Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
MMORPG.COM News: GDC: Legislation and Games
Dana
Member Posts: 2,415
Should politicians be involved in video games? The industry certainly doesn't seem to think go. Leland Yee, a member of the California State Assembly showed up to debate a bill with IGDA President Jason Della Rocca and Dr. James Paul Gee.
| The panel itself was comprised of people to whom this issue is near and dear. The role of the game developer was filled by IGDA Executive Director, Jason Della Rocca. The role of the academic was filled by Dr. James Paul Gee, a child psychologist and educator, and the role of the politician was filled by Leland Yee, The member of the California State Assembly who introduced the bill in question. The entire event was moderated by Brenda Brathwaite. |
You can read the report here.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Comments
Well, they might as well ban the internet while they're at it.
I don't think censorship changes anything. I grew up in a more censored household than most, could never watch MTV, we listened to oldies actually, mom and dad never swore, and what do I listen to now? I listen to ICP.
If anything, the quest for blood is there regardless of playing games. If they don't have games to play, they'll go kill small animals instead.
In the end, I think what the kids REALLY need, is good parenting, with lots of love and attention, so that if there are any possible symptoms of anything like that, playing violent games or not, it will be caught before something bad does happen! I don't think the kids need to be censored so they don't know anything about the real world until they get woken up by their peers.
HJ-Diviana
Hero's Journey GM
Hero's Journey Official Site
Hero's Hall
I agree with xDivianaDRx. Censorship is not the way to go. If parents would actually take some responsibility, perhaps we wouldn't have this problem. Generally, the parents are the ones buying the games - at least that's how it was when I was younger (I'm only 19). Does the mean they knew what the games I was asking for were about? No, not at all. And that's the problem. It seems like these parents are just buying what they're kids ask for, no questions asked. As soon as they see that little Timmy or Susie is pumping metal into profusely bleeding grannies or watching the car bounce up and down when the scantily-clad lady gets in, then they can't believe what they bought. Of course, taking responsibility for a mistake is way too hard. So who does the blame fall to?
"Oh my goodness! This game is for kids?! These companies are horrible! I'm calling our local congressman!" (Obviously ignoring the fact that the box had an M or T rating, and may have included guns and/or provocative women and/or "shadowy" characters on the cover).
Btw, I am in no way refering to the GTA series that always seems to be the target.
Well, I'm going to go against the flow a little here. First of all, as a parent I am dismayed that there is so much sex and violence on T.V. and the internet. I can't watch over their shoulders all the time, and on the other hand I don't want to restrict their use of either just to the moments I can watch over them. This is an issue.
However, for games that are bought (as opposed to freebies downloaded) the rating system seems like a very acceptable solution. They work like movies and give me the opportunity to watch over my kids shoulders without having to be there through the entire period.
So what I'm getting at here, as a parent, is that I want more control over public accessed TV and internet, not over games. Typical politicians, going with the latest fad instead of doing what they really should be doing.
Remember this, you liberals, when you're about to cast your vote for Hillary.
Once upon a time....
The thing is, I believe the tools you want are already in place..
Comcast and Cox cable (I know at least both of them do this) have parental blocking for television channels, and you can set the ratings for tv programs, or block specific ones so they can't watch them. If you okay something for them to watch, you just have to put your 4 digit numerical password into the tv.
I also believe internet explorer has parental settings, most likely firefox and I know AOL does.
All you have to do is take advantage of the tools, and your kids will be safer.. It's not that they're not available, you just might not use them.
They do not have to, and should not have to, censor the television or internet, there are tools for you the parent to take over and do so for them.
And I think liberals are a little more for your kids safety (not only kids, men and women too!), I thought recently that it's funny republicans are so anti-abortion, it's not okay to kill something that isn't able to support itself, but as soon as it's old enough we can send them to die in wars.. I don't know what your stance is (or how much you really know), but try www.airamericaradio.com Randi Rhodes is particularly good.. But anyway that is another subject for another day.
HJ-Diviana
Hero's Journey GM
Hero's Journey Official Site
Hero's Hall
I think a lot of this stems from the fact that the media of video games is seen as a child's thing and then violent games come along. Much like cartoons were and then South Park and Family Guy and the like came along. While this isn't 100% the case, it might seem that way to someone who wasn't paying much attention to video games until this main streaming of them recently.
Aren't most stores not selling M games to children anyways? If the parent is buying the game for their kid, what diffence is another rating going to do? They already tell you on the damn box that it's violent.
-doro
The truth is we here in the United States have become a nation of people who don't wish to take responsiblity for our actions. We seek to blame others for our inappropreate behavior when we receive the results from it. We expect our government to raise our children for us because we lack the responsiblity to raise them ourselves. The results are often the curtailing of civil liberties thru acts, bills, and laws to take the place of personal responsiblity. Laws like this become popular not becuase we need them but because it releaves us of being responsible.
As a parent, it is my responsiblity to decide if a game, television program, or film is appropreate for my children, not the government, not activists, and not judges. Just as it is my responsiblity to teach my children the difference between right and wrong.
The only way I can know if something is appropreate for my children is to actually find out what is content for myself. The current rating system helps in finding this out with video games. It tells me what ages the game is intended for and the makers often offer more information on the game itself via websites. Also I can find out by taking a few moments of my time to look up a game via fans sites as well.
The problem is too many parents are not willing to find out the truth. They want the governemnt to decide for them. When this starts happening laws such as the proposed one in California are able to take hold. What happens is we loose some of our basic civil liberties because of our own laziness.
Also this is not the first time in U.S. history that lawmakers have been pushing to censor a popular form of entertainment nor has the arguement that said form of entertainment has been "linked" to claims that it leads to violence. When I was a teenager, it was music that was at the center of such a controversy.
Like video games, the same claims were made regarding certain songs made by recording artists were subject to cause youth of the time to act violent. However no proof was ever found to prove this claim as much as I am sure no proof will be found to link video games to the exact same claims.
We must not allow our own irresponsiblity to curtail our civil liberties thru knee jerk reaction laws like this. We need to accept responsiblity for our actions and as parents need to actual act as parents. Our government does not need to be in the business of raising our children for us. We know how bad they can mess up other things, do we really want to chance that on our nation's future as well?
I dunno, I see the word "responsibility" being tossed around a lot here. Isn't it enough just to recognize that for reasons of distance, detachment, and sheer population, going the legal route on a subject as amorphous as violent games just isn't very effective?
I'm sure it's clear to everyone that passing a blanket law based on children's ages or gallons of blood is an extremely crude tool to address this, considering the actual complexity of human development and the considerable variations among individuals.
I think bringing the word "responsibility" into this discussion tends to complicate things unneccesarily. It just opens the door to arguments about how reponsible sufficiently responsible parents should meet their responbilities vs. how much responsibility responsible lawmakers should have for taking things into their own hands.
The fact is that a parent, lawmaker or game developer all essentially follow the same goal of making life more enjoyable or less likely to be horrible. That's the whole point of human civilization: meeting our wants and needs in the most efficient and desirable combination possible, using the best methods and tools available. Either by preventing violence, promoting positive development or producing entertaining products, we're all responsible for promoting the things we value and preventing the things that we don't want in this cooperative endeavor we call civilization.
So while I agree with the general flow here that this should be addressed primarily at the parent/child level, I'd like to say that I support doing so because it seems to be the MOST EFFECTIVE TOOL/METHOD for preventing harm to children, not because of some preconcieved notions about "responsibility" that arbitrarily define what falls within a parent's jurisdiction and what doesn't.
I know this may seem like a purely semantic distinction, but it is important to see the difference between our ideas about "responsibility" (which change across continents and cultures) and a reasoned approach towards making things the way we want them to be in the most suitable manner possible.
If it works, it should be done, it if doesn't work, don't do it! Just don't complicate things by bringing in largely subjective conceptions of "responsibility" into the discussion.
And yes, meQal, it was primarily your post made me go off on this tangent, even though you were making a point largely unrelated to what I'm talking about. If I could rephrase your otherwise excellent opening paragraph in a way that I could live with, it would be:
"The truth is we here in the United States (or Canada, in my case) have become a nation of people who don't take actions that meet their collective wants and needs in the most logical or efficient manner."
There? Isn't that so much better? No need to bring in competing ideologies about the role of the family or government intervention in dealing with this issue. This kind of phrasing is much more conducive to a simple discussion of predictive psychology and estimated effectiveness of competing methods which, in my opinion at least, is the most contructive way to discuss this.
Haladar, while you may disagree with my choice to use the word responsibility, you did understand my point. I believe accountability may of been better to use looking back over my post. However to me responsibility and accountability have always been the same thing. But again you are correct in pointing out that various cultures and continents differ on their ideas of what being responsible means. So feel free to rephrase away.
Seeing legislative concern over ultra-violence confirms that the days of A Clockwork Orange are finally here. Who's with me, my droogs?
Seriously, though. I have always firmly believed that anyone who tries to enact laws for the protection of our children is full of bull-twinkies. All they are trying to protect is their own sensibilities, and they use children as a living shield. Honestly, I was a child once, and I can tell you, that children don't care for this. Ironically, I find that as a child, adults were ruining my fun, and as an adult, my fun is getting dampened by concerns for children. The real problem in the world is over-protective parents: they're all insane.
On the plus side, many MMOs would stand to benefit greatly from having less children in their communities. That's less people in line for spawn camping, which means more phat l3wtz for me.
http://erickveil.com/
I was just thinking about this, and thought
If parents REALLY can't be there to watch their kids online, all they HAVE to do is put a keylogger on, one that records every single thing, IMs, websites, etc. (believe me there's tons that can do it)
then TELL the kids that there is a program that is watching them, of course at first they won't believe you, but after a while they'll know
And make sure it's password protected, and even HIDDEN so they can't get into it and disable it.
Then confront the kids, tell them what is wrong with what they are doing, sit down and talk to them! Spend time with them! Get out of the house and do things, but make sure they know what is right and what is wrong. And the only way to really do that, is to hang out with your kids.
I don't think a keylogger should be your solution, but if you HAVE to, use it! Love and care should definitely come first.
HJ-Diviana
Hero's Journey GM
Hero's Journey Official Site
Hero's Hall