Comparing the Candidates on Game Issues

Logan Frederick

New member
Aug 19, 2006
1,963
0
0
Comparing the Candidates on Game Issues



Edge Online has organized the statements by the US presidential nominees and their running mates on their stances over videogame legislation.

As the United States election creeps closer, concerned gamers voting in November have cut through all the talk about economic plans and wars to try and research one of the issues they care about: videogame censorship and ratings enforcement.

Edge Online [http://www.edge-online.com/features/who-gamer%E2%80%99s-candidate?page=0%2C0] grabbed all gaming-related references from candidates to form a stance for both sides.

Conservative McCain is the nominee most supportive of the gaming industry's efforts for self-regulation. During a campaign stop [http://www.wmur.com/politics/16586608/detail.html] in New Hampshire, a curious supporter questioned him on the role of parenting in controlling kids' access to media.

"He felt that parents should be the ones to decide for their kids on a case by case basis (which I was satisfied with). He then did a weird segue way into the evils of child pornography from there, which kind of had me shaking my head," wrote a reporter.

McCain's camp even used gaming to promote his campaign, creating the Facebook app Pork Invaders, where the player shoots oncoming pigs representing pork-barrel spending a la Space Invaders.

His Vice President, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, has no track record [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/86075] with governing gaming. Her one instance of media censorship came when she was a mayor and asked the local library to remove certain books due to "voter complaints."

Democratic Senator and potential President Barack Obama admitted [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/85518] to being a Pong player when he was younger. Obama promotes industry self-control, according to his interview with Common Sense Media [http://www.commonsensemedia.org/news/specials/presidentialquestions], but would be willing to get the government involved if game companies don't censor violence to his office's standards.

"If the industry fails to act, then my administration would.... We need to understand the impact of these new media better," stated Obama. "That's why I supported federal funding to study the impact of video games on children's cognitive development."

His partner, Democratic Senator Joe Biden, rarely stands on technology and business issues (his forte is in foreign policy). In battles between consumers and record and movies industries, he is historically anti-consumer. For gamers, that could translate into support for publisher-backed ideas like digital rights management and anti-piracy laws similar to those for song and film thieves.

Permalink
 

TheWickerPopstar

New member
Dec 6, 2007
117
0
0
Logan Frederick post=7.71074.712556 said:
"[McCain] felt that parents should be the ones to decide for their kids on a case by case basis (which I was satisfied with). He then did a weird segue way into the evils of child pornography from there, which kind of had me shaking my head," wrote a reporter.
That's an interesting mix of laissez-faire and what is traditionally moral-conservativeness, and I think most gamers agree with his stance. If a parent wants someone else to be responsible for what their kids are exposed to, the domain of parent becomes a bit vague.

Granted, I do think that game companies need to make their games' content clear so that parents feel confident in their judgments. If that wasn't the case, then I could see the government getting involved, but only for the purpose of improving rating systems.

But I think the resources are already out there.
 

babyblues

New member
Apr 22, 2008
145
0
0
If you vote for a candidate because of gaming, there's something wrong with you.. Yes it is a big part of our lives but there are more important issues to think about that effect us in much bigger ways.
 

Logan Frederick

New member
Aug 19, 2006
1,963
0
0
Indigo_Dingo post=7.71074.714144 said:
babyblues post=7.71074.714138 said:
If you vote for a candidate because of gaming, there's something wrong with you.. Yes it is a big part of our lives but there are more important issues to think about that effect us in much bigger ways.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
The value in looking at gaming positions is that they are reflective of broader views the candidates have, such as censorship, the role of government in people's lives, etc.
 

TheWickerPopstar

New member
Dec 6, 2007
117
0
0
Well either way, being interested in a candidate's position on gaming doesn't necessarily imply that I'm basing my vote on this issue. However, Obama's willingness to send his office after the industry suggests that he wants to extend the government's reach into all forms of media and art which...bleck.
 

babyblues

New member
Apr 22, 2008
145
0
0
Somehow, I'm more concerned about the economy and their energy plans than I am about gaming. Even if there were tighter restrictions on gaming, I wouldn't care if things actually got fixed around here.

Then again, these are politicians, they never get anything done. Nevermind!
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
What we really need is Gordon Brown and David Cameron's views.

Ah heck..let's be honest. Both of them want these "SICK GAMES BANNED", especially "Grand Theft Bike" Cameron.