Government regulation of any kind of expression isn't necessarily a bad thing. Censorship is. The difference being that some expression can be harmful to some people, and should never be made to view it or exposed to it unintentionally.Andy Chalk said:
There's not a double-standard; just a misunderstanding. His point was that there exist movies which appeal to politicians, so they're going to be more understanding of the medium. Even if they don't particularly look for "idiotic, blood-soaked bullshit", they understand it because it's still similar to whatever they enjoy. There are few to no games which would appeal to people of that age, however, and therefore the medium enjoys less understanding and comprehension than others. This is the problem that The Random One was trying to explain. Indeed, he was not suggesting that violent games should no longer be produced, merely that a greater variety would broaden the base of people who grok gaming.Andy Chalk said:
Infernai said:
I can see that my opinion is definitely not shared by other Australians who are posting here in this thread, but I very strongly support the classification system in theory. The main issue is that the implementation is poor and/or corrupted by those who would impose their morality on others. Perhaps that's what I'm doing, but I do not feel that by restricting certain content from the legal viewing by minors, many people's ability to enjoy whatever they want, however they want, will be threatened. Under what I would consider an ideal system, similar to the ESRB's, there would not be any way for a piece of content to be "banned".Vanilla Vanish said:
Interesting fact - Britain has nothing protecting our freedom of speech. The big difference between us and America is that our government, for all it's faults, doesn't need these laws to stay off our backs - we can do pretty much anything if we aren't hurting anyone else.AnnaIME said:
We're not going to start teaching Manhunt in grade two. And our society gets along just fine without legal restrictions on any other forms of "harmful expression." So the question remains unanswered: Why games?Fenixius said:
The bar may move but the government still gets to ban content it thinks is inappropriate. Yeah, I'd call that pretty "sub-optimal" too.
But we're already doing that. And again, I point out that the videogame industry has a higher rate of compliance with age ratings than any other entertainment medium on the market.
Which sounds a lot to me like, "I don't understand it, therefore I fear it and seek to control it." Is this really the kind of political attitude you want to encourage and pander to?
This is the entire post:AnnaIME said:
True, people often argue this, but in reality it has little basis on any fact. There have been no conclusive scientific studies that have found performing violent acts in a video game is more desensitizing than watching violent acts in a movie. Indeed, the actual physical act required to kill someone in GTA (pressing a button) is not all that different from what you'd have to do to view a murder on a DVD (press play).Hurr Durr Derp said:
Here in America it's not so much that we don't want this stuff regulated. It's just that we don't want it regulated by the government. As the article mentions there are already industry-controlled regulations in place that prevent children from buying a violent game themselves. Sure some idiot mom might accidentally buy it for her son for Christmas, but the same thing could happen even if there were government regulations in place. Essentially people just don't want the courts to set a precedent for government regulation that might be taken farther a couple years later (dunno about in your country, but the American legal system is essentially based on the precedents set by earlier cases).Archangel357 said:
If you actually read the full text of my post(s), you'd've seen that I suggested not that videogames be regulated, but -all- forms of media. Equally, without differentiation. You're absolutely right - videogames do not deserve a special treatment, for better or worse, compared to other forms of media.Andy Chalk said:
Of course not. I was simply clarifying on behalf of The Random One, as you appeared to have misinterpreted his comment in the post you made where you quoted him. I hardly think it's "pandering", and "encouraging [ignorance]" to look into a new market, however. Else, you'd best be slamming down hard on Nintendo for their blasphemy with the Wii and DS in your next Needles.Andy Chalk said:
Unlikely, because the sale of these games is already checked for at most retailers, based on the ESRB ratings. The reason these kids get these games is typically because their parents (or other relatives) buy them and let them play, not because the retailers sell them to anyone.tsu-money said:
For the record, I tend to have very little interest in responding to messages that begin with the tired old "if you'd actually read my post."Fenixius said:
You said videogames aren't widely understood by "people of that age" and that game studios should therefore attempt to make more games that would appeal to them. That sounds very much like pandering to me, and furthermore, I don't see how it really addresses the issue since it would serve only to convince those same politicians that "normal" videogames are non-violent, family-friendly affairs and that M-rated titles are as deviant as they think.
I've not argued once that games should be regulated where other media should not.Andy Chalk said:
Fenixius said:
Fenixius said:
Fenixius said:
Then why don't they go after movies which are bloody and "deviant", also? Explain that to me, Mr Chalk.Andy Chalk said:
