Comparing the Candidates on Game Issues

Comparing the Candidates on Game Issues

image

Edge Online has organized the statements by the US presidential nominees and their running mates on their stances over videogame legislation.

As the United States election creeps closer, concerned gamers voting in November have cut through all the talk about economic plans and wars to try and research one of the issues they care about: videogame censorship and ratings enforcement.

Edge Online grabbed all gaming-related references from candidates to form a stance for both sides.

Conservative McCain is the nominee most supportive of the gaming industry's efforts for self-regulation. During a campaign stop in New Hampshire, a curious supporter questioned him on the role of parenting in controlling kids' access to media.

"He felt that parents should be the ones to decide for their kids on a case by case basis (which I was satisfied with). He then did a weird segue way into the evils of child pornography from there, which kind of had me shaking my head," wrote a reporter.

McCain's camp even used gaming to promote his campaign, creating the Facebook app Pork Invaders, where the player shoots oncoming pigs representing pork-barrel spending a la Space Invaders.

His Vice President, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, has no track record with governing gaming. Her one instance of media censorship came when she was a mayor and asked the local library to remove certain books due to "voter complaints."

Democratic Senator and potential President Barack Obama admitted to being a Pong player when he was younger. Obama promotes industry self-control, according to his interview with Common Sense Media, but would be willing to get the government involved if game companies don't censor violence to his office's standards.

"If the industry fails to act, then my administration would.... We need to understand the impact of these new media better," stated Obama. "That's why I supported federal funding to study the impact of video games on children's cognitive development."

His partner, Democratic Senator Joe Biden, rarely stands on technology and business issues (his forte is in foreign policy). In battles between consumers and record and movies industries, he is historically anti-consumer. For gamers, that could translate into support for publisher-backed ideas like digital rights management and anti-piracy laws similar to those for song and film thieves.

Permalink

Logan Frederick:
"[McCain] felt that parents should be the ones to decide for their kids on a case by case basis (which I was satisfied with). He then did a weird segue way into the evils of child pornography from there, which kind of had me shaking my head," wrote a reporter.

That's an interesting mix of laissez-faire and what is traditionally moral-conservativeness, and I think most gamers agree with his stance. If a parent wants someone else to be responsible for what their kids are exposed to, the domain of parent becomes a bit vague.

Granted, I do think that game companies need to make their games' content clear so that parents feel confident in their judgments. If that wasn't the case, then I could see the government getting involved, but only for the purpose of improving rating systems.

But I think the resources are already out there.

Well ain't that frakin lovely. Up until now, I've been on the PrObama bandwagon. Preferred him over Hildog, and of course over the Republitards, but now he has to go and get all meddlesome in my hobby.

Good thing I'm Canadian, and thus have no real impact on this election... I'd hate to vote McCrackpot simply to keep games out of government hands, but IraqOsama ain't givin me much choice.

If you vote for a candidate because of gaming, there's something wrong with you.. Yes it is a big part of our lives but there are more important issues to think about that effect us in much bigger ways.

babyblues:
If you vote for a candidate because of gaming, there's something wrong with you.. Yes it is a big part of our lives but there are more important issues to think about that effect us in much bigger ways.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Indigo_Dingo:

babyblues:
If you vote for a candidate because of gaming, there's something wrong with you.. Yes it is a big part of our lives but there are more important issues to think about that effect us in much bigger ways.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The value in looking at gaming positions is that they are reflective of broader views the candidates have, such as censorship, the role of government in people's lives, etc.

Logan Frederick:

Indigo_Dingo:

babyblues:
If you vote for a candidate because of gaming, there's something wrong with you.. Yes it is a big part of our lives but there are more important issues to think about that effect us in much bigger ways.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The value in looking at gaming positions is that they are reflective of broader views the candidates have, such as censorship, the role of government in people's lives, etc.

That would be all well and good if each candidate actually respected games as much as we do. But lets be reasonable - all four of them thinks of games as nothing more than toys, and their attitudes towards violence in a game will not reflect their attitude towards it on tv, or to what extent the gvernment holds power over artists, or anything like that - in this instance, you cannot extrapolate any further by their responses.

Well either way, being interested in a candidate's position on gaming doesn't necessarily imply that I'm basing my vote on this issue. However, Obama's willingness to send his office after the industry suggests that he wants to extend the government's reach into all forms of media and art which...bleck.

Obama said only in times when they refused to comply with the standards set. So, in the instance where someone was making a rape game (like the one discussed here a few weeks back) that is the sort of situation he'd intervene on. He also is actually admitting that we don't fully understand the effects that games have on people, which is great leaps above the people now who quote incredibly flawed studies as fact.

babyblues:
If you vote for a candidate because of gaming, there's something wrong with you.. Yes it is a big part of our lives but there are more important issues to think about that effect us in much bigger ways.

Yes their stance on gaming would have a sizable impact on my vote, if I ever did vote.

As I see it, all politicians are lying cheating fuckwits who rarely make good on any promises. It doesn't matter who you vote for, as South Park put it, you're always going to have to vote between a douche and a turd. As such, my vote (if I cared enough to vote) would best go to whoever isn't threatening my way of life.

If a Canadian election came up, and one of the candidates was preaching how the government needs to regulate what junk food people can eat, and the other guy wants to mummify elderly people in duct tape and toss them to the sharks, I'm voting for Mr. TapeMummy Sharkchum. Why? Because I'm not old yet, but I DO care about freedom on what I eat. We can try nullifying TapeMummy's law, and in the mean time, HE's older than I am.

Somehow, I'm more concerned about the economy and their energy plans than I am about gaming. Even if there were tighter restrictions on gaming, I wouldn't care if things actually got fixed around here.

Then again, these are politicians, they never get anything done. Nevermind!

What we really need is Gordon Brown and David Cameron's views.

Ah heck..let's be honest. Both of them want these "SICK GAMES BANNED", especially "Grand Theft Bike" Cameron.

 

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
Register for a free account here