Game ratings vrs Morality.

[felltablet]

In light of of super Tuesday, noting that the delegate difference between the two democratic candidates only differs in the single digits, it is a possibility that Sen Clinton could be the next president.
I am assuming that this community is very familiar with her perspective of the gaming industry and her wishes to federally regulate the ratings system.
Such gems of wisdom from Clinton include, "I believe that the ability of our children to access pornographic and outrageously violent material on video games rated for adults is spiraling out of control."
Oh, and of course there is her lovely idea to TAX the sale video games.

So, I am NOT posing the question: is she a fascist moron?
But rather why does the government feel the need to parent other people's children?
If you had a child,(Or, of course, if you do) what would you NOT allow them to play.
Would you do a task the government feels you are too incompetent to perform by yourself?

 

[Duck Sandwich]

I think the government feels the need to parent other people's children because some parents ARE too incompetent (letting a child access an offensive movie/game/book/whatever, leaving a gun in an easily accessible place, etc.). Let's hope they don't end up ruining everything for the people who can think straight.

I'd allow my kid to play Mortal Kombat if they were under 17, but only after educating them that what they see and do on the screen should stay on the screen. This doesn't apply just to games but also cartoons/movies/books as well. What annoys me is how everyone only seems to focus on games. If the majority of people spent more time reading books than playing video games, people like Jack Thompson would most likely jump the "Harry Potter promotes Satanism" bandwagon, and completely ignore games. Hell, he used to be all anti-rap music some time ago.

 

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

There seems to be an underlying assumption by many democrats that the people are not intelligent enough to take care of themselves, and so laws are needed. Many parents also shirk their responsibility, and place the blame elsewhere when their inaction results in a kid doing something bad, and these are the voters who think the laws proposed by nanny state leaning politicians are good idea. I have nothing but contempt for both kinds of people.

Being a gamer, if I was also a parent my kids wouldn't play anything I hadn't played as well, and personally judged okay for them. I'd pay attention to the ESRB rating as well. Of course I probably couldn't control what they play at a friend's house, but asking the government to step in isn't going to help that at all.

 

[John Galt]

Should Hillary get elected, we're most likely going to see a trend in Welfare-state legislation. It probably won't be as much as she wants, but it'll be enough to piss people off and ruffle some feathers. Odds are, however, that once she gets elected she'll forget all about censorship in games and focus on something more relevant to the whole country, not just gamers, incompetant parents, and parents who think the government should let them be incompetant.

 

[felltablet]

Second question, the government feels they must parent our kids because an overwhelming majority of people have proven that they aren't competent enough to do it themselves. Could be worse, Britain is the total Nanny-State, where you can't do a damn thing anymore. This issue will disappear when people learn to parent their own kids.

While yes, I let my blind hatred of censorship impose an exaggerated view of Clinton, as a registered democrat (wanting to change to independent b/c the state is an open primary)I still had to struggle with my decision on who to vote for.

But the idea that the issue will disappear.........
Once a law is enacted that gives the government more power and only adversely affects a small percentage of the population, well I believe anyone would be hardpressed to overturn it.
The government should not mandate Morality, period,
My opinion anyway.

 

[The Reverend]

Could be worse, Britain is the total Nanny-State, where you can't do a damn thing anymore.

I wouldn't say its gone that far here yet, but its dam well getting there. And if I had kids, I would let my kids play what I thought they were mature enough to play. When I was young age ratings didn't really mean much and my ol' man pretty much let me watch whatever, and I turned out ok. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go sacrifice 15 virgins to Satan.

 

[felltablet]

When I was young age ratings didn't really mean much and my ol' man pretty much let me watch whatever, and I turned out ok. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go sacrifice 15 virgins to Satan.

Thats the point the idea of "family values" is insane.
The same thing is happening with religion. From what I have gathered no one used to put much emphasis on your faith when in a political standing. But now, the media constantly brings up Mitt Romney's mormonism, its as if you HAVE to be a christian now.
Where is this standard for morality coming from?

 

[Eudaemonian]

Should Hillary get elected, we're most likely going to see a trend in Welfare-state legislation.

That would be Congress' fault, if it happened. While she wouldn't veto it, like most any republican would (though on the case of video games, I wouldn't be so sure), it's still your representatives making these laws, not the president.

I'm so tired of people yakking on and on about the president will do this and the president will do that. I won't say that the OP was actually saying that, but a lot of people do.


In any event, if the legislation is limited to putting a uniform seriousness on the ratings on games to the extent that kids cannot themselves buy them, that's fine. Penalize outlets that violate the policy. It's not going to get you anywhere, since almost all of them do this internally already and many states have similar laws. But if it will make the twits happy and shut up for a bit to pass such a law, that's fine.

If our oh so wise leaders want to do anything that restricts the access of grown people to media, I should sincerely hope they'd realize they can't because we still have some shreds of a constitution.


As to the "if I had a child" hypothetical, I'd only keep him/her away from things at young ages, before the kid has had time to be taught not to be a fucking idiot. Shielding children (13-17) from things is just stupid. If they want it, they'll get it somewhere. Making it unavailable just makes it more desirable and implies a coolness to it. If you raised your kids properly, there's nothing to fear from the mere exposure to violence and sex. The media is not a magical mind controlling force that controls your kids. As their initial exposure and upbringing is on your terms, there's nothing a flashing box is going to do to them. If you raised weak-willed media drones, you failed long before you let them get GTA.

 

[AlexanderAstartes]

Kid's don't need telling "Killing is bad, so don't do like Master Chief and kill the funny looking kids". Any child that goes out and injures another did it of their own means, not because some game told them to. As Yahtzee so eloquently puts in his Manhunt review, firing a real gun is in no way like using a game controller (nor is reloading, unless guns are being built with an X button for that sort of thing these days).

I like to think I was mature enough as a child/teen to play games which contain violence or sexual themes; it's not like that was the reason to buy them anyway, I buy games, as with books and movies, for good reasons such as storytelling or atmosphere or enjoyment. The vast majority I assume are very similar in their beliefs, and the sooner those misinformed few realize gaming is another, more interactive form of entertainment, then the sooner this pointless criticism can end.

Lucky I live in the (relatively) less caring UK. I suppose sooner or later we'll face the same problem here, but honestly it's not the games, it's the person.

 

[propertyofcobra]

I'll say this.
I'd rather teach my kid that killing a hooker gets you your money back (GTA3 and onwards) than...
Teaching my kid that if god asks him to kill EVERY LIVING BEING in the neighbor nation, he damn better do it, and if he doesn't (say, by letting a few cattle live) then he will go to hell. Which is after all the sort of mentality that both the Star Wars empire and the 1930-40's German regime used. (Bible)

Of course, preferrable would be to teach my kid to see the difference between real life and cute fairy tales (be they videogame or religion in basis), and act in real life like you'd act in real life, not like you'd act in the silly little fairy tales.
If my child completely and utterly understands this significant difference between cute make-believe and real life, then he can play what he wants within logical limits. (I'm not letting my ten year old play Manhunt, no. But I won't stop him from playing Resident Evil. I played my first RE around that age, and I'm not a nut, or even mortally scarred for life of zombies. Interrogation-room mirrors, yes. But not zombies)

 

[Haliwali]

When I was young age ratings didn't really mean much and my ol' man pretty much let me watch whatever, and I turned out ok. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go sacrifice 15 virgins to Satan.

Thats the point the idea of "family values" is insane.
The same thing is happening with religion. From what I have gathered no one used to put much emphasis on your faith when in a political standing. But now, the media constantly brings up Mitt Romney's mormonism, its as if you HAVE to be a christian now.
Where is this standard for morality coming from?

Honestly, races, religion, and how a candidate eats his chicken (totally serious, that was a news story) have little bearing on how I view candidates. And people. I prefer to watch their actions, rather than listen to their words. I've got a friend whose voting habits go something like "I don't listen to a word politicians say. The only way to get the truth out of them is to look at their voting records."

As for the hypothetical kid, well that's assuming a woman would ever touch me. And that's assuming a LOT. But I'd play games with them, sort of like my dad did with me (I was his "copilot" in Wing Commander.) Same would go for drinking. Kids are going to do it anyway, might as well be there to keep them in check.

 

[PurpleRain]

I'll say this.
I'd rather teach my kid that killing a hooker gets you your money back (GTA3 and onwards) than...
Teaching my kid that if god asks him to kill EVERY LIVING BEING in the neighbor nation, he damn better do it, and if he doesn't (say, by letting a few cattle live) then he will go to hell. Which is after all the sort of mentality that both the Star Wars empire and the 1930-40's German regime used. (Bible)

I always liked the difference people view religion in comparison to videogames:

POLICE: Why did you kill your family Billy?
BILLY: God told me to!
POLICE: He must be insane, poor boy.
POLICE 2: Sir, we just found this video game 'Jax and Daxter' in his room.
POLICE: My god! The video game made him kill his family! It warped his young mind into thinking that murder is good.

A man near where I live, raped and killed his 10 year old daughter. He blamed it on god and was sent off to psychiatric care. If by chance he blamed it on another piece of fiction say a movie or game, what would the outcome be like?

 

[Haliwali]

He would've been skipping home from the police station.

Seriously though, he probably would've gotten a long sentence, and the maker of the game would have th pay an ass load of money to the family.

 

[Singing Gremlin]

I am 15. I love bioshock. I take a sick pleasure in ending splicers lives with a swing of a wrench and a sickening crunch. I do not, however, find myself ever wishing my trusty plasmids were to hand so I could ignite the guy annoying me. I have no particularly bloodthirsty aspirations, save for the occasional 'That person is an utter idiot and really needs to be shot' thought trains everyone has, and even then doubt that I would be able to go through with them if I was able to do so with impunity.

History does have rather a lot of blood and guts in it, yet bizzarrely you don't find video games mentioned very much in accounts of the crusades. Violence is in human nature, and especially today when discipline is reasonably low and the power to kill, maim and ruin lives is easily gained its not really surprising people are indulging in this facet of human nature. Perhaps if the government started trying to combat actual violence and crime, as opposed to trying to ban any media that involves violence (denial anyone?) they might actually get somewhere...

 

[LisaB1138]

As a mom I do not let my children play games that involve human on human violence. So GTA doesn't make it in. Neither do games like Hitman or Manhunt or Splinter Cell. GOW 2 is out because I don't want my kid bashing some poor defenseless person's head in to advance in a game. I do make exceptions for war games like COD, because it's WAR and presented in a rather faceless, impersonal sense.

It's not a case of "shielding" my children. We get plenty of violence elsewhere in our lives (i.e., movies.) But in movies, generally those that do the killing/stealing/insert bad act here get what's coming to them. The good guys ultimately win, so to speak, and the bad guys get punished.

In games, however, one is rewarded for doing rotten or immoral things. That's the difference. One can say "it's just a game," but until I'm certain I've done my job instilling in my children values that I hope they will adhere to, they're going to have to be happy killing demons or monsters or aliens and in settings that don't resemble our town.

Unfortunately, no system, federal or not, is going to really rate games as they should be. Therefore I will continue to research and play all M games in the house.

 

[[HD]Rob Inglis]

I completely agree with your opinion. The government shouldn't be expected to take the place when parents suck at their job. It's easy to not let your children play games they shouldn't be.

 

[Possum-Man]

Unfortunately, no system, federal or not, is going to really rate games as they should be. Therefore I will continue to research and play all M games in the house.

It's excellent to see that someone is actually interested and making the effort to research games before letting their kids play them, my hat goes off to you.

What's your opinion of Mass Effect? if you're kids are old enough to play it that is.

P.M.

 

[Haliwali]

The truth.

Why can't you be MY mom. I'm 16, you adopt me. I good kid, I get good grades. Come on.

 

[John Galt]

That would be Congress' fault, if it happened. While she wouldn't veto it, like most any republican would (though on the case of video games, I wouldn't be so sure), it's still your representatives making these laws, not the president.

Sorry, I phrased that wrong, what I meant to say was that she would try to change the budget through the OMB to be more welfare-statesque, nothing in particular about games or anything. Of course this too could be a fallacy due to my knowledge of the US Gov't being only what I could learn in one semester in highschool.

 

[ComradeJim270]

If I have kids... which I think is unlikely, at least as far as biological children are concerned... quite frankly, I think deciding what games they can play will be done largely on a case by case basis. More adult themes means they have to discuss the context and nature of these themes with me to ensure understanding of their morality.