Games make people violent.

[TheRealCJ]

... And other things that are no doubt going to cause a massive knee-jerk reaction from about 80 percent of people who come in here.

Am I the only one who thinks that gamers need to lay the hell off of people who are trying to make games and gaming better for the rest of us. Yes, we are all kinda burned on the whole "Jack Thompson" thing, but do you honestly think that hating on anyone trying to make games more accessible is a BAD thing?

For example: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.232098-72-Percent-of-Adults-Support-California-Game-Law-UPDATED

The first 16 (COUNT 'EM: 16!) posts were along the lines of "Anybody who thinks the sale of games to minors should be somehow regulated is a massive game hating idiot/douchebag".

Real Mature, guys. Last time I looked, people don't let minors rent R-rated movies, or drink alcohol, or drive a car. Yet somehow videogames get a free ride? That's a double standard at best, rampant stupidity at worse.

How the hell are we supposed to get a dialouge going with people who have opposing (but equally valid) viewpoints, if all we do is insult anybody who doesn't agree with us?

Also, how about at this point I congratulate anybody who managed to read past the title and get the point of this post. You know, the exact people I want everyone to be like.

EDIT: Er... yeah, thanks for proving my point guys.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

We may insult those who attack us yes, however the people for the argument also treat us like little babies who need to be told how to think and must have the regulated list of what we are supposed to like and buy for our entertainment pleasure.

I do agree that minors shouldn't be allowed to purchase M-rated video games. That's what the labels are there for. They give out a specific age in clear print showing that one needs to fit this require by law to purchase the product. It's the people that ignore these labels and then act shocked that what they got for little Timmy for doing his chores is what gets on my tits.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Weird, since the first few posts I read seem to state that what is needed is more parenting and less governmental intervention. That doens't mean there shouldn't be regulation (like ESRB), but that parents need to take more responsibility and educate themselves on what their children are playing.

Nothing wrong with that.

Or did you misunderstand?

No, the posts read (and I paraphrase): GOD STUPID PARENTS THEY'RE SO LAZY. FUCKING IDIOTS WANT THE GUMMAMINT TO RUIN GAMES BY MAKING SURE 12 YEAR OLDS CAN'T BUY R-RATED GAMES WITHOUT PROBLEMS.

I dunno about you, but when I was in my pre- and early teens, I did a lot of things my parents - who were dutiful and attentive - never knew about.

 

[TheRealCJ]

We may insult those who attack us yes, however the people for the argument also treat us like little babies who need to be told how to think and must have the regulated list of what we are supposed to like and buy for our entertainment pleasure.

I do agree that minors shouldn't be allowed to purchase M-rated video games. That's what the labels are there for. They give out a specific age in clear print showing that one needs to fit this require by law to purchase the product. It's the people that ignore these labels and then act shocked that what they got for little Timmy for doing his chores is what gets on my tits.

I actually agree, parents DO need to make sure that they don't buy adult games for children, but parents don't always buy games for kids. The problem is that children can buy any game at any rating without parental consent, and essentially the only barrier is the personal beliefs of the game shop, or even the personal employee.

 

[default]

Games should be treated like any other media, of course. Innapropriate content should ALWAYS be restricted to adults. Would you just let a child watch Saving Private Ryan? It's the same thing letting them buy Modern Warfare 2.

And yes, I am very much in support of the theory that games enhance aggressive feelings, but only when one is PLAYING them. Only those who are retarded or weak-minded let the influence carry on into their thinking.

 

[Kapol]

Weird, since the first few posts I read seem to state that what is needed is more parenting and less governmental intervention. That doens't mean there shouldn't be regulation (like ESRB), but that parents need to take more responsibility and educate themselves on what their children are playing.

Nothing wrong with that.

Or did you misunderstand?

No, the posts read (and I paraphrase): GOD STUPID PARENTS THEY'RE SO LAZY. FUCKING IDIOTS WANT THE GUMMAMINT TO RUIN GAMES BY MAKING SURE 12 YEAR OLDS CAN'T BUY R-RATED GAMES WITHOUT PROBLEMS.

I dunno about you, but when I was in my pre- and early teens, I did a lot of things my parents - who were dutiful and attentive - never knew about.

That's a pretty big dramatization. It's not about parents buying the games, it's about the parents making sure the kid isn't playing them if they don't want the kid playing them. The 360 and PS3, where most violent games are, keep record of what games have been played on it via the achievement/trophy stats. It's not that hard to look and see what games have been played unless the kid figures out a cleaver way to make sure they don't get seen. Not to mention most consoles have parental protection that can be activated fairly easily.

We may insult those who attack us yes, however the people for the argument also treat us like little babies who need to be told how to think and must have the regulated list of what we are supposed to like and buy for our entertainment pleasure.

I do agree that minors shouldn't be allowed to purchase M-rated video games. That's what the labels are there for. They give out a specific age in clear print showing that one needs to fit this require by law to purchase the product. It's the people that ignore these labels and then act shocked that what they got for little Timmy for doing his chores is what gets on my tits.

I actually agree, parents DO need to make sure that they don't buy adult games for children, but parents don't always buy games for kids. The problem is that children can buy any game at any rating without parental consent, and essentially the only barrier is the personal beliefs of the game shop, or even the personal employee.

The company would likely get in the same amount of trouble a store that sells a R or X rated movie to a minor would. I think the store would get into some trouble if the parents actually found out about it. Plus, for the most part, parents don't care what games their kids play. That's really on them. My parents always told me and the main game store I went to growing up that they didn't care if I bought any game that wasn't GTA. Because of that, I could buy just about anything, because the store had my parents permission and all the people who worked there knew it. Under the law that's going through, they would have had to pay a heavy fine and it would be a fairly serious offense.

And it's not about regulating games to minors, but the idea that games need more regulation then movies that could be much worse. The main reason people are upset with the people from that poll is because that poll gives more ammo to the people who want gaming to lose it's first amendment protection. Plus, with all the little things added onto systems and the fact that most games leave some sort of easily found trail to it, be it physical copy or profile on the system, the parents really could find out what their kids are playing fairly easily if they wanted. They just don't take the time. As for the excuse that kids go to friends with violent videogames, they should tell that other kid's parents they don't want their kid playing that game.

Am I saying it's perfect? No. But what makes me mad is that I'm willing to bet more then 75% of these parents from this poll whose kids actually play games have or will buy a kid a violent M rated game at some point.

 

[TheRealCJ]

The problem is that children can buy any game at any rating without parental consent, and essentially the only barrier is the personal beliefs of the game shop, or even the personal employee.

Hold the phone... I've seen many children be turned down at video game stores attempting to buy M rated games.

I've seen many parents informed by clerks upon arriving at the counter as to what the game's content is (though that is above an beyond - ESRB is prominently displayed on the box).

Your argument can be used in other media (like movies).
The clerk could decide to let children into an R rated movie.
Maybe we should just ban all R rated movies.

Therein lies the rub. It's still on the parents to get educated and be aware. All kids are gonna try to sneak one past their parents. It's a right of passage and part of growing up. I saw a horror movie (complete with boobies) with my hockey team when I was about 9 or 10 and my parents did not know. At the same time, I did not have nightmares or try to murder a group of lustful teenagers.

My argument is with the sheer ignorance of parents (I'm days/hours away from being a parent myself - my kid is 3 days late and counting) who should be aware of the current regulatory system.

I'm not saying that there are people out there who aren't doing their part to help stop kids from getting games outside of their age range, but I've also seen many kids walk into a store (usually a place like Target or Kmart), take a MA15+ game off the shelves, pay for it, and walk out. Not a word said about age appropriateness, and certainly not a parent.

You may say that the parents should watch out more for their kids, but kids have a great way of withholding things from their parents, especially now that more and more of the little sods have computers or consoles in the privacy of their rooms.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Weird, since the first few posts I read seem to state that what is needed is more parenting and less governmental intervention. That doens't mean there shouldn't be regulation (like ESRB), but that parents need to take more responsibility and educate themselves on what their children are playing.

Nothing wrong with that.

Or did you misunderstand?

No, the posts read (and I paraphrase): GOD STUPID PARENTS THEY'RE SO LAZY. FUCKING IDIOTS WANT THE GUMMAMINT TO RUIN GAMES BY MAKING SURE 12 YEAR OLDS CAN'T BUY R-RATED GAMES WITHOUT PROBLEMS.

I dunno about you, but when I was in my pre- and early teens, I did a lot of things my parents - who were dutiful and attentive - never knew about.

That's a pretty big dramatization. It's not about parents buying the games, it's about the parents making sure the kid isn't playing them if they don't want the kid playing them. The 360 and PS3, where most violent games are, keep record of what games have been played on it via the achievement/trophy stats. It's not that hard to look and see what games have been played unless the kid figures out a cleaver way to make sure they don't get seen. Not to mention most consoles have parental protection that can be activated fairly easily.

We may insult those who attack us yes, however the people for the argument also treat us like little babies who need to be told how to think and must have the regulated list of what we are supposed to like and buy for our entertainment pleasure.

I do agree that minors shouldn't be allowed to purchase M-rated video games. That's what the labels are there for. They give out a specific age in clear print showing that one needs to fit this require by law to purchase the product. It's the people that ignore these labels and then act shocked that what they got for little Timmy for doing his chores is what gets on my tits.

I actually agree, parents DO need to make sure that they don't buy adult games for children, but parents don't always buy games for kids. The problem is that children can buy any game at any rating without parental consent, and essentially the only barrier is the personal beliefs of the game shop, or even the personal employee.

The company would likely get in the same amount of trouble a store that sells a R or X rated movie to a minor would. I think the store would get into some trouble if the parents actually found out about it. Plus, for the most part, parents don't care what games their kids play. That's really on them. My parents always told me and the main game store I went to growing up that they didn't care if I bought any game that wasn't GTA. Because of that, I could buy just about anything, because the store had my parents permission and all the people who worked there knew it. Under the law that's going through, they would have had to pay a heavy fine and it would be a fairly serious offense.

And it's not about regulating games to minors, but the idea that games need more regulation then movies that could be much worse. The main reason people are upset with the people from that poll is because that poll gives more ammo to the people who want gaming to lose it's first amendment protection. Plus, with all the little things added onto systems and the fact that most games leave some sort of easily found trail to it, be it physical copy or profile on the system, the parents really could find out what their kids are playing fairly easily if they wanted. They just don't take the time. As for the excuse that kids go to friends with violent videogames, they should tell that other kid's parents they don't want their kid playing that game.

Am I saying it's perfect? No. But what makes me mad is that I'm willing to bet more then 75% of these parents from this poll whose kids actually play games have or will buy a kid a violent M rated game at some point.

Okay, I'll concede the point. But this thread was more about gamers and their ridiculous knee-jerk reactions to the slightest amount of regulation or even the idea of regulation. They hear "Games need more regulation" and immediately freak out.

Like every time there's a thread about Australian game politics (A relatively minor issue for people - even gamers - in Australia itself), everybody immediately freaks out and calls whoever isn't all for complete and total removal of all censorship a draconian meglomaniac.

 

[Last Bullet]

Taken from that quote you provided:

Common Sense Media claims that 72 percent of adults are in favor of California's attempt to legislate the sale of violent videogames to minors because the industry isn't doing enough to protect children from inappropriate content.

...How is it the industry's fault at all? I mean, it only shows on the front and back of the packaging it's age rating. The developers/producers can't magically force the retailers to enforce ESRB. You know why we're blaming the parents and such? They aren't thinking. (Welcome to America.) Also, fun fact, nothing was proven in this thread.

 

[Thaius]

Admittedly, the reactions of gamers need to be changed. Immensely. But this game law is a terrible thing. It's already illegal to sell M-rated games to minors, and that's perfectly fine, even great; but this law is trying to make it illegal to sell "violent" (whatever they deem so) games to minors. In other words, games with violence will not be made because they will not be sold. This law would be a hugely crippling hit to gaming as a growing artistic medium.

Here: they explain it better than I do.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech

Regardless of reaction to these types of things, you cannot support this law. It's unconstitutional and wrong, and would potentially destroy the progress video games have made as a meaningful artistic medium.

 

[Kapol]

Weird, since the first few posts I read seem to state that what is needed is more parenting and less governmental intervention. That doens't mean there shouldn't be regulation (like ESRB), but that parents need to take more responsibility and educate themselves on what their children are playing.

Nothing wrong with that.

Or did you misunderstand?

No, the posts read (and I paraphrase): GOD STUPID PARENTS THEY'RE SO LAZY. FUCKING IDIOTS WANT THE GUMMAMINT TO RUIN GAMES BY MAKING SURE 12 YEAR OLDS CAN'T BUY R-RATED GAMES WITHOUT PROBLEMS.

I dunno about you, but when I was in my pre- and early teens, I did a lot of things my parents - who were dutiful and attentive - never knew about.

That's a pretty big dramatization. It's not about parents buying the games, it's about the parents making sure the kid isn't playing them if they don't want the kid playing them. The 360 and PS3, where most violent games are, keep record of what games have been played on it via the achievement/trophy stats. It's not that hard to look and see what games have been played unless the kid figures out a cleaver way to make sure they don't get seen. Not to mention most consoles have parental protection that can be activated fairly easily.

We may insult those who attack us yes, however the people for the argument also treat us like little babies who need to be told how to think and must have the regulated list of what we are supposed to like and buy for our entertainment pleasure.

I do agree that minors shouldn't be allowed to purchase M-rated video games. That's what the labels are there for. They give out a specific age in clear print showing that one needs to fit this require by law to purchase the product. It's the people that ignore these labels and then act shocked that what they got for little Timmy for doing his chores is what gets on my tits.

I actually agree, parents DO need to make sure that they don't buy adult games for children, but parents don't always buy games for kids. The problem is that children can buy any game at any rating without parental consent, and essentially the only barrier is the personal beliefs of the game shop, or even the personal employee.

The company would likely get in the same amount of trouble a store that sells a R or X rated movie to a minor would. I think the store would get into some trouble if the parents actually found out about it. Plus, for the most part, parents don't care what games their kids play. That's really on them. My parents always told me and the main game store I went to growing up that they didn't care if I bought any game that wasn't GTA. Because of that, I could buy just about anything, because the store had my parents permission and all the people who worked there knew it. Under the law that's going through, they would have had to pay a heavy fine and it would be a fairly serious offense.

And it's not about regulating games to minors, but the idea that games need more regulation then movies that could be much worse. The main reason people are upset with the people from that poll is because that poll gives more ammo to the people who want gaming to lose it's first amendment protection. Plus, with all the little things added onto systems and the fact that most games leave some sort of easily found trail to it, be it physical copy or profile on the system, the parents really could find out what their kids are playing fairly easily if they wanted. They just don't take the time. As for the excuse that kids go to friends with violent videogames, they should tell that other kid's parents they don't want their kid playing that game.

Am I saying it's perfect? No. But what makes me mad is that I'm willing to bet more then 75% of these parents from this poll whose kids actually play games have or will buy a kid a violent M rated game at some point.

Okay, I'll concede the point. But this thread was more about gamers and their ridiculous knee-jerk reactions to the slightest amount of regulation or even the idea of regulation. They hear "Games need more regulation" and immediately freak out.

Like every time there's a thread about Australian game politics (A relatively minor issue for people - even gamers - in Australia itself), everybody immediately freaks out and calls whoever isn't all for complete and total removal of all censorship a draconian meglomaniac.

I'll admit that a lot of people react very badly to the idea of regulation, and the responses should change from the anger shown by a lot of people to more calm reasoning. But then again, this is true from pretty much anyone when something they believe very strongly in is challenged, not just gamers.

I do agree that regulation in the gaming industry is bad for it as a whole, as it means some ideas are never allowed to develop. The Australia example is one that is caused by how some people ban things that are considered fine in the part of the world the ones complaining in live. L4D2 is a good example. But like I said before, any regulation kills some ideas no matter what. Admittedly, most of those ideas are bad and we're likely better off without them. But the stricter it gets, the more ideas are going to die before being realized. The L4D2 issue in Australia may not be important to anyone not living there now, but it's possible other governments can follow that example and make thing stricter or that someone who had an idea for a game won't allow it to develop thanks to the fact that that level of violence, which is integrated into the idea some way, is not accepted in that culture. It might be a longshot, yes, but it's always a possibility that needs to be considered.

 

[blankedboy]

Oh, the irony. This is the biggest in-joke for me and a few others with good memory, EVER.

Incredibly subtle hypocrisy at its very best, I'll tell you all that.

 

[Funkysandwich]

Like every time there's a thread about Australian game politics (A relatively minor issue for people - even gamers - in Australia itself), everybody immediately freaks out and calls whoever isn't all for complete and total removal of all censorship a draconian meglomaniac.

Actually, it's a big issue for gamers in Australia. It's not about the removal of censorship, it's about updating an old system to reflect changes in the industry.

The R18+ classification for games was important enough for a group of people to set up a political party and run against the Governor General of South Australia in the state election. I'd say that shows that it matters to gamers.

Besides, I think what's really important is the fact the video games are time and time again being singled out as the only form of media that needs this strict and extreme form of regulation. The last time I looked, there wasn't a classification system for books. I used to get asked for ID more often when buying games then buying alcohol.

I don't think regulation is bad, but you can take it too far.

 

[Reverend Del]

It's illegal in the UK to sell games that have been age rated to people not of that age or older. Illegal. As in go to prison/pay much fineage. Hasn't ruined our industry. Our government are doing that just fine. Games are treated like movies here. It seems to work.

 

[ServebotFrank]

Didn't Louisiana try this a couple of years back and failed anyway?