what they want (like alcohol and ciggs), but it's a deterrent, not a infallible system of corporate parenting."
So if it doesn't stop em whats the point in it at all? why not leave it the way it is if changing it isn't going to stop em?
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Richars's ooint that Arnie did't seem to have a problem mutilating humans when the Terminator was profitable.
That said, it is a fact that the armed services uses human targets for practice now. Why? Because abot 70% ( can't remember the exact number..sry) of soldiers killed in battle had never fired their weapon. The number halved when trained shooting human figures in practice. I'm sure this was in the pro-law group's petition.
A counterpoint..and a huge one is that the gaming industry is far better than the porn or movie industry in tagging content that should be a parents choice.
Gaming seems to be the target of the day.
I an NOT willing to support any law that intrudes on personal freedoms! Loose a little one and it always seems to get pushed to the next level. Freedom is precious and should never be given away, particularly to the government who, to often, know very little about the 'cause of the day, other than it is the cause du jour ( and a chance to get in front of a camera).
(left out all the rest it was getting too long to quote)
The outcry is not for the rating system itself as it's redundant as something almost exactly like it is already in place. It's the idea that it goes from a guidance program where parents police their kids to the goverment policing the stores sales. Trust me if the goverment gets involved it gets messy real quick. They like to throw fines like it's no tomorrow. Then theres ease of blaming the store for selling the game instead of the parent policing their child removing that responsibility that should be on the parent instead of the store. The store is selling the product, it's behind closed glass cases or behind the counter in most cases or somewhere where the kid can't get a hold of it. So the current rating system should be enough
Then you got special interest groups coming in trying to change the meaning on things. It's not the here and now we "knee jerk " to it's the possible things this kind of thing can lead to. Better to nip it in the butt now before the dam breaks so to speak.
Movie theaters are not allowed, by law, to allow minors in to see a rated R movie without a parent or guardian present. And they do get fined for it if they are caught doing it. Just like on Television, the broadcasting companies get fined if they let the F-bomb slip without censoring it. This is nothing new, and the laws are catching up with the technology is the only difference.
Kids still do get in to the movies and they still do get around this so the law saying a movie threater gets fined doesn't stop the kid from getting it. It just makes the threater held accountable instead of the parent.
As well the theater should be accountable. It is not the parent's job to be on their kid's tail 24/7, but if you have something out there that's not appropriate for kids, you're responsible for keeping it out of the hands of kids. That's like a liquor store selling to a kid and then asking, "Well, where was his parents?" when they start pointing fingers at him.
Movie theaters are not allowed, by law, to allow minors in to see a rated R movie without a parent or guardian present. And they do get fined for it if they are caught doing it. Just like on Television, the broadcasting companies get fined if they let the F-bomb slip without censoring it. This is nothing new, and the laws are catching up with the technology is the only difference.
Kids still do get in to the movies and they still do get around this so the law saying a movie threater gets fined doesn't stop the kid from getting it. It just makes the threater held accountable instead of the parent.
I'll quote what I said with my original post, "Of course kids can work around it if they're really dead set on getting what they want (like alcohol and ciggs), but it's a deterrent, not a infallible system of corporate parenting."
So if it doesn't stop em whats the point in it at all? why not leave it the way it is if changing it isn't going to stop em?
It DOES stop them though. Instead of theaters not caring who gets in, they won't allow minors in to see them to the best of their ability. That would NOT happen if the laws weren't in place.
Richars's ooint that Arnie did't seem to have a problem mutilating humans when the Terminator was profitable.
That said, it is a fact that the armed services uses human targets for practice now. Why? Because abot 70% ( can't remember the exact number..sry) of soldiers killed in battle had never fired their weapon. The number halved when trained shooting human figures in practice. I'm sure this was in the pro-law group's petition.
A counterpoint..and a huge one is that the gaming industry is far better than the porn or movie industry in tagging content that should be a parents choice.
Gaming seems to be the target of the day.
I an NOT willing to support any law that intrudes on personal freedoms! Loose a little one and it always seems to get pushed to the next level. Freedom is precious and should never be given away, particularly to the government who, to often, know very little about the 'cause of the day, other than it is the cause du jour ( and a chance to get in front of a camera).
No one's saying that the content can't be in the game, they're saying that it's the vendor's responsibility to ensure it does not pass hands to kids under their watch.
This will certainly continue if we ban and prohibit , instead of educate . Minors need to see in a very limited and controlled way , that violence has real effects on real people . We should not alllow them to only see the exhilarating and without consequence side of violence that exists in video games only , not without education. And while violence can be a factor in ones life without choice and one should be prepared in some degree to deal with it , the video-game industry only cares for it beeing exciting and addictive . That being said , I am pro parent choice , but keep in mind that just forbidding makes it more exciting and wanted by teenagers ...
There's a very simple solution to this: Rate games the same as movies and add similar restrictions. (i.e. A game that is rated R requires that an adult be present for a minor to purchase the game.) These laws are about assisting parents in parenting, not parenting FOR parents. A typical parent doesn't want their 14-year-old coming home from the mall with a video game of strip poker. Of course kids can work around it if they're really dead set on getting what they want (like alcohol and ciggs), but it's a deterrent, not a infallible system of corporate parenting.
You'd be surprised how many parents let their 12 year olds buy, say, GTA IV because "all my friends have it and if I don't buy it, I'll be a loser!"
Put whatever rating you want on it, it still comes down to the parents saying "No" and not trying to be their kid's best friend all the time.
I wholly agree. I know I'm running the risk of turning this into a heated debate, but it's the parents that let their child buy GTA games that makes proper parent's jobs a living nightmare.
Why is that? The guy next door letting his kid buy it doesn't affect what you allow to your own kid.
It affects the entire neighborhood in which they live unless they keep their children in the house and don't allow them to interract with other children. There's a problem with people who are so self-centered that they feel their actions do not have reaching consequences.
Sorry but me playing a video game like GTA does not affect my neighbor unless i have the sound too high, then it's just an annoyance. To think somehow me playing a game is going to affect the next person is wrong. I just don't understand how you came to this conclusion so i'm going to step back and allow you to explain how this is even possible before i proceed further.
Other peoples' children are my child's peers whether I like it or not, and their actions directly affect my child and my raising him. Do you realize how difficult it is to explain in terms a young man can grasp why Johnny can have GTA and he can't?
You use the same reason the rest of us use, the same reason our fathers and grandfathers used: "Because I said so.".
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
The Gov. of CA makes a good point about video games and violence, my cousin who lives in CA says that part of the law came about due to the Player Vs Player Environment in which several dozen teens who committed murders and other violent acts got the idea from playing online games that had player vs player. They named such games as World of Warcraft, Warhammer Online, Everquest 1 and 2 and slew of others.
I'm not in California or I don't reach much of their news. Can you post any links referring such events? Honest request.
I live in California, and I'd like to see the links to all these incidents as well.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
The Gov. of CA makes a good point about video games and violence, my cousin who lives in CA says that part of the law came about due to the Player Vs Player Environment in which several dozen teens who committed murders and other violent acts got the idea from playing online games that had player vs player. They named such games as World of Warcraft, Warhammer Online, Everquest 1 and 2 and slew of others.
I'm not in California or I don't reach much of their news. Can you post any links referring such events? Honest request.
I live in California, and I'd like to see the links to all these incidents as well.
I'd like to know if this is a cult or something. I've heard of entire cults mass killing themselves over a belief. That or if there was something wrong (i mean that in a physcial/mental way not a derogitory fashion) with their minds or some other handicap.
Usually it's not down to the game. It's down to some other unknown factor like having the worse day of your life (getting dumped, losing your wallet and other personals, losing your job, getting yelled at by people, getting turned on by family members) and the game is final straw ala the i love you guys thing that happened with EQ1, or having a disorder that makes it so you don't know you have to eat, again EQ1.
I'll look more into this tomorrow (after work) when i have more time. But i'd like to make sure that these people were completely sane and were not part of some exclusive group or some such. Cause a ton of people PvP and play games and frankly i don't know a single person who has died or tried to immitate something so fantasy as the games listed without there being other factors involved that the game can't really account for.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
The Gov. of CA makes a good point about video games and violence, my cousin who lives in CA says that part of the law came about due to the Player Vs Player Environment in which several dozen teens who committed murders and other violent acts got the idea from playing online games that had player vs player. They named such games as World of Warcraft, Warhammer Online, Everquest 1 and 2 and slew of others.
I'm not in California or I don't reach much of their news. Can you post any links referring such events? Honest request.
I live in California, and I'd like to see the links to all these incidents as well.
The Gov. of CA makes a good point about video games and violence, my cousin who lives in CA says that part of the law came about due to the Player Vs Player Environment in which several dozen teens who committed murders and other violent acts got the idea from playing online games that had player vs player. They named such games as World of Warcraft, Warhammer Online, Everquest 1 and 2 and slew of others.
I'm not in California or I don't reach much of their news. Can you post any links referring such events? Honest request.
I live in California, and I'd like to see the links to all these incidents as well.
Movie theaters are not allowed, by law, to allow minors in to see a rated R movie without a parent or guardian present. And they do get fined for it if they are caught doing it. Just like on Television, the broadcasting companies get fined if they let the F-bomb slip without censoring it. This is nothing new, and the laws are catching up with the technology is the only difference.
Kids still do get in to the movies and they still do get around this so the law saying a movie threater gets fined doesn't stop the kid from getting it. It just makes the threater held accountable instead of the parent.
I'll quote what I said with my original post, "Of course kids can work around it if they're really dead set on getting what they want (like alcohol and ciggs), but it's a deterrent, not a infallible system of corporate parenting."
So if it doesn't stop em whats the point in it at all? why not leave it the way it is if changing it isn't going to stop em?
So in other words one should make sure to abolish also all laws that make it illegal to rob, beat up and kill people. Because it doesn't stop all there's no point, right?
I have never seen so many ignorant posts as in this thread. We put laws in the books for minors because not every parent is a good parent. I have a host of bad parents at the school I work at, where school is just a babysitting service to them. Many of these kids intentionally disrupt class so they can go home and play their video games.
Some of you need to get out more and see the world. Any of you clamoring for examples of video games affecting behavior also don't read much, there are a host of examples of such. Just watched one the other night on the news, two kids in California decided ninja swords in a game were not good enough, so they went outside and used real ones, one of them died.
Anyways the courts will decide this not people on this board.
I have never seen so many ignorant posts as in this thread. We put laws in the books for minors because not every parent is a good parent. I have a host of bad parents at the school I work at, where school is just a babysitting service to them. Many of these kids intentionally disrupt class so they can go home and play their video games.
Some of you need to get out more and see the world. Any of you clamoring for examples of video games affecting behavior also don't read much, there are a host of examples of such. Just watched one the other night on the news, two kids in California decided ninja swords in a game were not good enough, so they went outside and used real ones, one of them died.
Anyways the courts will decide this not people on this board.
We understand that childrens parents are not always smart or publicly correct but not everyone wants every child to be shelterd and think that its a marry poppins world because it isnt. School is just a babysitting service really if you look at it. You teach from a book you sit around and feel like you should be allowed to do drugs and not be testing but a person at mcdonalds should have to be. You ask for a raise every 10 seconds and then complain in class that you dont get paid and most of the teachers then in turn take it out on the children.
The problem is that the law says you have to be 18 to buy a game rated MA (that i agree with), But you cant show terminator 2 on fox where it shows some little boy with a gun or last action hero with a little boy with the gov. and act likes ok when you show it on tv everyday where guess what they kill and injure humans then turn around and say that because its on a game and your taking a active part in killing humans your more likely to kill somone then the child actors of the movie that he was actually in. Wrong that actor took an active part in that movie killing people and hacking atms. If it should be outlawed from video games then he should be fined and made to give that money back to the people. You cant profiteer from something then turn around and say its wrong after you got rich from it. Also if you listened to the board the 1 hour conference they judges are going to dismiss it from the way they questioned the prosecution.
Some of you need to get out more and see the world. Any of you clamoring for examples of video games affecting behavior also don't read much, there are a host of examples of such. Just watched one the other night on the news, two kids in California decided ninja swords in a game were not good enough, so they went outside and used real ones, one of them died.
Anyways the courts will decide this not people on this board.
And you need to look more into what you just typed.
Two kids went outside with real swords and fought each other.
1) Ages? As in, most likely not of age to have bought the game in the first place.
2) Weapons came from where exactly? This isn't a case of that Ninja episode of South Park. The parents had dangerous WEAPONS laying about in the open for any one to grab and swing about. I don't know about you, but anything more dangerous than a butter knife in my house is out of reach of most any kids, including simple BB guns.
which leads to
3) Parents. I guess we can just easily assume that parents in any house around were gone. Was it the weekend? Shouldn't others have been there, or at least around? Did they skip school to play games instead?
You're just as bad as those "ignorant posts" on here.
I doubt the Supreme Court will rule this law into effect and won't rule video games as free speech yet, most likely they will strike down this ruling and tell California to narrow their definition. There is really no definite science to say video games are harmful or not.
Video games are still a young medium and more study needs to be done to determine what is harmful to minors in general. Best thing video games stores can do is check I.D.'s and maybe keep a weekly list of who buys what games in their stores for legal reasons.
Hell kids will always get ideas from t.v., books, video games, cartoons, movies, etc.....
Basically it still comes down to the parents to make sure their kids are not harming themselves in idiotic ways.
I have never seen so many ignorant posts as in this thread. We put laws in the books for minors because not every parent is a good parent. I have a host of bad parents at the school I work at, where school is just a babysitting service to them. Many of these kids intentionally disrupt class so they can go home and play their video games.
Some of you need to get out more and see the world. Any of you clamoring for examples of video games affecting behavior also don't read much, there are a host of examples of such. Just watched one the other night on the news, two kids in California decided ninja swords in a game were not good enough, so they went outside and used real ones, one of them died.
Anyways the courts will decide this not people on this board.
I wouldn't say the video game affected their behavior. If they saw the ninja swords on TV, or even in real life but other people using them i'm sure they would yet again find it not enough and grab a couple for themselves. These are people that are just like that, influced by every little thing they find cool or intresting. If they wasn't playing the game, i'm sure later down the road something would of happened, possibly even worse than what did.
Ultimately it comes down to the child, sure the parents can watch over them but how can a parent know what the child is thinking? Soon as they are left alone, something could happen. Not every child is like this, sometimes not even a child..adults can be affected just as much. Its the way some people are, you'll never change it. Example
Anyways the courts will decide this not people on this board.
No one thinks otherwise. This is a discussion board for discussing things.
On a side note, not directed at anyone, the link I posted earlier was just something I found while doing a Google search. Just compare video games to movies. It's really just that simple. Movies have a rating system just like video games, but the rating system for movies is lawfully enforced whereas video game ratings aren't yet. They will be. If not now, in the near future.
And I hope not now with this bill. It's just assinine.
Comments
Movie theaters are not allowed, by law, to allow minors in to see a rated R movie without a parent or guardian present. And they do get fined for it if they are caught doing it. Just like on Television, the broadcasting companies get fined if they let the F-bomb slip without censoring it. This is nothing new, and the laws are catching up with the technology is the only difference.
That comes back to the question why is the parent not with that child when the child goes shopping? Granted the store shouldn't sell it to the child. I don't fault you there but then the parent should be there to say no, you shouldn't be selling this to my kid. Only the parent knows whats right. The rating system as it is now just tries to catogrize the things in the game down to rating system. It's up to parent to decide whats right and whats wrong for said person.
Putting the rating system in the hands of the goverment will makes the stores watch what they sell but also will make them more skiddish about what they sell at all for fear of the fines.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Kids still do get in to the movies and they still do get around this so the law saying a movie threater gets fined doesn't stop the kid from getting it. It just makes the threater held accountable instead of the parent.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
a 14-year-old can go to the mall with his friends on his own, but I would have a problem with my kid being able to walk into a store and buy alcohol. Just the same, I have a problem that my kid can walk into a store and buy a game that's not appropriate for him.
I'll quote what I said with my original post, "Of course kids can work around it if they're really dead set on getting what they want (like alcohol and ciggs), but it's a deterrent, not a infallible system of corporate parenting."
So if it doesn't stop em whats the point in it at all? why not leave it the way it is if changing it isn't going to stop em?
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Richars's ooint that Arnie did't seem to have a problem mutilating humans when the Terminator was profitable.
That said, it is a fact that the armed services uses human targets for practice now. Why? Because abot 70% ( can't remember the exact number..sry) of soldiers killed in battle had never fired their weapon. The number halved when trained shooting human figures in practice. I'm sure this was in the pro-law group's petition.
A counterpoint..and a huge one is that the gaming industry is far better than the porn or movie industry in tagging content that should be a parents choice.
Gaming seems to be the target of the day.
I an NOT willing to support any law that intrudes on personal freedoms! Loose a little one and it always seems to get pushed to the next level. Freedom is precious and should never be given away, particularly to the government who, to often, know very little about the 'cause of the day, other than it is the cause du jour ( and a chance to get in front of a camera).
As well the theater should be accountable. It is not the parent's job to be on their kid's tail 24/7, but if you have something out there that's not appropriate for kids, you're responsible for keeping it out of the hands of kids. That's like a liquor store selling to a kid and then asking, "Well, where was his parents?" when they start pointing fingers at him.
It DOES stop them though. Instead of theaters not caring who gets in, they won't allow minors in to see them to the best of their ability. That would NOT happen if the laws weren't in place.
No one's saying that the content can't be in the game, they're saying that it's the vendor's responsibility to ensure it does not pass hands to kids under their watch.
This will certainly continue if we ban and prohibit , instead of educate . Minors need to see in a very limited and controlled way , that violence has real effects on real people . We should not alllow them to only see the exhilarating and without consequence side of violence that exists in video games only , not without education. And while violence can be a factor in ones life without choice and one should be prepared in some degree to deal with it , the video-game industry only cares for it beeing exciting and addictive . That being said , I am pro parent choice , but keep in mind that just forbidding makes it more exciting and wanted by teenagers ...
You use the same reason the rest of us use, the same reason our fathers and grandfathers used: "Because I said so.".
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
I live in California, and I'd like to see the links to all these incidents as well.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
I'd like to know if this is a cult or something. I've heard of entire cults mass killing themselves over a belief. That or if there was something wrong (i mean that in a physcial/mental way not a derogitory fashion) with their minds or some other handicap.
Usually it's not down to the game. It's down to some other unknown factor like having the worse day of your life (getting dumped, losing your wallet and other personals, losing your job, getting yelled at by people, getting turned on by family members) and the game is final straw ala the i love you guys thing that happened with EQ1, or having a disorder that makes it so you don't know you have to eat, again EQ1.
I'll look more into this tomorrow (after work) when i have more time. But i'd like to make sure that these people were completely sane and were not part of some exclusive group or some such. Cause a ton of people PvP and play games and frankly i don't know a single person who has died or tried to immitate something so fantasy as the games listed without there being other factors involved that the game can't really account for.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2007/12/drunk-teens-kil/
This one is about Mortal Kombat and happened in Colorado.
Retarded teenager kills a 3 years old while doing a serie of 'Mortal Kombat' moves
So that was the incident?
Sad story but seems to be more of a case against underage drinking more than against Video Game violence.
So in other words one should make sure to abolish also all laws that make it illegal to rob, beat up and kill people. Because it doesn't stop all there's no point, right?
My Signature
I have never seen so many ignorant posts as in this thread. We put laws in the books for minors because not every parent is a good parent. I have a host of bad parents at the school I work at, where school is just a babysitting service to them. Many of these kids intentionally disrupt class so they can go home and play their video games.
Some of you need to get out more and see the world. Any of you clamoring for examples of video games affecting behavior also don't read much, there are a host of examples of such. Just watched one the other night on the news, two kids in California decided ninja swords in a game were not good enough, so they went outside and used real ones, one of them died.
Anyways the courts will decide this not people on this board.
We understand that childrens parents are not always smart or publicly correct but not everyone wants every child to be shelterd and think that its a marry poppins world because it isnt. School is just a babysitting service really if you look at it. You teach from a book you sit around and feel like you should be allowed to do drugs and not be testing but a person at mcdonalds should have to be. You ask for a raise every 10 seconds and then complain in class that you dont get paid and most of the teachers then in turn take it out on the children.
The problem is that the law says you have to be 18 to buy a game rated MA (that i agree with), But you cant show terminator 2 on fox where it shows some little boy with a gun or last action hero with a little boy with the gov. and act likes ok when you show it on tv everyday where guess what they kill and injure humans then turn around and say that because its on a game and your taking a active part in killing humans your more likely to kill somone then the child actors of the movie that he was actually in. Wrong that actor took an active part in that movie killing people and hacking atms. If it should be outlawed from video games then he should be fined and made to give that money back to the people. You cant profiteer from something then turn around and say its wrong after you got rich from it. Also if you listened to the board the 1 hour conference they judges are going to dismiss it from the way they questioned the prosecution.
And you need to look more into what you just typed.
Two kids went outside with real swords and fought each other.
1) Ages? As in, most likely not of age to have bought the game in the first place.
2) Weapons came from where exactly? This isn't a case of that Ninja episode of South Park. The parents had dangerous WEAPONS laying about in the open for any one to grab and swing about. I don't know about you, but anything more dangerous than a butter knife in my house is out of reach of most any kids, including simple BB guns.
which leads to
3) Parents. I guess we can just easily assume that parents in any house around were gone. Was it the weekend? Shouldn't others have been there, or at least around? Did they skip school to play games instead?
You're just as bad as those "ignorant posts" on here.
I doubt the Supreme Court will rule this law into effect and won't rule video games as free speech yet, most likely they will strike down this ruling and tell California to narrow their definition. There is really no definite science to say video games are harmful or not.
Video games are still a young medium and more study needs to be done to determine what is harmful to minors in general. Best thing video games stores can do is check I.D.'s and maybe keep a weekly list of who buys what games in their stores for legal reasons.
Hell kids will always get ideas from t.v., books, video games, cartoons, movies, etc.....
Basically it still comes down to the parents to make sure their kids are not harming themselves in idiotic ways.
I wouldn't say the video game affected their behavior. If they saw the ninja swords on TV, or even in real life but other people using them i'm sure they would yet again find it not enough and grab a couple for themselves. These are people that are just like that, influced by every little thing they find cool or intresting. If they wasn't playing the game, i'm sure later down the road something would of happened, possibly even worse than what did.
Ultimately it comes down to the child, sure the parents can watch over them but how can a parent know what the child is thinking? Soon as they are left alone, something could happen. Not every child is like this, sometimes not even a child..adults can be affected just as much. Its the way some people are, you'll never change it. Example
No one thinks otherwise. This is a discussion board for discussing things.
On a side note, not directed at anyone, the link I posted earlier was just something I found while doing a Google search. Just compare video games to movies. It's really just that simple. Movies have a rating system just like video games, but the rating system for movies is lawfully enforced whereas video game ratings aren't yet. They will be. If not now, in the near future.
And I hope not now with this bill. It's just assinine.
When you have a kid, let me know how that goes for you.