California Congressman Demands Videogame Warning Labels [Again]
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Let's bring up a smaller part of this discussion that is, personally, more interesting than "RRAGH POLITICIAN NOT LIKE GAEMS!" The rating system.
Anything E10+ and higher would have to give a warning label for the excessive violence inside. Here's the thing, though: A good chunk of games that fall into that category might not contain excessive violence at all.
Examples? You bet I have them!
DiRT 2: T (Lyrics, Mild Suggestive Themes) So, playing rock n' roll and maybe one or two girls in bikinis.
3D DOT GAME HEROES: E10+ (Mild Cartoon Violence) Occasionally someone will be bopped in the head for laughs.
Tony Hawk series (any entry'll do): T (Lyrics, Blood, Violence, Comic Mischief) Falling off your skateboard leaves road rash on your player character? That's considered violence. And "Comic Mischief" is apparently the proper term for "Jackass-like stunts and activities".
Rock Band/Guiitar Hero series: T. See DiRT 2.
Puzzle Quest Galactrix: E10+ (Alcohol Reference, Violence Reference) That's right. Just talking about someone getting punched is considered a little too aggressive for kids 9 and under in America. Better sit them in front of some Ninja Turtles reruns instead, those fistfights are appropriate for kids ages 7 and up.
World Series of Poker 2008 edition: T (Language, Simulated Gambling, Suggestive Themes, Tobacco Reference) Okay, now I can understand why talking about beer, cigarettes, and gambling might be something you'd want to keep away from especially young children. But suggestive themes? Just how much time do ESRB agents spend measuring the cleavage shown in a game to determine the suggestiveness of the end product?
Side note: captcha is an ad for Little Caesars pizza. No lie.
Anything E10+ and higher would have to give a warning label for the excessive violence inside. Here's the thing, though: A good chunk of games that fall into that category might not contain excessive violence at all.
Examples? You bet I have them!
DiRT 2: T (Lyrics, Mild Suggestive Themes) So, playing rock n' roll and maybe one or two girls in bikinis.
3D DOT GAME HEROES: E10+ (Mild Cartoon Violence) Occasionally someone will be bopped in the head for laughs.
Tony Hawk series (any entry'll do): T (Lyrics, Blood, Violence, Comic Mischief) Falling off your skateboard leaves road rash on your player character? That's considered violence. And "Comic Mischief" is apparently the proper term for "Jackass-like stunts and activities".
Rock Band/Guiitar Hero series: T. See DiRT 2.
Puzzle Quest Galactrix: E10+ (Alcohol Reference, Violence Reference) That's right. Just talking about someone getting punched is considered a little too aggressive for kids 9 and under in America. Better sit them in front of some Ninja Turtles reruns instead, those fistfights are appropriate for kids ages 7 and up.
World Series of Poker 2008 edition: T (Language, Simulated Gambling, Suggestive Themes, Tobacco Reference) Okay, now I can understand why talking about beer, cigarettes, and gambling might be something you'd want to keep away from especially young children. But suggestive themes? Just how much time do ESRB agents spend measuring the cleavage shown in a game to determine the suggestiveness of the end product?
Side note: captcha is an ad for Little Caesars pizza. No lie.
Oh what the hell is this? Haven't we WON this debate? Game are considered art now. Not all art is "family" safe. Isn't the Mature or Teen label enough? Can't we just fire there people into the son already?
I demand that a warning label be stuck to Joe Baca's forehead reading "WARNING: Exposure to this man's bigoted drivel has been linked to aggressive behavior."
Don't the ratings do that anyway?
Rated T: May contain depictions of violence and sex.
This warning label would only be there to scare people into thinking their children may grow up to become violent, which they may well do without games.
What we need is for either stronger punishment for selling to under age people, or up the age limit for things like this. Or both preferably.
Alcohol selling laws in England (especially London) have become very strict, and I see less kids drinking in public, even late at night.
Rated T: May contain depictions of violence and sex.
This warning label would only be there to scare people into thinking their children may grow up to become violent, which they may well do without games.
What we need is for either stronger punishment for selling to under age people, or up the age limit for things like this. Or both preferably.
Alcohol selling laws in England (especially London) have become very strict, and I see less kids drinking in public, even late at night.
The problem I have with this more than anything is that he wants it to say that "Studies" "Prove" video games cause aggressive behavior. Those studies are vague at best, and bullshit at worst. There are just as many studies that prove the opposite.
Games don't need additional labeling any more than books or movies. The ratings are there, and well understood by smart people. Idiot parents will still be idiot parents no matter how big of a label you put on the game anyway.
Games don't need additional labeling any more than books or movies. The ratings are there, and well understood by smart people. Idiot parents will still be idiot parents no matter how big of a label you put on the game anyway.
My only gripe is that this label will scare parents into not buying them. The way forward should never be scare tactics, it should be through education.Kyrinn said:
Yes, and eating bread has been linked to death. Think about it: 98% of the people who have eaten bread in the past 1000 years have died and nobody will question me if I state it as fact that the remaining 2% most certainly will die some time in the next hundred years.
Ugh, here we go again. Is it bad I didn't even have to open the link to this thread to know it was from California?
Seriously, this is making me want to move to California. I wish my country's economy was so strong that my politicians could waste my hard earned tax money on frivolous, pointless legislation that has already been shot down by -every- court with half a brain.
Oh wait.
Seriously, this is making me want to move to California. I wish my country's economy was so strong that my politicians could waste my hard earned tax money on frivolous, pointless legislation that has already been shot down by -every- court with half a brain.
Oh wait.
NOOOOOOOO not a sticker, what is the world coming....oh...oh it just comes right off when you pull it, never mind
For one, if this actually passed, and it won't, the warning would be in 1 cm tall letters on the bottom of any box and lost amid the copyright and trademark warnings in any digital copy.
For another, this guy needs to meet the ESRB, a group that does the best they can under zero government mandate to give the ideal warnings every consumer needs about a game.
If this guy is being lobbied by someone to do this, I have to wonder how their ignorance and stupidity can manage to raise the money to be a financial influence on this guy. Even if he is a moron, himself, I doubt he would hold his position if the likes of the ESA had a sitdown with him.
For another, this guy needs to meet the ESRB, a group that does the best they can under zero government mandate to give the ideal warnings every consumer needs about a game.
If this guy is being lobbied by someone to do this, I have to wonder how their ignorance and stupidity can manage to raise the money to be a financial influence on this guy. Even if he is a moron, himself, I doubt he would hold his position if the likes of the ESA had a sitdown with him.
Of course it is. If it gets him the "concerned parent" vote. His job is contingent on getting the most votes, not on keeping the state solvent. If he's worried about the budget it's either because the economy's so bad that the electorate's reached the point of desperation, or his political rivals are selling themselves with a tempting economic vision that he needs to counter.Tanis said:
Because let's face it, if the state goes bankrupt, paychecks will start bouncing from the bottom up.
Besides, in California I gather most budget initiatives are voted on. What better way to get money for a pet project but to hitch his wagon to a hot button issue?
This is just to help his reelection campaign.
He is trying to draw attention to himself, by showing people that he is "protecting the children". The last California campaign against gaming has taught me that the media won't talk about parental responsibility, or the ESRB system. They will dwell on the sensationalist violence that is in a few Mature games, and scare us by telling us that our children are playing them.
The sad thing is that people want to have stories like that. They don't want to be told how they should parent. They don't what to have to accept the responsibility of raising their children.
He is trying to draw attention to himself, by showing people that he is "protecting the children". The last California campaign against gaming has taught me that the media won't talk about parental responsibility, or the ESRB system. They will dwell on the sensationalist violence that is in a few Mature games, and scare us by telling us that our children are playing them.
The sad thing is that people want to have stories like that. They don't want to be told how they should parent. They don't what to have to accept the responsibility of raising their children.