Games on Trial

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

JDKJ:

LarenzoAOG:

TraderJimmy:

LarenzoAOG:

JDKJ:

LarenzoAOG:

JDKJ:

LarenzoAOG:
I wish John Galt was here...

How dare you make a literary reference?! And to Rand, of all authors?! Do you make literary references for a living?! Or do you have a degree from Stanford?! If the answers are "no" and "no," then just ramp down the attitude!

Well excuse me good sir or madam, but Ayn Rand is my favorite author, I shall reference her whenever I feel it to be appropriate! And I am still in high school, I shall not be receiving my degree for at least 4 and a half years. Present your degree before the good people of the Escapist and I shall gladly agree that my referencing was not the most appropriate for the situation. Good day to you!

It was an inside joke of the kind where you just had to be there to appreciate. Fret not. As far as I'm concerned, you can refer to Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to your hearts content (but others here may not appreciate it, so be forewarned). And I like Rand, too. Perhaps not my favorite (I'm an Orwell kinda guy), but some good stuff nevertheless.

No worries, I knew you were joking, that why I used the word "shall" so much. Orwell's not my cup of tea, lord, reading Animal Farm was torture! If someone doesn't like my references they can kiss my ass for all I'm concerned, and for some reason I don't think that the average Escapist is familiar with Ayn Rand's works, and if you liked "1984" I would recomend "Anthem" by Mrs. Rand.

I think everyone on the internet is familiar with Ayn Rand's works after about a month-two months in a forum. Don't flatter yourself.

OT: something, something, censorship is bad in this case. Some of those Supreme Court Judges sound hella cool.

I'm not "Flattering myself" I just assumed that a site devoted to gaming may not be frequented by those that study Objectivist philosiphy, and I may have been wrong to assume but until today I hadn't talked to one.

Who's got time for Objectivist Philosophy when there's always Psychophysiology?

Someone who REALLY likes Objectivism.

BehattedWanderer:
Alito's argument is flawed, though, since the portrayal of violence in movies is equivocal to that in video games, neither of which being something that would not have been imagined at the time of writing the constitution. And Scalia appears to have no read some of Grimm's Fairy Tales, being some of the most violent literature commonly available to children.

Alito should just leave the originalism to Scalia, the biggest proponent of originalism to ever grace the Court. I'm not so sure Alito's got the firmest grip on the concept. But maybe Scalia and Thomas won't let him in the clubhouse unless he brings it up every now and then.

Kratenser:
ERM, why has California suddenly declared war on the video games industry? Sorry, i dont live in America so im not really sure of some of the political issues over there but, over here in Britain we more or less allow anything and everything. The government over here is more concerned with getting us out of the recession than imposing ridiculous laws which, in the long run, wont make a bloody difference anyway ^^

That's exactly the problem we have here in America (when I say America, I mean the whole continent instead of only referring to the USA), the politicians are extremely close minded and many, many people who support them also are. I just hope this law is just dismissed as soon as Arnold-Mr. Steroid-head-Schartzenegger gets his mouth out of his ass.

Kratenser:
ERM, why has California suddenly declared war on the video games industry? Sorry, i dont live in America so im not really sure of some of the political issues over there but, over here in Britain we more or less allow anything and everything. The government over here is more concerned with getting us out of the recession than imposing ridiculous laws which, in the long run, wont make a bloody difference anyway ^^

You must be new to the conversation. Your country already has this sort of law in place and has had it for quite a while. It matters whether the States adopt it or not because retailers might stop carrying M rated games for fear of being sued in case someone accidentally sells a game to a minor. If retailers in the US stop carrying these games then publishers might not produce these games for consumption anywhere as the US makes up the a gigantic chunk of the video game market. For more info I'd suggest looking at some of the Escapist's past articles. It seems like nearly half of them this year have been about this court case.

Do the thing Kane and Lynch 2 did.
Put the blurry, pixled effect over gore.
It not only stops the violance from being center stage,
but it adds and air of comedy.

LarenzoAOG:
I wish John Galt was here...

Who is John Galt?

In the end, all this law will do is increase piracy, and lower the coming generations appreciation of the games industry itself.

Actually, I'm fairly surprised that the issue of piracy didn't come up. If I want RapeLay, I will go and torrent it eventually, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Not only does this hurt the games industry significantly, which is especially bad news considering our economic state, you've gone from the slim possibility of giving maybe one in about ten thousand children bunched panties, to making a large number of them bloody kleptomaniacs. Real smooth, California.

Oh, and the OP forgot to mention what was probably the best line in the entire case, Scalia's response to the Mortal Kombat bit;

Kagan; "Mortal Kombat, which is an iconic game, which I am sure half of the clerks who work for us spent considerable amounts of time in their adolescence playing?"

Scalia; "I don't know what she's talking about."

JDKJ:

rsvp42:

JDKJ:
But, of course, those store policies are driven more by external pressures and corporate image concerns more than anything else. I'd imagine that if they ever lost their minds and decided to sell M-rated games to whomever wanted to buy them and argued that there's no law against them doing so, then a horde of white, middle-class, middle-aged, suburban mothers would descend upon their annual shareholder meetings in a convoy of minivans and quickly make them regret that decision. Otherwise, and as long as to do so showed a profit at the bottom line, they'd be selling M-rated games to kids hand over fist.

But that's beside the point, isn't it? The fact is their company policy already restricts who can buy the games. Making that same rule into a federal law shouldn't really change anything for retailers or their revenue. I can't imagine they're seeing massive profits from illegally selling to minors, so nothing should change. Maybe digital distribution could run into problems with age verification, but there's probably simple enough ways for sellers to ensure that their asses are covered. Shouldn't it be just as illegal for a kid to buy a Mature game as it is for a store to sell them one?

Not to avoid the question actually posed, but if you take as a given the studies that indicate 2 out of 10 attempts by the underage to purchase age-restricted games are successful and extrapolate that to the sales of a nationwide brick and mortar super-chain, I'd bet we're talking about a nice chunk o' change.

But won't that happen anyway? I'm sure a heftier legal fine might keep cashiers on the ball more, but you can't stop every person determined to trick the system. But even so, let's imagine that stores do lose a lot of money as a result of this law passing and having to be more strict about game sales. Why would they then stop selling mature games altogether? Then they'd be losing even more revenue on the products, not just revenue lost from illegal sales. I'm not saying this won't have an effect or couldn't snowball into something worse, but the idea that stores will stop selling mature games entirely sounds crazy.

I guess the idea is that potential fines from infractions would deter them from carrying the games? But that's the reason I asked "Shouldn't it be just as illegal for a kid to buy a Mature game as it is for a store to sell them one?" Because once stores have the proper safeguards in place (as this law would require, I assume), why should they be fined for a kid with a fake ID or some crap? Ultimately, this should just mean that stores will be a little more strict than they already are. If it somehow bullies stores into not carrying the games, without even punishing the kids that are actually breaking the law, then it's a crap law.

Kratenser:
ERM, why has California suddenly declared war on the video games industry? Sorry, i dont live in America so im not really sure of some of the political issues over there but, over here in Britain we more or less allow anything and everything. The government over here is more concerned with getting us out of the recession than imposing ridiculous laws which, in the long run, wont make a bloody difference anyway ^^

Politics, plain and simple. I don't even think California expects to win, but they can use this to say they did and gain votes through the people who fear/don't understand video games, and only hears about the violent/fringe games from sources like Fox News. The people arguing probably already realize it's all a load of bovine manure. They see a (relatively) new media that isn't as established as movies or televisions for them to take pot shots at "for the children" and get the soccer mom vote. Politics is sickening.

Mr. Omega:
My opinions:
(Biggest concern bolded)
I find it very concerning that the ESRB was only mentioned twice in a 72-page transcript in a case about keeping violent games away from minors.

I noticed that too. I read the whole transcript and I thought that should have been the major defense for getting rid of this bill.

Also, it looks as if the CA guy was slowly backing down the whole time. So, worst comes to worst, it looks like all that will happen is the next GTA or GoW or what have you will be up front by the cigarettes.

Attention all Parents:
You have the control. You are The example. You should KNOW better.
If your child wants something and you KNOW it's wrong (or even if you don't want them to have something) and you say N.O. It's so simple.
The problem is kids are smart for being uneducated. They know you can't really do anything to them. I remember the exact day that "spanking" was taken out of the picture. I pushed the envelope. Fortunately the fear of disciplining was there most of my life I wasn't a complete loss. There's nothing to frighten children with today. God went outta style, disciplining is out and counting to "3"...HAHA! Yeah. Right. What's left. Children need to feel fear of a reprimanding for bad behavior. Until then they'll just keep whining and begging till they get their way and parents will cave and buy them that M rated game (or whatever).
Take back your fear parents. Put the pants back on and Tell your kids "No! You're not old enough." or "Get a job. Then you can buy whatever you want."

*my statements are free to anyone who wishes to use them. they are also based on my work in grocery and video game retail. If your a parent I am not judging you specifically. However take heed and pay attention to your kids after school activities. Children are the future.*

Thorvan:
In the end, all this law will do is increase piracy, and lower the coming generations appreciation of the games industry itself.

Actually, I'm fairly surprised that the issue of piracy didn't come up. If I want RapeLay, I will go and torrent it eventually, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Not only does this hurt the games industry significantly, which is especially bad news considering our economic state, you've gone from the slim possibility of giving maybe one in about ten thousand children bunched panties, to making a large number of them bloody kleptomaniacs. Real smooth, California.

Possibly, but wouldn't such kids be pirating anyway? With or without the law, kids that can't get their parents to buy them Mature games may try to pirate them instead. I mean, I was carded at Target trying to buy Bioshock and I'm 22 with facial hair. How will actual kids fare? I guess I'm missing how this will affect store policy in any new way. Regardless, piracy probably won't increase much.

Yankeedoodles:
You must be new to the conversation. Your country already has this sort of law in place and has had it for quite a while. It matters whether the States adopt it or not because retailers might stop carrying M rated games for fear of being sued in case someone accidentally sells a game to a minor.

Retailers still sell plenty of alcohol and cigarettes. Kinda the same concern there, right?

KunkMast3rFl3x:
Attention all Parents:
You have the control. You are The example. You should KNOW better.
If your child wants something and you KNOW it's wrong (or even if you don't want them to have something) and you say N.O. It's so simple.
The problem is kids are smart for being uneducated. They know you can't really do anything to them. I remember the exact day that "spanking" was taken out of the picture. I pushed the envelope. Fortunately the fear of disciplining was there most of my life I wasn't a complete loss. There's nothing to frighten children with today. God went outta style, disciplining is out and counting to "3"...HAHA! Yeah. Right. What's left. Children need to feel fear of a reprimanding for bad behavior. Until then they'll just keep whining and begging till they get their way and parents will cave and buy them that M rated game (or whatever).
Take back your fear parents. Put the pants back on and Tell your kids "No! You're not old enough." or "Get a job. Then you can buy whatever you want."

*my statements are free to anyone who wishes to use them. they are also based on my work in grocery and video game retail. If your a parent I am not judging you specifically. However take heed and pay attention to your kids after school activities. Children are the future.*

welcome to the escapist!
a point that is right on the money too.
this law is stupid. all we need is for parents to be parents.

Okay, maybe it's because I don't get out much, but could someone please point out to me these legions of 8- to 14-year-old children who are going out with $60 cash or a credit card to buy these M-rated games?

Oh, wait, they don't exist. Who's buying these games for the kids, then? The parents.

And, here, we come down to the REAL crux of the matter. Fellow gamers, our primary enemy is the lazy parent. The parent so terribly suited towards the job of rearing a child that he/she would rather invest time and energy towards forcing the entire world to be sanitized for his/her child's "well-being". These are the parents who are against sexual education in schools, who protest books with controversial topics, who want to see television shows and movies with adult themes shot down. Lazy parents don't read ESRB labels or box descriptions; rather than practice discretion, they just want any game more complicated than Super Mario Bros. banned so that their kids can't ask for them. They want to spend eighteen years continuing their OWN adolescence, avoiding any problems or "uncomfortable talks" with their child, so that they can dump the naive and unprepared brat on the world at large for US to deal with. They've got better things to do than care for their own offspring, after all; American Idol is on tonight!

And who enables the lazy parent? Why, the pandering politician, who'll be all too happy to wreck some small industry that doesn't contribute to his/her campaign funds in order to get the lazy parents to pull his/her lever come Election Day.

rsvp42:

JDKJ:

rsvp42:

JDKJ:
But, of course, those store policies are driven more by external pressures and corporate image concerns more than anything else. I'd imagine that if they ever lost their minds and decided to sell M-rated games to whomever wanted to buy them and argued that there's no law against them doing so, then a horde of white, middle-class, middle-aged, suburban mothers would descend upon their annual shareholder meetings in a convoy of minivans and quickly make them regret that decision. Otherwise, and as long as to do so showed a profit at the bottom line, they'd be selling M-rated games to kids hand over fist.

But that's beside the point, isn't it? The fact is their company policy already restricts who can buy the games. Making that same rule into a federal law shouldn't really change anything for retailers or their revenue. I can't imagine they're seeing massive profits from illegally selling to minors, so nothing should change. Maybe digital distribution could run into problems with age verification, but there's probably simple enough ways for sellers to ensure that their asses are covered. Shouldn't it be just as illegal for a kid to buy a Mature game as it is for a store to sell them one?

Not to avoid the question actually posed, but if you take as a given the studies that indicate 2 out of 10 attempts by the underage to purchase age-restricted games are successful and extrapolate that to the sales of a nationwide brick and mortar super-chain, I'd bet we're talking about a nice chunk o' change.

But won't that happen anyway? I'm sure a heftier legal fine might keep cashiers on the ball more, but you can't stop every person determined to trick the system. But even so, let's imagine that stores do lose a lot of money as a result of this law passing and having to be more strict about game sales. Why would they then stop selling mature games altogether? Then they'd be losing even more revenue on the products, not just revenue lost from illegal sales. I'm not saying this won't have an effect or couldn't snowball into something worse, but the idea that stores will stop selling mature games entirely sounds crazy.

I guess the idea is that potential fines from infractions would deter them from carrying the games? But that's the reason I asked "Shouldn't it be just as illegal for a kid to buy a Mature game as it is for a store to sell them one?" Because once stores have the proper safeguards in place (as this law would require, I assume), why should they be fined for a kid with a fake ID or some crap? Ultimately, this should just mean that stores will be a little more strict than they already are. If it somehow bullies stores into not carrying the games, without even punishing the kids that are actually breaking the law, then it's a crap law.

I imagine that -- like any rational business actor -- it'll boil down to cost-benefit and risk-reward analysis. If the greater costs occasioned by having to comply with a new regulatory scheme, should it come to pass, are more than offset by the profits generated by compliance, then comply they will. If it won't, they'll exit the market.

Your analogy of alcohol sales isn't misplaced. For a long time there was little to no enforcement of those age-restricting laws (and this goes back to when it was 18 years-old in most states). Then, for whatever reasons, a significant crack down by law enforcement began in the 1980s. But 7-11s didn't stop selling beer because of the potential risks and actual costs of prosecution and fines. They retooled their employees, slapped the "WE I.D." stickers everywhere, and kept on making money offa beer sales. I'd be surprised if a similar story doesn't unfold for the video game industry. But, again, whether it does or doesn't is, I would think, going to be a function of risk and reward, cost and benefit.

I've just had the greatest thought.

The biggest court case over video games in America (possibly the world)
And JACK THOMPSON isan't involved!
That guy must be fuming!

"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."

Uhhh, I'm no justice, or law student of any stripe..... but couldn't the same scenario be played out in film, or literature, and be sold to a minor without any actual legal repercussions?

I mean, isn't that the crux of this case? That movies, and books, and such are all protected under the first amendment. That they can tackle extremely mature subjects, from shovel beatings, to rape, to murder, etc. But that they all willingly self regulate to keep inappropriate content away from people it isn't fit for.

The ESRB has, in the same way, self regulated. Consoles have parental controls on them (voluntarily, I believe). Stores, though they could stand to be a little more vigilant, are also self policing when it comes to selling to minors. *and parents could maybe help out a bit......* I don't see how Justice Roberts (or any legal scholar) could believe the videogame industry deserves to be treated any differently.

Of course what should I expect from a person who immediately equates video-games with schoolgirl torture sims..... Someone who obviously has no knowledge or concept of the large majority of games that are fairly benign, or at worst as violent as an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.

rsvp42:

JDKJ:

rsvp42:

JDKJ:
But, of course, those store policies are driven more by external pressures and corporate image concerns more than anything else. I'd imagine that if they ever lost their minds and decided to sell M-rated games to whomever wanted to buy them and argued that there's no law against them doing so, then a horde of white, middle-class, middle-aged, suburban mothers would descend upon their annual shareholder meetings in a convoy of minivans and quickly make them regret that decision. Otherwise, and as long as to do so showed a profit at the bottom line, they'd be selling M-rated games to kids hand over fist.

But that's beside the point, isn't it? The fact is their company policy already restricts who can buy the games. Making that same rule into a federal law shouldn't really change anything for retailers or their revenue. I can't imagine they're seeing massive profits from illegally selling to minors, so nothing should change. Maybe digital distribution could run into problems with age verification, but there's probably simple enough ways for sellers to ensure that their asses are covered. Shouldn't it be just as illegal for a kid to buy a Mature game as it is for a store to sell them one?

Not to avoid the question actually posed, but if you take as a given the studies that indicate 2 out of 10 attempts by the underage to purchase age-restricted games are successful and extrapolate that to the sales of a nationwide brick and mortar super-chain, I'd bet we're talking about a nice chunk o' change.

But won't that happen anyway? I'm sure a heftier legal fine might keep cashiers on the ball more, but you can't stop every person determined to trick the system. But even so, let's imagine that stores do lose a lot of money as a result of this law passing and having to be more strict about game sales. Why would they then stop selling mature games altogether? Then they'd be losing even more revenue on the products, not just revenue lost from illegal sales. I'm not saying this won't have an effect or couldn't snowball into something worse, but the idea that stores will stop selling mature games entirely sounds crazy.

I guess the idea is that potential fines from infractions would deter them from carrying the games? But that's the reason I asked "Shouldn't it be just as illegal for a kid to buy a Mature game as it is for a store to sell them one?" Because once stores have the proper safeguards in place (as this law would require, I assume), why should they be fined for a kid with a fake ID or some crap? Ultimately, this should just mean that stores will be a little more strict than they already are. If it somehow bullies stores into not carrying the games, without even punishing the kids that are actually breaking the law, then it's a crap law.

The thing is, these safeguards are already in place. The law itself is redundant and punishes retailers for no good reason. This case will determine just how "protected" games are as free speech and could set a dangerous president for future laws.

LarenzoAOG:

I'm not "Flattering myself" I just assumed that a site devoted to gaming may not be frequented by those that study Objectivist philosiphy, and I may have been wrong to assume but until today I hadn't talked to one.

Quite right. Don't listen to the nay sayers - you are the one of the few people on here to fully understand rand's works. You are a genius, and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.

UPDATE!

As of right now, my fingers are crossed so hard, they've broken.

Justice Sotomayor is officially the coolest fucking supreme judge that ever lived.

Gotta admit when i heard about this at first i didn't think some of the judges would be this good for video games, and i'm impressed. Kinda what ya gotta expect from the SUPREME COURT though..

Man, I hadn't heard about this before, so my first thought about "Schwarzenegger VS. EMA" was that it was gonna be some tounge-in-cheek spoof of something our wacky Austrian had been up to. Something with a "Hilarity Ensues" in it somewhere. But this was pretty dreadful.

I guess I don't have to point out the absurdity of this any more than people already have. Or the dangers. Games should be about everything, ever. Suggesstions like these, while probably very well-intentioned, just come off as vile.
I'll just jump on the bandwagon and make a galloping analogy, I guess; Today it's harder-to-get-at ultra-violent games. Tomorrow: BRAIN CHIPS! :)

LarenzoAOG:
I'm not "Flattering myself" I just assumed that a site devoted to gaming may not be frequented by those that study Objectivist philosiphy, and I may have been wrong to assume but until today I hadn't talked to one.

Ayn Rand is probably one of the most talked-about authors on the internet nowadays. I don't think there's a forum I frequent where she hasn't popped up once or twice during my time there. That's pretty damn frequent for an author. And as far as gaming goes: Bioshock, for one, is just riddled with Atlas Shrugged-references. I'd go so far as to say that the game as a whole can be seen as a major jab at Objectivism.

Personally I've only read Atlas Shrugged and I can't say that I liked it, but that has little to do with my stance towards Objectivism. I just instinctively dislike when authors construct horror-scenarios in order to showcase their philosophical ideas. I know it's one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book but it just reeks of sophistry to me and if anything cheapens the message.

SamElliot'sMustache:
I'm (somewhat) surprised that two opposites like Scalia and Kagan could agree that this law seems pretty bad. It definitely shows this is a non-partisan issue, despite a select few people trying to point the finger at liberals or conservatives as wanting to infringe on free speech.

this ---^

this would be the first time Scalia & I have agreed on ANY case much less one related to video games!

Also in the last paragraph, broad is misspelled as board. ^_^

Sheaphard117:
I've just had the greatest thought.

The biggest court case over video games in America (possibly the world)
And JACK THOMPSON isan't involved!
That guy must be fuming!

My god, it'll turn into a Phoenix Wright game

Lawyer: (It's no good, I'm out of evidence and the Californians are siding with the law... I can't do anything else...)

Judge: Very well, I find this law to be...

*screen starts to fade, then....*

Jack Thomas: OBJECTION! *surprise plot twist* This is unconstitutional and I have the evidence to prove it (for once)!

Lawyer: But.... why?

Jack Thompson: If anyone is going to outlaw games it's going to be me and my crazy logic!

*Case won..... for now*

Funny that the pro Cali. judge that said the founding fathers couldn't have seen video games coming continues to hold that stance after it was completely rebuked by this gem here from Scalia,

"This same argument could have been made when movies first came out. They could have said, 'Oh we've never had violence in Grimm's fairy tales, but we've never had it live on the screen...' Every time there's a new technology, you can make that argument."

Apparently common sense is nothing in the face of someones political agenda.

LarenzoAOG:
I wish John Galt was here...

Why? So he could bore the court to death with Sixty-Page-Long rants? :)

newdarkcloud:
The thing is, these safeguards are already in place. The law itself is redundant and punishes retailers for no good reason. This case will determine just how "protected" games are as free speech and could set a dangerous president for future laws.

I definitely agree that the law shouldn't be passed. The idea that games should be exempt from First Amendment protection is absurd and the quotes in this article from the some of the justices were ridiculous (Wtf game has "people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them" and how is that representative of a game like Mass Effect?). As I said, I'm not ruling out the possibility that this law could snowball into something much worse. I'm just saying that it's not the end if this particular law passes. I mean, porn is still big business, even though there's similar restrictions on it. Really, I'm just trying to make myself and others feel better about it, so we're not all doom and gloom about the fate of the entire industry.

SpinFusor:
"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."

Uhhh, I'm no justice, or law student of any stripe..... but couldn't the same scenario be played out in film, or literature, and be sold to a minor without any actual legal repercussions?

I mean, isn't that the crux of this case? That movies, and books, and such are all protected under the first amendment. That they can tackle extremely mature subjects, from shovel beatings, to rape, to murder, etc. But that they all willingly self regulate to keep inappropriate content away from people it isn't fit for.

The ESRB has, in the same way, self regulated. Consoles have parental controls on them (voluntarily, I believe). Stores, though they could stand to be a little more vigilant, are also self policing when it comes to selling to minors. *and parents could maybe help out a bit......* I don't see how Justice Roberts (or any legal scholar) could believe the videogame industry deserves to be treated any differently.

Of course what should I expect from a person who immediately equates video-games with schoolgirl torture sims..... Someone who obviously has no knowledge or concept of the large majority of games that are fairly benign, or at worst as violent as an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.

California Logic:

Godfather, Silence of the Lambs, Night of the Living Dead, Clockwork Orange- Alright to show the kiddies
Super Mario 64,Katamari Damacy, Timesplitters, Super Smash Bros. Brawl- OMFG DRUG REFERENCES AND RANDOM VIOLENCE BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT

It was originally Entertainment Merchants Organisation but the initials were bad for PR.

FungiGamer:
California Logic:

Godfather, Silence of the Lambs, Night of the Living Dead, Clockwork Orange- Alright to show the kiddies
Super Mario 64, Katamari Damacy, Timesplitters, Super Smash Bros. Brawl- OMFG DRUG REFERENCES AND RANDOM VIOLENCE BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT

Well, just you wait until some crazed kid gets a giant ball and "rolls up" his class mates. Then, we'll see who's laughing.

I've noticed something.

Most people on the side of the gaming industry either know maybe two or three things about it (not really a bad thing) or are pretty much their guardians.

Most people on California's side are a bunch of nitwits and politicians who don't know one real thing about video games.

This battle really should have ended by now, but this is America, so whatever argument I can think of is invalid.

Then it's the parents fault! Haven't people realized this?

My parents let me and my sisters watch Saving Private Ryan when it fist came out when we were kids, I think 8-12yo. They helped us understand the violence and what was happening.

Parents can do the same for games. If a parent lets their kid play the MoH campaign, and help them understand what is going on in the game, why there is violence, why we are at war against a terrorist regime, it will make more sense to them.

If you buy a game for your child, and that child does some violent action, you have no legal right to blame the game Jack Thompson style. YOU bought the game, it is YOUR fault. Just like if the kid saw something violent in a movie, and re-created it, like WWE or Jackass.

The United States is a country BUILT on violence! We've been a country for a little more than 200 years and we have a major war almost every decade! Children's toys are made and sold based on gender roles, so the women stay at home, and the men go to war!

Frankly, if the law were better written, and reinforced ESRB's ratings system with penalties for those who violate its standards, there wouldn't be much wrong with the law. As it stands though, CA's law would replace ESRB's relatively comprehensive system of ratings and descriptors with a binary "are you 18 or not" system.

One of the main reasons that I suspect that the compliance rates are stuck at 80% is because the ESRB ratings don't have much enforceable legislation backing them up. If there were a system set up similar to say... the film industry... there wouldn't be much wrong with the concept, but having looked over how the law was argued in the Supreme Court's transcript... CA's law was at best poorly written with good intentions in mind, and at worst, written to deliberately harm the game industry and ban as many games as possible.

Well no one else seems scared that Cali could succeed since its tied sooooo... i guess were going to win?

SilentHunter7:

LarenzoAOG:
I wish John Galt was here...

Why? So he could bore the court to death with Sixty-Page-Long rants? :)

If it could help my good man.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here