SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Of course I agree that this bit of legislation is a joke. But there is one thing that caught my attention as I was reading the other posts:
If we agree that the majority of game purchasers are over the age of 18, then what is the focus of this legislation? It's clear to me that the authors of this garbage are looking for one thing - votes. They believe that enough people out there want "violent" video games out of the hands of other peoples' children. That's right, OTHER peoples' children. Their kids don't have a problem, but that kid down the street shouldn't be allowed to hold a rubber band. It's nothing more than an attempt to freighten voters into increasing the need for government. I'd love to plop all this crap onto one party, but I'm sure there's a few others mingled in. Fools.
Oh, there's one easy way for them to demonize games btw - liken it to porn. Guaranteed bombshell.
A correction. TV is the biggest entertainment industry on earth. OK? Good. Video games are huge, but they are repeatedly being hailed as THE BIGGEST. But they aren't yet. There are many people who never play them, but watch loads of telly.
No one seems to discuss violence it self. We are obviously fascinated by violence. You can testify this by many centuries of rather gruesome public executions. Roman circuses. Depictions of Doomsday or Hell by painters. The many works of literature that has some elements of violence in them. Todays tv, news - all media are saturated with violence. They wouldn't be if we didnt bother with it.
Why is that? Video games are just a small fragment of the depictions or descriptions of violence present - and frankly the poorest of them. I still can't stomach reading American Psycho. But there's no gory or bloody game that I cannot stomach. I still hide my face behind a pillow when watching ultra scary movies. But oddly not when they're ridiculously bloody. Almost NO computer game has managed to scare me (Thief is one of the few). Actually computer games are quite poor at making stuff "realistic" so far. Actual, but silent B/W film footage from a German fighter plane doing sweeps over the Omaha beach landing during D-Day of 1944 makes me queasy and sad when I see dozens of little men drop to the mg bullets. But doing the same in a computer game? LOL. Funneh!
No, computer games are not culprits of bringing out huge mad violence in kids because of their context. Wait, not even MEDIATED. Rather simulated - and poorly. It's all in the context, and kids CAN see the difference between a video game and Real life. That is scientifically proved by danis scientiest Simon Egenfeldt Nielsen. There are much more sinister side effects of obsessive computer gaming than mere mediated violence exposure. And the social isolation provoked by obsessing with them gives you Colombine High incidents. Those kids were estranged on many levels, and computer games probably helped them blanket themselves from their sad past. In germany we have one of the world's most RIDICULOUSLY funny censorship laws on computer games. You want to sell them to kids? Well you must replace blood with green goo. Or Soldiers with robots. It's daft. But seeing as the german market is so large, they do it. I wish the politicians would try to do stuff where it matered more. Such as making parents preventing their children from playing too much video games. No matter if it is Mario Sunshine or Mortal Kombat 0: Bloody Torn out Spines.
[edit: The fascination of violence is the real concern in my opinion. Try to map that instead, look at it the other way around. Instead of banning left and right, try to understand the fascination and work from there instead.
Although I live in Washington state, the age law doesn't affect me (being 26), but I'll say this, if you guys so want, I will have an M1A1 Abhrams tank pay a visit to the state senate. A guy in the 477th Armored Cav owes me a favor, a BIG one.
<!--QuoteBegin--CanadianWolverine+Apr 20 2003, 10:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CanadianWolverine @ Apr 20 2003, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also perpuating this image is the media/viewer feedback loop, where the media displays a theory or idea and the public takes a hold of this, so when various media input sources poll the person on a particular street, the public person in turn tells that reporter the theory or idea that they derived from their media, so in a sense it seems that it is supported and thus proven by these turn of events that the exchange of ideas set in motion <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is a very good observatuion which holds true in many cases, unfortunately.
The libertarian in me is starting to come out with this topic. Government Regulation = Bad! :-)
What ever happened to predictability, the milkman, the paperboy and evening TV? At least your old familar friends are waiting just around the bend... Everywhere you look (everywhere you look) there's a heart (there's a heart) a hand to hold onto, everywhere you look (everywhere you look,) theres a face of somebody who needs you, (everywhere you look) when your lost out there and you're all alone, the light is waiting to carry you home, everywhere you look, everywhere you look, dobedoBOPbaDA!
Yes, thats the theme to full House. A full house where the indept Danny Tanner would teach his girls rights and wrongs. He'd take responsibility. He'd force them to be responsible. We need Danny Tanner- Not Government Regulations! (Inser Burst of applause here>
We've had videogame age certification for some time. It basically follows the age guidelines that te BBFC uses for film. A game is certified 15, people under that age can't buy it. Ok, well and good. I wouldn't wan't my kids watching a 15 at age 10 (they're 4 & 7 months at the moment) I wouldn't want them seeing a game which was rated 15 at the same age. With gfx advancing, and realism increasing, are games anything more than movies you direct and particpate in? - ok side issue, lets leave it there.
You have 2 industries, both producing lifelike entertainment, some of which can be disturbing for children. Various studies show they aren't/or are responsible for affecting the state of young minds. They are both censored to protect children. Why not err on the side of caution?
You're looking at it from the perspective of a gamer, of course playing whatever game you like is your god given right. You've reached the age of majority and the decision is yours. As a [I]parent[/] I would no more want my children to watch "the Thing" at a young age, than I would want them playing the game of the film.
I have to exercise caution over what I watch on TV. I do the same with the games I play (until the kids go to bed).
The issue should be whether parents understand that computer games are entertainment with the same content as movies. They understand that a 18 movie isn't suitable for their kids. It shouldn't be a big leap to understand that a game rated 18 isn't suitable either.
Now rant out of the way, should the issue be "who is certifying these games"?
Beast brings a good point up, but the regulations that are mentioned do <i>not</i> support the parents right of raising their children the way they see fit. Instead, it tries to put a part of the parents tasks in the hands of an entity that's just incapable of fullfilling them - the government. Age restrictions are useless because every child can bypass them, be it by an older friend, the net, or a greedy shopowner, and at the same time lure many parents in the felt security that "we don't have to worry about <i>that</i>". I'm going to support each and every legislative initiative that supports parents in their effort of giving their children the toys that're fit for them - I oppose every attempt of transporting parental rights to the state, not only out of theoretical notions, but also because it can't work.
I agree with Spooge (scary, isn't it?) - the current legislative attempts are cheap shots for the votes of apathetic parents.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->****, I hate when Nemesis is right...
I'm not so sure Nem. The videogame censorship is partly there (as the film censorship is) so that parents don't have to buy the sofware, try it out, then tell the kids they can't have it, and return it to the shop.
Mostly its there to stop kids seeing what they might find upsetting. Putting it in the hands of a government department, does take the decision away from the parent, but more importantly, it takes the decison away from the <b>kids</b>. Again I have to say its erring on the side of caution. If necessary the parents CAN buy the software and give it to the kids. The KIDS can't buy it themselves. Inasmuch it reinforces the parents rights.
I disagree here - the child can realistically <i>still</i> obtain the software - show me the shopowner that values a theoretical and not all that well enforcable fine over a realistic and very easily obtainable profit - thus, it's not a support of the parents by taking the choice from the child, it only adds the temptation of the forbidden. Second, no parent would have to buy and play the game to find out whether it's right for their kids. In many cases, a short glimpse on the blurb on the box, or reading an article in a PC mag would be enough - both things that are <i>not</i> so much of a hassle that they would justify taking the descision from the parents, even <i>if</i> the state could enforce the legislation.
Yes, but in obtaining the software, there is a breach of law. The shopowner is as guilty as if he'd sold the child a knife, or cigarettes. Admittedly it isn't always a detterent, but it is enforceable.
The fact that no parent would play the game IS the point I'm trying to make. If you can't decide given the blurb (offset by the pleading of the child), then the certification is the best guideline. If you don't trust the censorship board, you still do have the <i>option</i> of playing it, then deciding its ok for your child. I don't think if a parent couldn't be bothered to play the game themselves, they could be bothered to do some research in magazines.
Its easier to spot a big 15 logo than deciphering blurb that for many parents seems like a different language.
Unfortunately adding the thrill of the forbidden is the same for any of those products. All you can do is try to raise sensible kids.
I still maintain that the censorship is an assistant to the parents.
Maybe we should differentiate between age-recommendations by an official source, and censorship by an official source.
I agree with you on the benefit of the former - even if too rigid / too leninent, it gives parents a scale on which to decide whether the game could be fit for their children. This benefit does however not relate to censorship - if the big '15'-mark would still be on the box, but the (from a personal-rights point of view) problematic censoring of media wouldn't be, we'd still have the same scale, but without the stigmatizing, or the intermingling of governmental and parental rights, which does, as we established, only hold theoretic benefits.
Indeed, the problem is more of practicality. AFAIK there is no way for a government department to actually censor parts of a game yet. They can ban it outright, or they can make an age limit for it. I don't think they can "cut" aspects as easily as with a film. They can request it's toned down, but not make the changes themselves.
Yes the aspect of censorship I was talking about was the legal age limit. It has obvious benefits.
In terms of banning games outright, I'm still fairly confident that it's not a force for evil. It can be, of course, if its a knee-jerk reaction, and not thought through, or applied over zealously. I guess now is the time to bring the computer simulation/film simulation subject to the fore. As I said before, effects are seeming more real all the time. How do you differentiate between a filmed murder, and a CGI one? If the movie "Crash" by Cronenberg (which caused such a censorship fuss on its release) had been made with techniques like they used in Final Fantasy, would that have made it more acceptable than real actors doing it? less acceptable? no different?
Its a matter of common sense, there a boundaries of taste and decency for brodcast and recorded media, why should computer games be excluded?
As Nem said previously though, WE are the generation thats going to be making the rules. We're also the ones that have grown as the industry has. If you think games are being banned for no good reason, make a stand, see your parliamentary representative. It worked in the UK with the film Crash, why not with Crash Bandicoot?
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Apr 21 2003, 03:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Apr 21 2003, 03:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its a matter of common sense, there a boundaries of taste and decency for brodcast and recorded media, why should computer games be excluded? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> When comparing the standards for computer games to those already set for other media, it's helpful to have some reference material on hand regarding the existing standards for other media. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
For your convenience, here's a paper I wrote two years ago on censorship and comstockery in 1950s America. It has a pretty good rundown of what is and isn't allowed by the US Constitution in the way of censorship, and a few example cases that show comstockery/censorship efforts on the part of both private groups and government. There's a section at the end on the MPAA hearings, which are very germane to this discussion.
<a href='http://www.leadtogold.com/me/UnAmerican_Activities.doc' target='_blank'>UnAmerican Activities: a cross section of comstockery and hypocrisy in 1950s America</a>
Good stuff. What I took from it is how far we've come since the 50s. The hysteria of the Macarthy years and censorship to "protect democracy" has given way to more liberal freedoms.
O tempora o mores.
The fact is (as your paper showed) morality and its administration is guarded by the state, but made by the people. Times change, so do attitudes. Films like "Cannibal Corse" were considered too horrific to see in the 1980s, and were banned. I saw a copy in my local blockbuster last week. In times of high feeling then censorship will be more swingeing. In more relaxed times, control will be relaxed.
New media is exactly that. Society is still trying to establish a baseline for taste and decency in it. There will be knee jerk reactions at times, these come and go. (it is our nation's eternal shame that Bowlder was an Englishman) There will periods of leniency. If we don't agree with the level of censorship imposed at the current time its our duty to pressure to change it. I can't see that games should be exempt from any control, nor do I wish to see anodyne nonsense to safeguard my sensibilities. As has been posted previously, technology is almost at the point of disabling this censorship. If you know where to look, just about anything is downloadable. Censorship just makes getting hold of damaging material harder, just as it always has, that is its purpose.
bah, same old, same old, im getting tired of Jack Thompson...
The surgeon general of the U.S. already stated that video games do not equal violent behavior. THey are a form of entertainment, just like books, movies, and other forms of media (except TV, nowadays you see almost everything on TV). Just like these froms of media, they are regulated through a ratings system. Of course, the system doesn't work, just like carding for alcohol has loop holes in it, so do these. If somebody wants something bad enough, they are going to get it, no matter what law is in effect. I have only been carded once for a game, and thats becasue the register demanded it when they scanned it. The reason for the lack of enforcement is that the people who sell games don't see it as much of a threat to themselves if they do sell it to a minor.
blah, I really should stop posting past 4:00am, can't think straight.
*edit* If they pass the bill to do research on how games affect players, where do i sign up? (hopefully its one of those programs where they pay you to study you) <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
If you look at the studies that show how computer games affect behaviour, there are three sets of results
Those sponsored by those against violent computer games - The report usually suggests that violence in computer games can trigger violent behaviour in children.
Those sponsored by people who don't want games censored - The report usually suggests that violence in computer games never triggers violence. In reality, they claim, there are always other reasons for the violent behaviour.
Independantly sponsored studies - These usually suggests that although most people are not affected by violent computer games, a few individuals can express more violent behaviour after playing violent computer games, whether this is due to upbringing, mental instability or just inbuilt personality.
When you look closely, all studies really return the same result, just with a different spin on it. The independant studies, however, usually present an unbias report.
Dont give games to stupid little children. All those people who just got an idea of blowing an entire school apart is not from a videogame. These people are crackbabies. Their head wont work as a normal person who can tell what the hell is the limit of stuff you can do and can't do.
Well how about this, let's make all the stupid children kill themselfs so they wont have children and so we dont get overrunned by a flood of stupid people. In nature these people would die cuase they wouldent get any food. Well now people are feeding these people and now the entire world is doomed. Thank you.
What I just realized is this is the legislators imposing a law on people who cannot speak out against it (people under voting age). Doesn't this fit somewhere in the realm of "no taxation without representation?"
Not really, because they're not at the age of majority. When they reach voting age they can help to change or remove the law. They're fortunate that most young adults grew up with games, and would empathise.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
GTA? Why are they going for that game? its like blaming Columbine on really old DOOM.
Has any one played the new POSTAL 2 demo? The whole point is to go around killing random people. You can press a key to unzip your pants and **** on people. You can take a dead cat and shove your gun up its butt to use it as a silencer. Its good for 9 shots, one for each of its 9 lives. You can whack of off peoples heads and kick them around.
If I was gonna put an age limit on a game (which im opposed too) id be more concerned over something like this.
Its up to parents to watch, edjucate, and raise their kids not the gaming industry to make "moral friendly games".
<!--QuoteBegin--Cpl.Davis+Apr 22 2003, 03:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cpl.Davis @ Apr 22 2003, 03:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its up to parents to watch, <b>edjucate</b>, and raise their kids not the gaming industry to make "moral friendly games". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please tell me this was a joke... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Back on topic: what's the next step? When I was a little kid, I'd go to the library (big building with books, sunnyD kids) and check out truly graphic reference guides of WW2. There I was, 10 years old, looking at pictures of stacks of jewish corpses or russian stalingrad fallen. My parents expected me to be able to tell the difference between 2 dimensional images on a page (or screen) and images or impulses in real life. For all people claim that GTA is just too realistic in its application of violence, I have to ask how many times you've seen the equivalent thing happen between Silvestor and Tweety with a baseball bat...
Can you clarify that a bit MonsE? Are you saying that because you were able to distinguish between real life and fantasy, no safeguards should be in place? Did you never play games based on TV as a kid? (did they have TV then?)
I am saying that parents must be given some responsibility for their gross little offspring. If you let little johnny watch 10 hours of Nighmare on Elm Street movies then notice he's becoming a obsessive and dangerous, TURN OFF THE TV AND REMOVE IT. Get your kid to do more than just sit in front of the boobtube. Just like Chris Rock said, "what ever happened to crazy?". Doom2 didn't make the columbine murders happen, it just allowed 2 crazy people to have a point of reference. My parents didn't even own a TV for years, not becase they were worried about TV violence, but because they thought it was all stupid and brain-rotting. Just like video games. If you think <i>I'm</i> old... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
The point being, endlessly regulating the hell out of things in order to keep parents from being lousy is a dumb idea that will simply generate a lot of overhead to me the taxpayer. Because now, the ACLU, DMA, SPA, Blockbuster, and a bajillion other organizations are all going to sue the everloving crap out of the state and federal governments that try this, and my tax dollars will flush down the toilet in cases that are strictly unconstitutional, but will take millions to prove it. So who gets screwed in the end? Me. I paid $30,000 in taxes this year, and I think that's plenty without adding in more overhead for pandering shytebirds like that imbecile Lieberman. Maybe he can stage some book burnings too...
Unfortunately you'll probably be landed with a bigger bill to deal with the aftermath of irresponsible parents not being involved and turning their spawn into socially inept criminals. Sensible legislation simply makes it <i>harder</i> to screw the kids up. Unfortuntaely there will be parents that do let their kids watch 10 hours of Nighmare on Dutch Elm, and then complain that not enough was done to protect their budding little arsonist. By not putting the legislation there you're guaranteeing that these cases, and kneejerking imbeciles will keep reappearing, and there will be little monsters churned out by irresponsible parents on a regular basis. Better to pay the price now to nip it in the bud.
It opens the door to too much loss of civil liberties. It becomes a precedent for disallowing the buying of 'objectionable' books, movies, artwork, clothes, and anything else you want to imagine. It's patently unconstitutional and un-american, and if THAT is the issue on the line, I will pay more gladly.
It sends a message now that parents are not responsible for their kids, so laws are required to MAKE them be responsible. It enforces the 'not my fault' attitude that permeates America today. Makes me want to vomit.
Blanket ban = bad Sensible age rating and guidelines on taste and decency = good
As I've said above, any system that allows me as a parent to make more of an informed choice is a good idea. The state wholly taking control away from me is very wrong.
The sad fact is not all parents ARE responsible for their kids, society DOES have to take a hand. Otherwise what IS society? Hence no hardcore in the middle of childrens TV. Are you seriously suggesting that only parents should be censoring the content that their children receive?
"I'm afraid thats the last in the series of billy the fluffy bunny, coming up next, hardcore Fist 7."
If thats UnAmerican, I'm glad theres a sea between us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Are you seriously suggesting that only parents should be censoring the content that their children receive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is pretty much exactely what MonsE and I (to think that I won't continue this phrase with 'disagree about'...) are suggesting. From a strictly juristic standpoint, <i>only</i> the parents have the right to raise their children. Period. Yes, there are irresponsible parents, but a system of indictions (to name the exact term for educational censorship) does take those worst cases as the norm and decides upon this base. Following that logic, you and I should right now be castrated, because, you know, we <i>could</i> rape a woman, after all.
We both agree that any initiative supporting the parents in the execution of their right to bring their children up is a good thing, but indictions are counter-productive and go far beyond what is tried to accomplish: - They stigmatize whole branches of media. - If strictly enforced, they make the access to some games nigh impossible for adults. I'm still trying to find a German store that'll sell me the English version of Unreal 2, which is indicted here. - By this, they hamper the sales of indicted products, and do thus potentially keep good but possibly indicted gameideas from becoming reality (I can name a number of German developers which went bankrupt under the indiction of their titles.). - They are a first, although meek step into the direction of complete censorship. Edmund Stoiber, who nearly became German chancellor last year, advocated a complete <i>ban</i> on all "killer-games" because the indiction couldn't save children who had older friends. - This brings us to the last point, indictions are barely enforceable. Warez, friends, and the often cited greedy shopowner make it possible for children to obtain indicted games, unless their parents are responsible enough to control their gaming habits - which brings us back to point a).
Comments
If we agree that the majority of game purchasers are over the age of 18, then what is the focus of this legislation? It's clear to me that the authors of this garbage are looking for one thing - votes. They believe that enough people out there want "violent" video games out of the hands of other peoples' children. That's right, OTHER peoples' children. Their kids don't have a problem, but that kid down the street shouldn't be allowed to hold a rubber band. It's nothing more than an attempt to freighten voters into increasing the need for government. I'd love to plop all this crap onto one party, but I'm sure there's a few others mingled in. Fools.
Oh, there's one easy way for them to demonize games btw - liken it to porn. Guaranteed bombshell.
-_-
No one seems to discuss violence it self. We are obviously fascinated by violence. You can testify this by many centuries of rather gruesome public executions. Roman circuses. Depictions of Doomsday or Hell by painters. The many works of literature that has some elements of violence in them. Todays tv, news - all media are saturated with violence. They wouldn't be if we didnt bother with it.
Why is that? Video games are just a small fragment of the depictions or descriptions of violence present - and frankly the poorest of them. I still can't stomach reading American Psycho. But there's no gory or bloody game that I cannot stomach. I still hide my face behind a pillow when watching ultra scary movies. But oddly not when they're ridiculously bloody. Almost NO computer game has managed to scare me (Thief is one of the few). Actually computer games are quite poor at making stuff "realistic" so far. Actual, but silent B/W film footage from a German fighter plane doing sweeps over the Omaha beach landing during D-Day of 1944 makes me queasy and sad when I see dozens of little men drop to the mg bullets. But doing the same in a computer game? LOL. Funneh!
No, computer games are not culprits of bringing out huge mad violence in kids because of their context. Wait, not even MEDIATED. Rather simulated - and poorly. It's all in the context, and kids CAN see the difference between a video game and Real life. That is scientifically proved by danis scientiest Simon Egenfeldt Nielsen.
There are much more sinister side effects of obsessive computer gaming than mere mediated violence exposure. And the social isolation provoked by obsessing with them gives you Colombine High incidents. Those kids were estranged on many levels, and computer games probably helped them blanket themselves from their sad past.
In germany we have one of the world's most RIDICULOUSLY funny censorship laws on computer games. You want to sell them to kids? Well you must replace blood with green goo. Or Soldiers with robots. It's daft. But seeing as the german market is so large, they do it. I wish the politicians would try to do stuff where it matered more. Such as making parents preventing their children from playing too much video games. No matter if it is Mario Sunshine or Mortal Kombat 0: Bloody Torn out Spines.
[edit: The fascination of violence is the real concern in my opinion. Try to map that instead, look at it the other way around. Instead of banning left and right, try to understand the fascination and work from there instead.
This is a very good observatuion which holds true in many cases, unfortunately.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->mistruSUYFl<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nice swear filter, admins
What ever happened to predictability, the milkman, the paperboy and evening TV? At least your old familar friends are waiting just around the bend... Everywhere you look (everywhere you look) there's a heart (there's a heart) a hand to hold onto, everywhere you look (everywhere you look,) theres a face of somebody who needs you, (everywhere you look) when your lost out there and you're all alone, the light is waiting to carry you home, everywhere you look, everywhere you look, dobedoBOPbaDA!
Yes, thats the theme to full House. A full house where the indept Danny Tanner would teach his girls rights and wrongs. He'd take responsibility. He'd force them to be responsible. We need Danny Tanner- Not Government Regulations! (Inser Burst of applause here>
We've had videogame age certification for some time. It basically follows the age guidelines that te BBFC uses for film. A game is certified 15, people under that age can't buy it. Ok, well and good. I wouldn't wan't my kids watching a 15 at age 10 (they're 4 & 7 months at the moment) I wouldn't want them seeing a game which was rated 15 at the same age. With gfx advancing, and realism increasing, are games anything more than movies you direct and particpate in? - ok side issue, lets leave it there.
You have 2 industries, both producing lifelike entertainment, some of which can be disturbing for children. Various studies show they aren't/or are responsible for affecting the state of young minds. They are both censored to protect children. Why not err on the side of caution?
You're looking at it from the perspective of a gamer, of course playing whatever game you like is your god given right. You've reached the age of majority and the decision is yours. As a [I]parent[/] I would no more want my children to watch "the Thing" at a young age, than I would want them playing the game of the film.
I have to exercise caution over what I watch on TV. I do the same with the games I play (until the kids go to bed).
The issue should be whether parents understand that computer games are entertainment with the same content as movies. They understand that a 18 movie isn't suitable for their kids. It shouldn't be a big leap to understand that a game rated 18 isn't suitable either.
Now rant out of the way, should the issue be "who is certifying these games"?
Age restrictions are useless because every child can bypass them, be it by an older friend, the net, or a greedy shopowner, and at the same time lure many parents in the felt security that "we don't have to worry about <i>that</i>". I'm going to support each and every legislative initiative that supports parents in their effort of giving their children the toys that're fit for them - I oppose every attempt of transporting parental rights to the state, not only out of theoretical notions, but also because it can't work.
I agree with Spooge (scary, isn't it?) - the current legislative attempts are cheap shots for the votes of apathetic parents.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->****, I hate when Nemesis is right...
-_- <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/me bows <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Mostly its there to stop kids seeing what they might find upsetting. Putting it in the hands of a government department, does take the decision away from the parent, but more importantly, it takes the decison away from the <b>kids</b>. Again I have to say its erring on the side of caution. If necessary the parents CAN buy the software and give it to the kids. The KIDS can't buy it themselves. Inasmuch it reinforces the parents rights.
Second, no parent would have to buy and play the game to find out whether it's right for their kids.
In many cases, a short glimpse on the blurb on the box, or reading an article in a PC mag would be enough - both things that are <i>not</i> so much of a hassle that they would justify taking the descision from the parents, even <i>if</i> the state could enforce the legislation.
The fact that no parent would play the game IS the point I'm trying to make.
If you can't decide given the blurb (offset by the pleading of the child), then the certification is the best guideline. If you don't trust the censorship board, you still do have the <i>option</i> of playing it, then deciding its ok for your child. I don't think if a parent couldn't be bothered to play the game themselves, they could be bothered to do some research in magazines.
Its easier to spot a big 15 logo than deciphering blurb that for many parents seems like a different language.
Unfortunately adding the thrill of the forbidden is the same for any of those products. All you can do is try to raise sensible kids.
I still maintain that the censorship is an assistant to the parents.
I agree with you on the benefit of the former - even if too rigid / too leninent, it gives parents a scale on which to decide whether the game could be fit for their children.
This benefit does however not relate to censorship - if the big '15'-mark would still be on the box, but the (from a personal-rights point of view) problematic censoring of media wouldn't be, we'd still have the same scale, but without the stigmatizing, or the intermingling of governmental and parental rights, which does, as we established, only hold theoretic benefits.
Yes the aspect of censorship I was talking about was the legal age limit. It has obvious benefits.
In terms of banning games outright, I'm still fairly confident that it's not a force for evil. It can be, of course, if its a knee-jerk reaction, and not thought through, or applied over zealously. I guess now is the time to bring the computer simulation/film simulation subject to the fore. As I said before, effects are seeming more real all the time. How do you differentiate between a filmed murder, and a CGI one? If the movie "Crash" by Cronenberg (which caused such a censorship fuss on its release) had been made with techniques like they used in Final Fantasy, would that have made it more acceptable than real actors doing it? less acceptable? no different?
Its a matter of common sense, there a boundaries of taste and decency for brodcast and recorded media, why should computer games be excluded?
As Nem said previously though, WE are the generation thats going to be making the rules. We're also the ones that have grown as the industry has. If you think games are being banned for no good reason, make a stand, see your parliamentary representative. It worked in the UK with the film Crash, why not with Crash Bandicoot?
When comparing the standards for computer games to those already set for other media, it's helpful to have some reference material on hand regarding the existing standards for other media. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
For your convenience, here's a paper I wrote two years ago on censorship and comstockery in 1950s America. It has a pretty good rundown of what is and isn't allowed by the US Constitution in the way of censorship, and a few example cases that show comstockery/censorship efforts on the part of both private groups and government. There's a section at the end on the MPAA hearings, which are very germane to this discussion.
<a href='http://www.leadtogold.com/me/UnAmerican_Activities.doc' target='_blank'>UnAmerican Activities: a cross section of comstockery and hypocrisy in 1950s America</a>
Obviously, your local rights may vary by country.
O tempora o mores.
The fact is (as your paper showed) morality and its administration is guarded by the state, but made by the people. Times change, so do attitudes. Films like "Cannibal Corse" were considered too horrific to see in the 1980s, and were banned. I saw a copy in my local blockbuster last week. In times of high feeling then censorship will be more swingeing. In more relaxed times, control will be relaxed.
New media is exactly that. Society is still trying to establish a baseline for taste and decency in it. There will be knee jerk reactions at times, these come and go. (it is our nation's eternal shame that Bowlder was an Englishman) There will periods of leniency.
If we don't agree with the level of censorship imposed at the current time its our duty to pressure to change it. I can't see that games should be exempt from any control, nor do I wish to see anodyne nonsense to safeguard my sensibilities.
As has been posted previously, technology is almost at the point of disabling this censorship. If you know where to look, just about anything is downloadable. Censorship just makes getting hold of damaging material harder, just as it always has, that is its purpose.
The surgeon general of the U.S. already stated that video games do not equal violent behavior. THey are a form of entertainment, just like books, movies, and other forms of media (except TV, nowadays you see almost everything on TV). Just like these froms of media, they are regulated through a ratings system. Of course, the system doesn't work, just like carding for alcohol has loop holes in it, so do these. If somebody wants something bad enough, they are going to get it, no matter what law is in effect. I have only been carded once for a game, and thats becasue the register demanded it when they scanned it. The reason for the lack of enforcement is that the people who sell games don't see it as much of a threat to themselves if they do sell it to a minor.
blah, I really should stop posting past 4:00am, can't think straight.
*edit* If they pass the bill to do research on how games affect players, where do i sign up? (hopefully its one of those programs where they pay you to study you) <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Those sponsored by those against violent computer games - The report usually suggests that violence in computer games can trigger violent behaviour in children.
Those sponsored by people who don't want games censored - The report usually suggests that violence in computer games never triggers violence. In reality, they claim, there are always other reasons for the violent behaviour.
Independantly sponsored studies - These usually suggests that although most people are not affected by violent computer games, a few individuals can express more violent behaviour after playing violent computer games, whether this is due to upbringing, mental instability or just inbuilt personality.
When you look closely, all studies really return the same result, just with a different spin on it. The independant studies, however, usually present an unbias report.
Well how about this, let's make all the stupid children kill themselfs so they wont have children and so we dont get overrunned by a flood of stupid people. In nature these people would die cuase they wouldent get any food. Well now people are feeding these people and now the entire world is doomed. Thank you.
Has any one played the new POSTAL 2 demo? The whole point is to go around killing random people.
You can press a key to unzip your pants and **** on people. You can take a dead cat and shove your gun up its butt to use it as a silencer. Its good for 9 shots, one for each of its 9 lives. You can whack of off peoples heads and kick them around.
If I was gonna put an age limit on a game (which im opposed too) id be more concerned over something like this.
Its up to parents to watch, edjucate, and raise their kids not the gaming industry to make "moral friendly games".
Please tell me this was a joke... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Back on topic: what's the next step? When I was a little kid, I'd go to the library (big building with books, sunnyD kids) and check out truly graphic reference guides of WW2. There I was, 10 years old, looking at pictures of stacks of jewish corpses or russian stalingrad fallen. My parents expected me to be able to tell the difference between 2 dimensional images on a page (or screen) and images or impulses in real life. For all people claim that GTA is just too realistic in its application of violence, I have to ask how many times you've seen the equivalent thing happen between Silvestor and Tweety with a baseball bat...
The point being, endlessly regulating the hell out of things in order to keep parents from being lousy is a dumb idea that will simply generate a lot of overhead to me the taxpayer. Because now, the ACLU, DMA, SPA, Blockbuster, and a bajillion other organizations are all going to sue the everloving crap out of the state and federal governments that try this, and my tax dollars will flush down the toilet in cases that are strictly unconstitutional, but will take millions to prove it. So who gets screwed in the end? Me. I paid $30,000 in taxes this year, and I think that's plenty without adding in more overhead for pandering shytebirds like that imbecile Lieberman. Maybe he can stage some book burnings too...
Sensible legislation simply makes it <i>harder</i> to screw the kids up. Unfortuntaely there will be parents that do let their kids watch 10 hours of Nighmare on Dutch Elm, and then complain that not enough was done to protect their budding little arsonist.
By not putting the legislation there you're guaranteeing that these cases, and kneejerking imbeciles will keep reappearing, and there will be little monsters churned out by irresponsible parents on a regular basis. Better to pay the price now to nip it in the bud.
It sends a message now that parents are not responsible for their kids, so laws are required to MAKE them be responsible. It enforces the 'not my fault' attitude that permeates America today. Makes me want to vomit.
Sensible age rating and guidelines on taste and decency = good
As I've said above, any system that allows me as a parent to make more of an informed choice is a good idea. The state wholly taking control away from me is very wrong.
The sad fact is not all parents ARE responsible for their kids, society DOES have to take a hand. Otherwise what IS society?
Hence no hardcore in the middle of childrens TV. Are you seriously suggesting that only parents should be censoring the content that their children receive?
"I'm afraid thats the last in the series of billy the fluffy bunny, coming up next, hardcore Fist 7."
If thats UnAmerican, I'm glad theres a sea between us.
I think this is pretty much exactely what MonsE and I (to think that I won't continue this phrase with 'disagree about'...) are suggesting. From a strictly juristic standpoint, <i>only</i> the parents have the right to raise their children. Period.
Yes, there are irresponsible parents, but a system of indictions (to name the exact term for educational censorship) does take those worst cases as the norm and decides upon this base. Following that logic, you and I should right now be castrated, because, you know, we <i>could</i> rape a woman, after all.
We both agree that any initiative supporting the parents in the execution of their right to bring their children up is a good thing, but indictions are counter-productive and go far beyond what is tried to accomplish:
- They stigmatize whole branches of media.
- If strictly enforced, they make the access to some games nigh impossible for adults. I'm still trying to find a German store that'll sell me the English version of Unreal 2, which is indicted here.
- By this, they hamper the sales of indicted products, and do thus potentially keep good but possibly indicted gameideas from becoming reality (I can name a number of German developers which went bankrupt under the indiction of their titles.).
- They are a first, although meek step into the direction of complete censorship. Edmund Stoiber, who nearly became German chancellor last year, advocated a complete <i>ban</i> on all "killer-games" because the indiction couldn't save children who had older friends.
- This brings us to the last point, indictions are barely enforceable. Warez, friends, and the often cited greedy shopowner make it possible for children to obtain indicted games, unless their parents are responsible enough to control their gaming habits - which brings us back to point a).