Games on Trial

[Baron von Awesome]

Either ignored or abused by their parents, tormented in PUBLIC schools, or just altogether having a rotten childhood.

One can also be tormented in private schools.

I totally agree, but the point of what I was saying was how even government controlled organizations designed for the well-being of children can lead to abuse.

 

[Baron von Awesome]

I normally consider myself a centrist when it comes to politics in America. I try to avoid buying into either side's propaganda, and usually find little reason to support any of the major candidates. However, what is really pissing me off is how politicians on both sides are starting to try and restrict our freedom under the guise of "for our own safety." I think it's pathetic that politicians think they need to monitor what people are allowed to eat. It's like they think we're cattle who will just gorge ourselves til we explode.

What turns children into violent mass-murderers isn't violent media. It may give them ideas, but what turns children into mass-murderers is living in a stressful hateful situation during their childhood and having no recourse. Either ignored or abused by their parents, tormented in PUBLIC schools, or just altogether having a rotten childhood. Not saying that all people who have this kinda childhood won't be able to overcome it, but this is what contributes to school shootings. Watching violent media just glorifies violence and gives them an idea on how to act out against their sad situation. Is it really that hard for people to understand this? I feel like it would be the first thing that came to my mind when there was a school shooting, not "I wonder if he did it, because he played Doom."

The irony of it all is that a man who got rich and famous from being the protagonist in violent media is now arguing for censorship of it.

I gotta say that the repeated attempts to cast the Governator as the leading force behind California's law is, in all fairness, inaccurate. The real force behind the law and its leading proponent in Senator Leland Yee. True, Arnie did sign the law into effect once it passed the Legislature and his name does appear in the case's title (as it would for any Governor in all cases brought by the State of California) but beyond that, he hasn't said too much of anything either way about Yee's law. I suspect that he doesn't especially care about this issue.

Yeah I can't really say I'm too knowledgeable about who is the leading force behind this. I just saw some references about the Governator in regards to the whole thing that might have been taken out of context. You're right he probably doesn't really care that much about the issue with bigger things like the economy/Prop 19/effects of recent elections to care about a video game censorship law.

 

[JDKJ]

I normally consider myself a centrist when it comes to politics in America. I try to avoid buying into either side's propaganda, and usually find little reason to support any of the major candidates. However, what is really pissing me off is how politicians on both sides are starting to try and restrict our freedom under the guise of "for our own safety." I think it's pathetic that politicians think they need to monitor what people are allowed to eat. It's like they think we're cattle who will just gorge ourselves til we explode.

What turns children into violent mass-murderers isn't violent media. It may give them ideas, but what turns children into mass-murderers is living in a stressful hateful situation during their childhood and having no recourse. Either ignored or abused by their parents, tormented in PUBLIC schools, or just altogether having a rotten childhood. Not saying that all people who have this kinda childhood won't be able to overcome it, but this is what contributes to school shootings. Watching violent media just glorifies violence and gives them an idea on how to act out against their sad situation. Is it really that hard for people to understand this? I feel like it would be the first thing that came to my mind when there was a school shooting, not "I wonder if he did it, because he played Doom."

The irony of it all is that a man who got rich and famous from being the protagonist in violent media is now arguing for censorship of it.

I gotta say that the repeated attempts to cast the Governator as the leading force behind California's law is, in all fairness, inaccurate. The real force behind the law and its leading proponent in Senator Leland Yee. True, Arnie did sign the law into effect once it passed the Legislature and his name does appear in the case's title (as it would for any Governor in all cases brought by the State of California) but beyond that, he hasn't said too much of anything either way about Yee's law. I suspect that he doesn't especially care about this issue.

Yeah I can't really say I'm too knowledgeable about who is the leading force behind this. I just saw some references about the Governator in regards to the whole thing that might have been taken out of context. You're right he probably doesn't really care that much about the issue with bigger things like the economy/Prop 19/effects of recent elections to care about a video game censorship law.

No big deal. Just tryin' to keep the record accurate.

What he needs to care about is his inability to properly pronounce the State's name. Last time I checked, it wasn't called "Cauliflower."

 

[RavenTail]

It's more then just about selling video games.

1) Movies, TV, Books, and other forms of creative expression have no federal limitations so it would be an unfair move to single video games out.

2) California has a very influential effect on the other states. If this law passes, other states will seek to do the same or similar laws.

3) The law itself is poorly written. It's far to vague on what is described as unsuitable for minors. Simply referring to such games as having 'obscene violence.' The trouble with that loose definition is that what is defined as obscene? For that matter, if there is obscene violence, does that mean there is normal pleasant violence? On top of all this California doesn't care to define what is unsuitable violence. They say flat out it's up to the industry to figure that out. This means that under the law developers can be legally liable should a consumer find one of their games 'obscene' since the definition would be left to an individual's standards. Now to me this would make the industry all the more weary of what they put on the shelves since anyone in CA could take them to court over this vague law.

So this is a bigger deal then just selling games.

 

[Therumancer]

The bit that gets my attention most here is:

-

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both parents of young children, also seemed to support California's position. Roberts seemed to be most concerned with protecting children from violence in general. In response to Scalia's argument that there was no Constitutional tradition of regulating violent speech, Chief Justice Roberts responded, "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that."

-

I don't think anyone else has mentioned this, but it mentions kids watching things like that. If you remove the whole "video game" bit from this, pretty much everything described there has happened in children's entertainment, with movies created by companies like Disney.

Movies like "The Goonies" and "Home Alone" have included a lot of violence, with people attacking kids, sometimes fairly successfully. In "The Goonies" they grab one kid and threaten to jam his arm into a blender. In "Home Alone" we have the protaganist threatened with torture, and actually see someone getting bludgeoned with a shovel. In movies like "Cloak and Dagger" we have kids getting beaten up and chlorophormed, and a scene where a kid's imaginary friend (his father) gets murdered, and another bit where your lead to believe his actual father dies in a flaming plane crash.

Potty humor is big with kids, and you've got numerous examples of kids in various movies going to the bathroom in inappropriate places, and finding ways to get other kids (or adults) to drink their Urine (lemonade!) and so on.

Now admittedly I can't think of any cases where someone has had all of those things happen to them in sequence in a kids movie, even in the endless streams of misfortune that hit the baddies in things like the "Home Alone" movies, though I'd imagine if viewed objectively there are definatly some slapstick moments that are just as bad in movies that pass as family friendly fare.

-

One of the problems I have with this case is that the people who are running defense on video games don't seem to be defending themselves competantly. Not to mention the fact that the Supreme Court Justices that are being reported as being pro-video games/free speech seem to actually be asking questions about what such a law would entail, rather than speaking against it. On some levels the questions seem to be more about how they would want to see it written to apply only to video games as an exception. Of course I'm a cynic.

The thing that gets me about this is that "Postal 2" is actually one of the easier games to defend on artistic merits, since the entire point of the game is a criticism of society. On a lot of levels it's very similar to the old Michael Douglas movie "Falling Down". The situations in the game are exagerrated to make a point, but it's noteworthy that you CAN complete that entire game without actually hurting anyone.

Oh sure, it's a game that parents should probably be keeping out of the hands of kids, but it's not the place of the goverment to perform that regulation. Certainly nobody should be facing criminal charges due to a parent's inabillity to do their job. Ultimatly the goverment is supposed to stay out of things like this entirely which is why we are protected by a constitutional right.

At any rate, the one unmitigated high point of this article is the bit about Mortal Kombat, that was the most direct pro-video game statement that I saw there, as some of the others can be considered pretty ambigious when viewed with enough cynicism.

-

At any rate, I'm not a lawyer, but if I had to be running defense against Postal, I'd take that whole sequence: Violence against a schoolgirl, someone being hit with a shovel, someone being lit on fire, and someone being urinated on... and then dig through some children's movies and check off each of those things as happening somewhere, and truthfully I think you could find more than one occurance of each thing with minimal effort. While I can't think of a situation where all of that happens in one scene, I think you could find (as I mentioned before) cases of that many bad/violent things happening in a single sequence.

Honestly, by the same arguement being made against Postal I really do think that by any objctive standard you'd have to ban movies like "The Goonies", "Gremlins", "Home Alone", "The Watcher In The Woods", and "Cloak and Dagger".

 

[RicoADF]

One word, Michael Akiston (however you spell his name). Bloody stoping R18+ in Australia, why I outta....
But the point is that regulation of ALL media is needed, not censorship, but regulation. As in 10 year olds shouldn't be allowed to buy GTA4 from the store anymore then SAW III etc. You can't blame the parents all the time if the kids go behind their back and buy the item and hide it, by regulating it then it gives the power to the parent to decide if their child is ready and mature enough to watch/play/read/listen to whatever media tital they want. Right now the kids can buy it without the parents say so in the USA.
It wouldn't effect whats on the shelves at all, if the stores are already upholding the ratings then theres no difference, if their not then the law is clearly needed.
And I'm against censorship 100%, however this isn't censoring free speech from the public, its stopping kids from seeing things they shouldn't since their not ready, no different to alcohol etc, theres an age at which it's appropriate.

You're playing with semantics here - regulation and censorship are one and the same. If you make it illegal for some people to buy something, that is by definition censorship. No ifs, ands, or buts. "Stopping kids from seeing things they shouldn't," as you say, is basically just putting it in a nicer way. The problem here is that you're using YOUR values to determine what "kids should see," when this is a matter left strictly to the parents and the kid him/herself in this country. By saying that someone else will decide what is okay for the kid to see, you're implementing censorship, pure and simple. Now, if you want to make the argument that censorship of all media is required, that's fine, but I'll still disagree, and so would the supreme court. The only reason they're trying it with games (and only games) is because they know they'll lose if they expand it any further (and in the case of at least movies there's already precedent that guarantees they'll lose).

I don't blame the parents at all - if kids want to game the system they'll always find a way, but you're still missing the crux of the argument here, which is that this is censorship no matter how you cut it, and I oppose it on that basis alone. You're also missing the point about why it may affect what is on the store shelves. Really, just read the article, it makes this very clear. Enforcement will not achieve 100% no matter what - now it's at about 80%. If a fine is added as a penalty for failing, this guarantees that retailers will have to pay it at some point. How much they'll have to pay I can't say, but it's irrelevant for now. Thus, they will have an incentive to not carry these games, which MAY translate into an actual refusal to carry them. Even if it doesn't, it will place some pressure on game developers to make less violent games because they'll be worried that at some point stores will stop selling them. That's why people are saying that it may lead to these games being removed from stores, and that even if it doesn't, it will certainly still serve as a censoring pressure on game developers, even if it's only a small one.

Stop thinking things as black and white. It wont lead games to being taken off the shelf or effect games made as those effected arnt meant to be sold to kids ANYWAY. Unless ur admitting that 5 year olds play GTA4
This isnt about stoping kids from PLAYING the game, its stoping them BUYING the game without parental consent. You know that group people keep saying need to control their kids, well this would allow them to do so by not letting the kids buy the game behind their parents backs. So unless you think its fine for 10 year olds to buy GTA4 and manhunt then you should have no problem with disalowing kids from purchasing the games, then it will be upto the parents to decide if they should.
Thats how it is in Australia and its perfect over here, we're just missing a R18+ rating for games, which is to do with the attorney generals office being slow old farts, not the ratings board failing.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

Stop thinking things as black and white. It wont lead games to being taken off the shelf or effect games made as those effected arnt meant to be sold to kids ANYWAY. Unless ur admitting that 5 year olds play GTA4
This isnt about stoping kids from PLAYING the game, its stoping them BUYING the game without parental consent. You know that group people keep saying need to control their kids, well this would allow them to do so by not letting the kids buy the game behind their parents backs. So unless you think its fine for 10 year olds to buy GTA4 and manhunt then you should have no problem with disalowing kids from purchasing the games, then it will be upto the parents to decide if they should.
Thats how it is in Australia and its perfect over here, we're just missing a R18+ rating for games, which is to do with the attorney generals office being slow old farts, not the ratings board failing.

If you're still not getting this, then I don't think you're really listening. Stores don't like getting fined. Do you get that? This isn't about the loss in profits from the people that aren't supposed to be buying the games in the first place. It's about the loss in profits from the fines that will be imposed on those businesses when people inevitably do break the rules. I can't say it any clearer than I already have. Yes, the stores are already trying, and doing a pretty good job at keeping their employees from selling these games to kids. That doesn't mean that they're 100% successful, though, and nothing they do can ensure that they reach that point. This includes legal repercussions. So no matter what, they will not stop 100% of the kids who try. Therefore, it's a guarantee that they will be fined at some point. The incentive is thus created for them to not want to sell violent games - they lose a pretty damned large chunk of money per violation. The amount they lose is mostly irrelevant - the fact remains that this is a loss that they cannot incur while selling non-restricted games, but that they CAN while selling the restricted ones. Therefore, they may lean on developers to provide them with more non-restricted games to sell, possibly by threatening to pull the restricted ones altogether. So even if they don't stop selling the restricted ones, they will still be putting at least some small amount of pressure on developers to make more non-restricted games, which is a form of indirect censorship, as the time, manpower, and money that is used to make those games is going to be used at the expense of other games that would have fallen into the restricted category.

As to why it may (and probably will) be different in the US from other countries, I already went over this. I know Michael Atkinson is a ****, and you guys in Australia have plenty of opposition to violent games, but you really have no idea how minor that is compared to the power of interest groups here. The US gives these organizations an absurd amount of input in the legislative process that they use to further their own agendas, and these are the groups behind these laws. But besides that, you're also ignoring the points about the US being a vastly larger target market, and the relative position of video games vs. other media here - I know you addressed this last one in the post before this, but your answer was just "censor everything," which as I've already explained, isn't an answer to me.

EDIT:
And you don't need to explain the purpose of the law. I get why some people think this is a good idea. You're right that parents can't always monitor their kids. But you need to keep in mind that the proposed "damage" that games do is done over a long period. It's not as though the second a kid plays manhunt they are irrevocably ruined. The sort of harm this law is seeking to prevent occurs over a period of years - if you fail to realize that your child is playing games that you don't approve of over that time period, then you really just aren't trying hard enough as a parent. Not to mention that it's still imposing the opinion of a jury (or other government-appointed body, some states will likely deviate from the jury model California proposes if this passes) on an issue that virtually all other precedent says is purely up to the store and the child themselves (the actual buying of the game), and then the parents once the game is at home. But regardless, the law is unnecessary even if you assume that adding government into that relationship is okay, because parents should be capable of monitoring their children at least on this basic level.

 

[KiKiweaky]

How about if a parent doesn't want their kid to play a game they tell them they can't?

That would be responsible.

The problem is that this law is writen to "protect" parents that do not review what their children ask for. The parents that walk into Game stop with scribbled christmas lists and ask for games without understanding the ratings system or even looking at the ESRB designations.

As a parent who is an avid fan of the medium, I make it a point to keep my copies of M rated games put away and play them when my child is asleep. When he is around and he wants to play with his dad, I let him play drums on Lego Rock Band or we play some more rated E games. To me, it's common sense. To most of those who were born just 5 years before me, it's a mystery.

We have to accept that it is those people, around age 40 to 60, that are in charge of the country at the moment. Those people, who would never even look at the true experience behind a solid M rated game like Mass Effect or Bioshock, are just more prone to seeing a story about a game like Postal or Rape Lay and make sweeping generalizations because that is what ignorance breeds.

Even if we loose, in 5 to 10 years when a more informed generation comes to power these restrictions can be changed. It's just a matter of having people who actually care in the right place.

I see, well that makes sense how old is this kid btw? I had my cousins over the other day my cousin is 13 and I left him play modern warfare 2.

We have a different rating system here in Ireland as far as i know it's rated at 16+ while in the states it's M for mature? I think... correct me if I'm wrong

He even own his own copy on his xbox (mines on pc) but it was bought for him by his Dad, while his Mum at the time didnt know about it. She found out evenually and flipped, but eventually relented and let him keep it. I was even playing call of duty 2 on the xbox with his younger sister who's 8 for a while.

While yes there is alot of violence in these games, it's a far cry from the sort that you find in manhunt. Manhunt is well hidden when they're in my house. As generally 'no you may not play this' will lead to QQ'ing of epic proportions. I dont have any problem letting them play shoot em ups, man hunt though is a little too sadistic and gory for me to feel comfortable having a child play it.

What do you reckon? Good/bad choice?

 

[Jhereg42]

I see, well that makes sense how old is this kid btw? I had my cousins over the other day my cousin is 13 and I left him play modern warfare 2.

We have a different rating system here in Ireland as far as i know it's rated at 16+ while in the states it's M for mature? I think... correct me if I'm wrong

He even own his own copy on his xbox (mines on pc) but it was bought for him by his Dad, while his Mum at the time didnt know about it. She found out evenually and flipped, but eventually relented and let him keep it. I was even playing call of duty 2 on the xbox with his younger sister who's 8 for a while.

While yes there is alot of violence in these games, it's a far cry from the sort that you find in manhunt. Manhunt is well hidden when they're in my house. As generally 'no you may not play this' will lead to QQ'ing of epic proportions. I dont have any problem letting them play shoot em ups, man hunt though is a little too sadistic and gory for me to feel comfortable having a child play it.

What do you reckon? Good/bad choice?

My son is 4, so quite a bit younger than the examples stated. At this age, the line as far as games he can be exposed to is a lot more clearly defined, so it makes my job a lot easier as a parent. He loves to play the x-box with his dad though. There is this "Dash of Destruction" free game released as an advert for Doritos that he loves because the dinosaur gets to chase the trucks. He likes to play drums (albeit badly) on Lego Rock Band, and he likes to play lego starwars and (strangely) an old PS2 NHL game I have. I'm thinking of introducing him to so classic Mario stuff soon.

As he grows up, it becomes my responsibility as a parent to set those further boundaries. Every child is different, and not all mature rated games are created equal. I would likely not have too much of a problem with say Assassin's Creed, Bioshock or even Mass Effect at age 14 (all rated Mature), but I would have an issue with The Witcher and GTA4 (same rating, obviously). My reason being that the statements the latter are trying to make get lost in the specticle created by some of the content. Both have a lot of value (I own both), but looking back at myself at age 14-16 I never would have been able to get to the meat of those games.

Then again, my frame of reference is very different than a lot of people here. My generation of M rated games were the likes of System Shock 2, Thief, and Deus Ex. Those were a far cry from the M rated games of today, and are games that I would gladly hand off to any of today's teenagers as classic examples of how mature themes should be handled. Today, I bet a lot of those would be evaluated as T rated games by the ESRB.

 

[lvl9000_woot]

...people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them...

What game does ^ happen in?

FFS HOW MANY TIMES?... IT LIES WITH THE PARENTS DAMNIT!

This.

Parents, control your kids. Teach them the differnce between a game and real life. People have been harming/killing eachother looooong before violent games were around. Anybody play cops and robbers as a kid? Wasn't that a violent game that was interactive?

Stop picking on the gaming community. Grow a pair and learn to be a better role model.

Also, I think it's hypocritical of Arnie to be bashing violent games seeing as how many violent movies hes been in. How many people has he shot on screen? Millions.

If I have kids and they do something violent, I'm going to start blaming Arnie and his movies. See how he likes it.

 

[JDKJ]

...people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them...

What game does ^ happen in?

The one that's been mentioned only about a dozen times or more in previous posts which you obviously didn't bother reading: Postal 2.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Parenting?
In America?

What's that? We're too busy performing meaningless tasks and filing for divorce for parenting.
Better let the gov take care of it. I mean, it's only my child![/sarcasm]

 

[Sinspiration]

So again the companies and game makers are being blamed, the games industry has a hard enough time as it is without being blamed because parents don't use their heads and regulate the kind of content they allow their child to play/witness.

Its NOT the fault of the industry if some stupid parents cant control their idiot children.

 

[KunkMast3rFl3x]

I'm not sure if anyone has commented on this yet or not but reading through these post i realized, 'Schwarzenegger is head lining this campaign (from what i can piece together(i.e. Schwarzenegger v. EMA))'. does anyone see the irony, or maybe just the W.T.F., in this. Schwarzenegger. the Terminator. Conan the Barbarian. (insert big 80s-90s shoot first ask questions later hero here) Schwarzenegger is going against violent video games. Am I wrong? Does this not seem like a double standard here. He made his money off of violent movies and related video game merchandise.
IDK just a thought I had.

 

[Sinspiration]

I'm not sure if anyone has commented on this yet or not but reading through these post i realized, 'Schwarzenegger is head lining this campaign (from what i can piece together(i.e. Schwarzenegger v. EMA))'. does anyone see the irony, or maybe just the W.T.F., in this. Schwarzenegger. the Terminator. Conan the Barbarian. (insert big 80s-90s shoot first ask questions later hero here) Schwarzenegger is going against violent video games. Am I wrong? Does this not seem like a double standard here. He made his money off of violent movies and related video game merchandise.
IDK just a thought I had.

Uh.. Just because he plays a killer cyber organism doesn't mean he actually is one himself. So yeah, you're wrong. I believe its called understanding without condoning.

 

[KiKiweaky]

My son is 4, so quite a bit younger than the examples stated. At this age, the line as far as games he can be exposed to is a lot more clearly defined, so it makes my job a lot easier as a parent. He loves to play the x-box with his dad though. There is this "Dash of Destruction" free game released as an advert for Doritos that he loves because the dinosaur gets to chase the trucks. He likes to play drums (albeit badly) on Lego Rock Band, and he likes to play lego starwars and (strangely) an old PS2 NHL game I have. I'm thinking of introducing him to so classic Mario stuff soon.

As he grows up, it becomes my responsibility as a parent to set those further boundaries. Every child is different, and not all mature rated games are created equal. I would likely not have too much of a problem with say Assassin's Creed, Bioshock or even Mass Effect at age 14 (all rated Mature), but I would have an issue with The Witcher and GTA4 (same rating, obviously). My reason being that the statements the latter are trying to make get lost in the specticle created by some of the content. Both have a lot of value (I own both), but looking back at myself at age 14-16 I never would have been able to get to the meat of those games.

Then again, my frame of reference is very different than a lot of people here. My generation of M rated games were the likes of System Shock 2, Thief, and Deus Ex. Those were a far cry from the M rated games of today, and are games that I would gladly hand off to any of today's teenagers as classic examples of how mature themes should be handled. Today, I bet a lot of those would be evaluated as T rated games by the ESRB.

Hmm slight difference alright

I've played thief n deus ex too, loved em both.

The main thing that would stop me from letting somebody play a game, is pretty much the same as a film. Something like terminator 2 has plenty of guns explosions and people being killed in it, what it doesnt have is torture people howling for their mother while bits of them are hanging off etc....

Or like my brother found out when he was baby sitting the cousin I was on about earlier. If you start a new game in Max Payne you come home to find your family (mother, baby) murderred. Even I thought it was pretty disturbing when I played it, my cousin was only about 8 at the time and while he didnt have nightmares he was like o.o when he came downstairs and told my brother about it haha. He promptly changed games for him :/

Best of luck with being a responsible parent, games coming out in the future are to be so mental your going to have a hard time coping with the 'I WANT IT' that inevitably going to be coming your way =P

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

I'm not sure if anyone has commented on this yet or not but reading through these post i realized, 'Schwarzenegger is head lining this campaign (from what i can piece together(i.e. Schwarzenegger v. EMA))'. does anyone see the irony, or maybe just the W.T.F., in this. Schwarzenegger. the Terminator. Conan the Barbarian. (insert big 80s-90s shoot first ask questions later hero here) Schwarzenegger is going against violent video games. Am I wrong? Does this not seem like a double standard here. He made his money off of violent movies and related video game merchandise.
IDK just a thought I had.

I don't think Schwarzenegger is really "headlining" anything here. He's the governor of California, where the law whose repeal the Supreme Court is reviewing started. Their state legislature passed it, and Ahnold signed off on it, but the law was presumably crafted in the legislature, which is also where interest groups will be spending most of their time and money on lobbying for it, so that's where the real support for it lies, I would imagine. I don't actually know the specifics on how this entered appeals, but I would guess that Schwarzenegger putting himself as the primary defendant in the appeals process, as governor of the state where the law was passed, is just standard procedure, and doesn't really say much about his support for it. That said, I'm sure he's at least backing it up a little bit, since his state's legislature passed it, signifying that it's probably a good political move to show some support.

But with that said, I still can't see his name on ANY official political paper without laughing a little.

 

[KunkMast3rFl3x]

I'm not sure if anyone has commented on this yet or not but reading through these post i realized, 'Schwarzenegger is head lining this campaign (from what i can piece together(i.e. Schwarzenegger v. EMA))'. does anyone see the irony, or maybe just the W.T.F., in this. Schwarzenegger. the Terminator. Conan the Barbarian. (insert big 80s-90s shoot first ask questions later hero here) Schwarzenegger is going against violent video games. Am I wrong? Does this not seem like a double standard here. He made his money off of violent movies and related video game merchandise.
IDK just a thought I had.

Uh.. Just because he plays a killer cyber organism doesn't mean he actually is one himself. So yeah, you're wrong. I believe its called understanding without condoning.

I don't think I'm wrong just not educated on how the court system works or how any of that political stuff works. However I like what you said there "Just because he plays a killer cyber organism..." etc and so forth (its all up there). In essence actors portray violent characters now and again. That doesn't mean the guy who plays Jason or Freddy is gonna go around being a psycho killer. The same way the average, level headed gamer isn't gonna go around repeating what they do in a video game. In a sense we are actors of interactive entertainment.If you're messed up, you're messed up and even a book would have the same effect as a video game.

 

[Darkauthor81]

How about if a parent doesn't want their kid to play a game they tell them they can't?

That would be responsible.

The problem is that this law is writen to "protect" parents that do not review what their children ask for. The parents that walk into Game stop with scribbled christmas lists and ask for games without understanding the ratings system or even looking at the ESRB designations.

The CA law only affects kids who walk into gamestop and ask to buy games. If a parent buys violent games for their kids it's still legal.

No it doesn't. If it passes, given time parents won't be able to walk into GameStop and buy the game for their kids because GameStop won't stock the game. Neither will Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and so on.

That makes no sense.

For starters those companies all ready don't sell M games to minors (or at least gamestop doesn't) as their company policy, even though it's legal to sell them those games.

And besides Wal mart and Target all ready stock things that are illegal to sell to minors. Alcohol and cigarettes.

They still stock them because it's profitable enough to risk the fines. If mature games aren't deigned profitable enough for the risk, then they will stop carrying them.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

They still stock them because it's profitable enough to risk the fines. If mature games aren't deigned profitable enough for the risk, then they will stop carrying them.

OR, they may still stock them, but at the same time they may apply pressure on developers to make less objectionable games and more that won't be able to be fined. Like any good business, these guys are profit maximizers. Even if they're still making plenty of money off of violent games, they'll be making more (percentage-wise) off of products that they never have to pay fines for, so it's in their interest to try and shift demand more towards the watered-down sort of game that won't be regulated by this sort of law.