Check Out Video of Last Night's Violent Videogames Debate
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Really? Over here in the UK, Shops Can and Will get in trouble if they sell to someone under aged, is this not the case in the US aswell? If so then why the Hell do we have Certificates on games if no one abides by them?Matt_LRR said:
I like the fact he(George) points out the main theme. He's a head honcho at Acti-Blizz, and he said it hard in the 30 minute area. 'I would not sell a game with the 18+ sticker.' He, one of the big-wig people, at Acti-Blizz said that.
He even points out the fact that NC-17, the movie form of the AO rating for video games, are not sold in stores and not played in theaters.
He even points out the fact that NC-17, the movie form of the AO rating for video games, are not sold in stores and not played in theaters.
The problem is we need one more trivial, pointless thing to waste our time and money on these days. Seriously, I swear I must be missing something, because this all just seems ridiculous to me. *shakes head*Patrick_and_the_ricks said:
I started playing games when I was about 10 years old. I played violent games when I was 14+ years old and I never had any kind of violent problem arise from this other than normal teenage male hormomal development. I think there must be some kind of under lying psychological problem for the few people who act out after playing these games. I also think that the games have become the scape goat for other areas of entertainment media.
SC is still deciding the case. Bit odd they are taking so long but maybe other cases merited more attention, or they are having a long drawn out debate over the merits and a split court.
Either way it is the law that would fine 1000 dollars per infringement, and require the store to fire said employee, but the store would be fined that 1000 bucks. Which would be very chilling in and of itself, why would walmart or target put themselves out to risk getting fines in the 1000s of dollars for a 40-60 dollar sale.
Added to the fact that the anti gamers are claiming that these games make people violent. A claim that has been struck down in every lower court as the "research" has been shoddy at best.
But still of by some odd and dumbfounded chance that the SC would uphold the law, a 1000 dollar fine plus a product that makes people do violent acts. What major chain would carry that sort of product?
Bottom line the case boils down to are game protected speech or not. And an underlying argument are games "art" like music, books, movies and poetry etc. Of late there does seem to be a movement in some quarters to recognize games as art with the smithsonian creating a video games exhibit.
Either way the ESRB was created to avoid this exact thing, a voluntary act of good faith to give retailers and parents a guideline over who should be buying what, not unlike the movie rating system, or the warnings on cds.
We need better education of parents period, exactly what the esrb means, what parental controls are built into game consoles and tvs and software for pcs that can lock kids out of playing games on them that their parents do not want them playing.
There are plenty of tools out there for people to regulate what their children are playing, people should use those tools plus the esrb ratings to restrict games from their children and not put the burden on government to decide what is decent and proper for people to purchase and play, because nothing good will come of it.
Either way it is the law that would fine 1000 dollars per infringement, and require the store to fire said employee, but the store would be fined that 1000 bucks. Which would be very chilling in and of itself, why would walmart or target put themselves out to risk getting fines in the 1000s of dollars for a 40-60 dollar sale.
Added to the fact that the anti gamers are claiming that these games make people violent. A claim that has been struck down in every lower court as the "research" has been shoddy at best.
But still of by some odd and dumbfounded chance that the SC would uphold the law, a 1000 dollar fine plus a product that makes people do violent acts. What major chain would carry that sort of product?
Bottom line the case boils down to are game protected speech or not. And an underlying argument are games "art" like music, books, movies and poetry etc. Of late there does seem to be a movement in some quarters to recognize games as art with the smithsonian creating a video games exhibit.
Either way the ESRB was created to avoid this exact thing, a voluntary act of good faith to give retailers and parents a guideline over who should be buying what, not unlike the movie rating system, or the warnings on cds.
We need better education of parents period, exactly what the esrb means, what parental controls are built into game consoles and tvs and software for pcs that can lock kids out of playing games on them that their parents do not want them playing.
There are plenty of tools out there for people to regulate what their children are playing, people should use those tools plus the esrb ratings to restrict games from their children and not put the burden on government to decide what is decent and proper for people to purchase and play, because nothing good will come of it.
Call of duty turns you into a crazed gunman just like guitar hero turns you into a guitar player.
Okay, how's this? I play violent games, I've played games since I was a kid.
I have never had a run in with the law or been a violent killer. And I hate guns.
I have never had a run in with the law or been a violent killer. And I hate guns.
As seriously as I take this First Amendment issue over here, that is several orders of magnitude worse.Nouw said:
But this issue is important in America. We don't want to set a precedent that judges can pick and choose what kind of speech deserves protections. When this kind of legislation appears again, and it will, what the Justices say now will impact decisions then. That is what makes this case important even if we feel confident of the outcome.
Rooster Cogburn said:
I blame TV.The Random One said:
But seriously, this was quite boring until it got into the meat and potatoes(ie the questions and their varrying opinions).
There have been made enough great points, both in the video and in the comments. I am not well versed in American law, so I can't add or scrutinize.
I will, however off-point, add what I think about video games causing violence.
It is not the product that makes anyone anything, it's always the subjects. I have, at first hand, seen boys swap between different hobbies and go all-in. It ranged everything from mini-golf and skateboarding, to DotA and World of Warcraft. Why they chose or stopped depended on the accessibility and 'quality'. So the main issue is addiction, which is always a problem, unless you are addicted to being totally awesome in every way possible.
There are currently no games I can name that adequately serve as simulations for any physical activity. No soccer game can make you a soccer player and no shooting can make you a shot. Not even in the times of motion control. Even a game where you pointed a motion controller as a weapon wouldn't give you anything besides actually knowing which direction to hold the weapon. The point that some school shooters 'trained' with video games is absolutely ridiculous.
__
Whatever. I didn't convey my opinion as good as I had hoped, but I'm going to bed now. I just felt like I had to post something, after watching the video and reading all the interesting comments. The outcome will be interesting. I don't live in the United States, but I'm certain the 'States have a crucial impact on the rest of the gaming industry.
I will, however off-point, add what I think about video games causing violence.
It is not the product that makes anyone anything, it's always the subjects. I have, at first hand, seen boys swap between different hobbies and go all-in. It ranged everything from mini-golf and skateboarding, to DotA and World of Warcraft. Why they chose or stopped depended on the accessibility and 'quality'. So the main issue is addiction, which is always a problem, unless you are addicted to being totally awesome in every way possible.
There are currently no games I can name that adequately serve as simulations for any physical activity. No soccer game can make you a soccer player and no shooting can make you a shot. Not even in the times of motion control. Even a game where you pointed a motion controller as a weapon wouldn't give you anything besides actually knowing which direction to hold the weapon. The point that some school shooters 'trained' with video games is absolutely ridiculous.
__
Whatever. I didn't convey my opinion as good as I had hoped, but I'm going to bed now. I just felt like I had to post something, after watching the video and reading all the interesting comments. The outcome will be interesting. I don't live in the United States, but I'm certain the 'States have a crucial impact on the rest of the gaming industry.
I think people need to start pushing a lot harder for proof and all these very concrete studies people keep talking about.
Mr. Activision wasn't the best spokesperson for "our side", for lack of a better wording, but, he was actually pretty decent.
Mr. Hair on the left kept mentioning studies and very important studies and I don't think he was very good at defending his side.
Mr. monotone on the right was my favorite. He made sense from a perfectly objective view(ignoring that he plays civilization) and he was really clear and good with his ideas.
I don't think the law will pass, but I think we need to be careful in new up and coming laws trying to do the same thing all over again.
Mr. Activision wasn't the best spokesperson for "our side", for lack of a better wording, but, he was actually pretty decent.
Mr. Hair on the left kept mentioning studies and very important studies and I don't think he was very good at defending his side.
Mr. monotone on the right was my favorite. He made sense from a perfectly objective view(ignoring that he plays civilization) and he was really clear and good with his ideas.
I don't think the law will pass, but I think we need to be careful in new up and coming laws trying to do the same thing all over again.