Your Thoughts On The Family Entertainment Protection Act

"graphic, violent and pornographic content" is the only reason the entertainment industry exists. Why not put the parents in charge of content control instead of the government.
 
Because the corporate world cant petition parents like they can petition congress men. (I think I got that word right). Quite frankly I don't care as long as I can walk into my local game store and buy my Fear or what have you without getting hassled beyond asking for an ID.
 
Why would the "corporate world" petition a congress to pass a bill that will reduce thier revenue? I think you mean "interest groups."
 
I find this both rather amusing and too politically motivated than anything else. Bills like this are only created to gather momentem for a possible canidate on "hot topic" issues. But creating new objectives to curb this "violence" that she says is growing among young Americans, only leads to bloating more resources toward something sooo petty. I know the government loves to waste money but I thought Democrats would depress from creating new bureaucracies within another. I do not pay much in taxes yet, but I would rather have it spent on something beneficial to everyone and not voters.
 
I don't like the fact that acts like this are forced onto the public.

That being said ... I think it has become a necessity

Just take a look at how parents are raising there kids now a days. Everyone wants to be a child's friend rather then a parent and authority figure. Its pretty simple, when parents stop properly raising there children someone needs to step in and do it, or that child is going to have a hard future.

Gone are the days when mom stayed at home and was able to properly discipline the children and instal proper morals and ethics and values in the child. Everyone is too busy chasing the all mighty dollar, and sadly raising kids often comes secondary.

You have to look at it more closely then, "OMG government is ganking my freedoms !!11ONE".
 
It looks like Hillary the Hypocrite is trying to appeal to conservatives. I hope she goes down, hard. This whole video game thing will hurt her more than she knows.
 
Why is it parents aren't capable of monitoring the games their kids play? Is the government going to decide what sports kids play? What food they eat for dinner? What they should do for a career?

I'd *like* to think parents are involved enough with their children to care about what they do both work and play. Guess I'm a short-sighted noob. :(
 
I am totally for the age restrictions being enforced...if the game is rated for adults then it should only be broughten by adults...as for all of the other bs in the bill...get over yourself and put some money were it belongs...seriously...the money spent by this country for censership is ridiculous...and in the end we can all blam Rockstar games for having that damn little nudie code that caused all of this racket...but how did these polictians learn about this crack...were THEY playing GTA:SA...ummm...interesting thinking or maybe they caught there minor childern playing it cuz they were too busy working to take care of there kids...ummmm
 
I find it extremely annoying that Lieberman and Clinton, the black sheep of the Democratic Party, are proposing additional content regulation based on age when with the next generation of consoles, parents will have the ability to lock out titles that they consider to be too violent/pornographic/left-wing/whatever. Technology has solved a problem, while this legislation is bound to create one. Who will regulate and impose fines on stores for selling a Teen title to an 11 year old?

Even for those who believe that video games have a negative impact on children's behavior, this is a problem that has already been solved by the free market.

You don't have to be a video gamer or hardcore PC enthusiast to realise that this is the same prohibition against jazz in the 1920s, comic books in the 1950s, rock and roll in the 1960s, heavy metal in the 1970s and rap in the late 1980s, early 1990s... and people who are smart enough to realise this constitute the Democratic base, which Clieberman are currently alienating with their unwillingness to condemn the conduct of the President in the waging of the Iraq war, and these broad, heavy handed attempts to appeal to the lowest common denominator of Middle America through an issue which is of no real relevance to the very desperate times we live in. It doesn't matter how well it polls - this issue, like flag burning - has negligible impact on the lives Americans live, and there are life-and-death issues in this country that need to be addressed first.

I may write for the site but this is my personal opinion. This post does not neccessarily represent the views of Hardocp.com or the [H] adminstration, owners, editors, or advertisers. This is not an editorial.
 
Is this political posturing? Yes. "Family Entertainment Protection Act" indeed! It's a PR-driven title. It should be called something like "Video Game Rating Enforcement Act", but such a title would doom the bill (and it's champion) to obscurity. Does Hillary really mean it? She might. I don't know. But I'm pretty sure it's more a publicity stunt than an honest effort.

That said, is it a bad idea? In my opinion, no.

In most people's eyes, movies and video games are quite similar. They're moving pictures on the screen accompanied by sound. We already regulate kids' attendance at R-rated movies, why shouldn't we do the same for buying video games?

In response to lawsuits where victims blame violent actions on video games, I've seen several people ask "Why was a 12-year-old kid playing GTA3 in the first place?". I agree. Kids shouldn't be playing such games without their parents' knowledge and consent. Despite what the clueless slashdotters may say, many young kids don't have the experience/maturity/whatever to keep the proper perspective on real vs. portrayed violence/sex/etc, and thus need protection of some sort. In my opinion, legislation requiring ID for M-rated games is easy to implement, easy to enforce, and at the very least gives the ESRB ratings a little more weight.

"Think of the children!" may be a much-derided phrase, but there is a real and well-founded basis for it. I have an 11-month-old son. When he's 10 or 12 years old, will I want him playing games like Doom3, HL2, UT2004, F.E.A.R., Far Cry, etc? Heck no. I can enforce it in my home, but I can't keep him from going and buying it elsewhere and playing at a friend's house. However, I can (at least hopefully) rest assured that the movie theater won't let my future 12-year-old buy a ticket for Super Gory Mass Chainsaw Murderer IX.
 
I was under the impression that most stores did this already. Over-legislation, if you ask me.
 
GForce64 said:
I was under the impression that most stores did this already. Over-legislation, if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Some do, and some don't. At this point, it is voluntary. The bill would make it mandatory.
 
Mohonri said:
Is this political posturing? Yes. "Family Entertainment Protection Act" indeed! It's a PR-driven title. It should be called something like "Video Game Rating Enforcement Act", but such a title would doom the bill (and it's champion) to obscurity. Does Hillary really mean it? She might. I don't know. But I'm pretty sure it's more a publicity stunt than an honest effort.

That said, is it a bad idea? In my opinion, no.

In most people's eyes, movies and video games are quite similar. They're moving pictures on the screen accompanied by sound. We already regulate kids' attendance at R-rated movies, why shouldn't we do the same for buying video games?

In response to lawsuits where victims blame violent actions on video games, I've seen several people ask "Why was a 12-year-old kid playing GTA3 in the first place?". I agree. Kids shouldn't be playing such games without their parents' knowledge and consent. Despite what the clueless slashdotters may say, many young kids don't have the experience/maturity/whatever to keep the proper perspective on real vs. portrayed violence/sex/etc, and thus need protection of some sort. In my opinion, legislation requiring ID for M-rated games is easy to implement, easy to enforce, and at the very least gives the ESRB ratings a little more weight.

"Think of the children!" may be a much-derided phrase, but there is a real and well-founded basis for it. I have an 11-month-old son. When he's 10 or 12 years old, will I want him playing games like Doom3, HL2, UT2004, F.E.A.R., Far Cry, etc? Heck no. I can enforce it in my home, but I can't keep him from going and buying it elsewhere and playing at a friend's house. However, I can (at least hopefully) rest assured that the movie theater won't let my future 12-year-old buy a ticket for Super Gory Mass Chainsaw Murderer IX.
Click to expand...

and hopefully the parents of your son's friends are at least half way educated and can keep the same regulation in their house as yours and yes...i do believe i agree with everything you said
 
"Think of the children!" may be a much-derided phrase, but there is a real and well-founded basis for it. I have an 11-month-old son. When he's 10 or 12 years old, will I want him playing games like Doom3, HL2, UT2004, F.E.A.R., Far Cry, etc? Heck no. I can enforce it in my home, but I can't keep him from going and buying it elsewhere and playing at a friend's house. However, I can (at least hopefully) rest assured that the movie theater won't let my future 12-year-old buy a ticket for Super Gory Mass Chainsaw Murderer IX.
Click to expand...

If you raise your child in a loving, nurturing home, as I'm sure you will, then there shouldn't be an issue to begin with. Playing a violent video game does not turn your kid into a psychopath.

Preventative laws like this one are even harmful in some cases. Take alchohol, for example. Alchohol is this mystical thing that kids are not supposed to touch until their 21st birthday. Many parents, undoubtedly, don't take the time, or don't think it's necessary to teach their kids how to drink when they reach a reasonable age. So that 21st birthday rolls around, and your child is drinking tequila through a bong and winds up dead from alchohol poisoning. If you demystify shit like this, there's no reason for kids to go nuts when they hit that certain magical age.

Yet it seems most folks don't think this is a good idea. There was a couple in the news awhile back who got into a lot of trouble for hosting a post-prom party for their child and many of his friends. When the kids showed up, they were required to hand over their carkeys, and the father was in charge of the keg, to keep an eye on when one of them had too much to drink. All kids were forced to stay overnight. This responsible couple kept 50 kids from going off and drinking elsewhere, driving, and potentially hurting themselves and others, but yet, people have the nerve to call these parents irresponsible. Totally blows my mind - this society is all about taking serious, real-life shit and throwing it into the closet as a solution for dealing with it. I find it sickening.

But I took a tangent there. We don't need censorship legislation. For anything. What we need are parents who give more than a couple shits about the child they brought into the world, and real, tangible solutions to problems. No more of this "skirt around the issue" nonsense.
 
I don't understand why adults, who would have access to the most violent games of their choice, want to prevent banning the sale of violent or sexual games to minors. Why do you care if you can get the games yourselves anyway? You can try the slippery slope, but I am not buying that crap. Maybe too many of the posters are teenagers.

Don't misunderstand me...I am not against the ban, but I am not for it either. The reason is I was in a Gamestop when a mother ordered GTA: Vice City for her ten year old son. I know too many parents will still buy the games for the kids without thinking or caring about the content. Even though I know most of you will disagree with me, I also think that even if they did care, there are not enough resourses a parent can trust to HELP them make the decision. If a parent were to use the internet, they would get many conflicting opinions and I suspect that they would not be able to ask other parents who might be just as clueless.
 
I may write for the site but this is my personal opinion. This post does not neccessarily represent the views of Hardocp.com or the [H] adminstration, owners, editors, or advertisers. This is not an editorial.

That said, of course, it would help if we had more games like Katamari Damacy and fewer games like Grand Theft Auto. Katamari is a great game but I think it wouldn't be as highly rated if it weren't for the fact that there are very few games in the time-puzzle genre.

I also think the backlash against violence in games is a backlash against -- well, to put it bluntly the fact that violence is very much overdone in games. With the exception of Age of Empires, most of the best selling games are either gun shooters or stick fighters in arcades (DDR being the exception) and the FPS genre pretty much dominates the PC world. I think you're going to have violence in games because part of the fun of the game is that they provide conflict to overcome - and conflict is easiest to achieve, in the "english-major storytelling sense" through violence. In Pac Man, you were in conflict with the ghosts, in Donkey Kong and other platformers, you were in conflict with the environment. In Grand Theft Auto, you're in conflict with... well, just about everyone.

Even in games like Tetris, Dance Dance Revolution, and Katamari Damacy, you've got conflict with the clock to worry about. We need to find new ways to introduce dramatic conflict into games.

We're not likely to see this, however, as it now takes millions of dollars to market a game, and so game development houses are not very likely to risk that kind of money on "something new." Most of the best selling games are sequels, or at least firmly in the genre - how many Need for Speed games are out there now? How many Tom Clancy's?

Id Software alone - the company that just about popularized the 3d shooter on it's own, has done little but to retread on it's own success. Four Quakes, three dooms, and a couple of Wolfenstiens later, I don't see them innovating. How many Unreals and Unreal Tournaments? And counting the expansions, there are 12 Sims games.

I honestly don't think that many of the "on the fence" soccer moms worried about violence in video games would be so worried about it if they saw that they had more of an option.

There's a reference in Acts of Gord

Father and son enter the store. They look at many of the titles, with the father using his executive veto on every game the son wants. The son being about 14.

Finally, they come up to the counter.

"Yes, we're looking for a game that doesn't have any violence."

"Easy enough. I've got lots of games without violence. Anything in particular you want?"

"The game can't have any violence at all."

"Ok."

"I mean nothing."

"Well, Crash Team racing doesn't have any violence in it."

"Yes it does. You can hit each other's cars."

"Uhm.. ok...so, no conflict at all you mean?"

"Yes."

"Hmm... Here, try Bust A Move. It's a very good game with no conflict."

"We've tried it before. It's too violent."

"...Too violent? There isn't any violence in the game at all."

"You shoot things and monsters fall out."

"Ok...here, try Intelligent Cube. Great game, no monsters and no shooting."

"You can fall off the edge and the moving blocks can kill the character. Too violent."

"Uh...ok...uhm...well, there are a lot of racing games without violence."

"Racing games have competition. The game can't have any competition."

"..."

"..."

"... No competition? Perhaps we're a little shaky on just what a video game is. As a rule, games are exercises in competition. Violence isn't required, though popular, but competition is a founding requirement. It's like saying you want a video game that you can play with a pencil and paper. It just can't happen."

"Are you saying that with all your games you can't give me what I want?"

"I'm saying the only game that can possibly maybe qualify on your list is Tetris, and even then you would be restricted to a one player game. Though that might not fit under your restrictions."

The son speaks up. "I'm sick and tired of playing nothing but Tetris! Dad! Everyone else plays these games, and you won't even get cable TV! All you ever rent is Tetris! Can't we get anything else besides Tetris?"

Father rents Tetris anyway.
Click to expand...

Funny story, but it's true - games stem from conflict and the enjoyment comes from conflict's resolution and violence is certainly overrepresented - so much so that parents won't bat an eye when kids find a form of conflict that's not violent, but not exactly healthy either. I mean, we joke about YuGiOh cards as cardboard crack, but both the game and the TV show where they play the game -- well it's not violent so I think that you have many parents who would rather plop their kids in front of that than plopping their kids in front of, some higher quality entertainment that happens to have some violence -in- it.

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about - not being a parent myself.

But anyway - back to the main point of the article.

I do think that the best way to solve the "violent video game" problem is simply to change the market so that it encourages independent development, and explore different ways of having conflict in a game without shooting or beating. I do think that increasing the amount of regulation on the games themselves will make the game market even harder to break into, and in turn, essentially make the problem worse, for another round of legislation - a self-perpetuating vicious cycle.
 
Red Shirt said:
I don't understand why adults, who would have access to the most violent games of their choice, want to prevent banning the sale of violent or sexual games to minors. Why do you care if you can get the games yourselves anyway? You can try the slippery slope, but I am not buying that crap. Maybe too many of the posters are teenagers.

Don't misunderstand me...I am not against the ban, but I am not for it either. The reason is I was in a Gamestop when a mother ordered GTA: Vice City for her ten year old son. I know too many parents will still buy the games for the kids without thinking or caring about the content. Even though I know most of you will disagree with me, I also think that even if they did care, there are not enough resourses a parent can trust to HELP them make the decision. If a parent were to use the internet, they would get many conflicting opinions and I suspect that they would not be able to ask other parents who might be just as clueless.
Click to expand...

I may write for the site but this is my personal opinion. This post does not neccessarily represent the views of Hardocp.com or the [H] adminstration, owners, editors, or advertisers. This is not an editorial.

Agreed, but I think that the label on the game has the information that that mother needed. How do you know the mother didn't think to herself: "Yeah, I know about this game. I also know that my 10 year old can handle it, because he's very mature for his age and knows the difference between 'pretend' and 'real' and if I find that there's a change in his behavior, I can take the game away from him."

The problem is that this "save the children" legislation isn't really concerned with their own kids, but really keeping the game out of other people's ten year olds. And if I have a kid, I want to be able to choose what I expose him or her to when I, as a parent, think he's ready. What censorship does is take that decision away from the parent and into the hands of the state -- and even if you don't agree that that parent should have given that kid that game... well, you don't know that woman, that kid, and you're not in a position to be making decisions for them. Neither should the state.
 
Right now i am currently writting a report for my comp. 1 english class and it happens to be over this subject, here is what i have so far:
Jess McCall

Instructor McAllister
English 101A
28 November 2005
Violent Video Games Equals Violent Youth?

Video games have become a norm in today’s society. Almost all house holds that have a TV have some sort of gaming entertainment system. Whether it be a Playstation, Xbox, or PC almost all American house holds have some sort of gaming console. With the console comes games and some of these games have some really life-like violence and the question that America and a lot of other countries are asking, “Does violence in video games cause increased aggression and violence in Youth?” The answer to this question is no, violence does not cause increased aggression and violence in our Youth.
The whole concept of children violence increasing with the increase in violent video games is a lie manufactured and distributed by the media. Kids are not killing each other more often than they used to. Actually the opposite is true.


Looking at the graph above shows that crime rates are the lowest they have been in the past 30 years. I have added the dates of when two of the major console came out and two of the most violent games came out for them. As you can see by looking at the graphs crime rate has not “surged” since the release of some of the most violent games to date. This graph was taken directly off the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics.

The media has done some “real tests” on children that are playing violent games and non violent games. The test that they ran observed the amount of aggression in children playing a certain game. In most cases the child would become more aggravated in the violent games. This test does not truly reflect results in overall aggression of children. I mean sure I’m going to be mad too if I can’t get past a certain level or mission in a game and I’m going to want to spike the controller on the ground or smash my mouse into tiny pieces. In “E” rated games missions aren’t as hard and there isn’t as much of a stress factor of trying to stay and something hiding in the shadows.
Since this report is about youth violence here is a graph of violence divided into age groups.

This graph includes violent crimes in homicide, rape, robbery, and both simple and aggravated assault and was also taken from the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics. The trend is the same in this graph as in the one above it. All violence rates are at an all time low.
According to theses graphs, the Playstation era has produced the most non-violent kids ever recorded. But according to the media violent video games are training kids to be killers.

this is the beginning of my essay and there are probably some gramatical errors so if you see any tell me
 
I think this is good news but for a reason you folks may or may not agree with. In my opinion the Video Game industry as a whole has become stagnant, rerelease after remake after rerun is most of what we get these days. If the Game makers can't foist off Doom33 or HalfLife22 on kids they will have to start earning their money by making games that actually interest people, without resorting to larger and more gruesome gun fights to try and prop up sagging sales....
 
Can you see the 3 billion dollar whale that I see in this. Frankly, it is merely politically motivated as many have mentioned already; it will be a lovely waste of taxpayer money.
 
I think the point of the legislation is to take the decision away from the kid and five it to the parent. Maybe this is a way to force parents to become more aware/involved?

I agree with Brian about video games and the essential aspect of conflict and/or competition. At the same time, however, we need to keep in mind that the point of video games is entertainment, and the conflict/competition is simply a vehicle for that entertainment. The best place to learn about competition, conflict, and solving problems is the real world. A video game is probably the worst place for children to learn how to resolve problems. Somebody's using a cheap but technically legal tactic in UT2004? Go blow his brains out. Somebody's using a cheap but legal tactic in the real world? Heh. Not so simple. Flak cannons are a bit hard to come by, and consequences are non-trivial.

The worry (at least for me) is this, and I think it's valid to a point: kids are growing up with less face-to-face interaction, and with more time in front of the TV or computer. They will learn how to interact with others, from whatever source is available. If parents are paying less attention to their kids behavior, or if the kids' only interaction is with a video game, there's a huge potential problem. Which brings me back to the first point of this post: this is a good way to encourage parents to get involved. If they think that their kid is mature enough to handle GTA, so be it. At least they know what's going on.
 
I am all for enforcement of the ratings when it comes to selling the games. Games like GTA in my opinion kids should not be buying. Now if an adult wants to buy it and let thier kid play that is thier call. Right now parents, in general, don't seem to be able to deal with this, kids outsmart them all the time as well, make it harder for them i say :)

I'm not against highschoolers playing games, knwo several i get along with just fine, i just hate the immature fools who play in the same server i do an act like the beavis and butthead 24/7..and i say that being a fan of beavis and butthead. :)
 
Here's why the bill will not hold up:

The movie industry's rating system does not have FTC oversight.

Legally restricting the sale of 17+ games to 16- kids is fine as far as I'm concerned because the movie industry is already regulated that way.

The interesting part of this, is that video games will now be a legit industry in the general public's eyes. They'll have government oversight.
 
what do they expect to accomplish by this? It won't change much because young kids already aren't allowed to buy M games. I don't see the problem with M games becoming more violent because M means don't get it for your little kid. It's the parents that are driving this insurrection. You can't regulate the parents. Minors playing M games will not stop even if this passes.

If you read teh article, they claim sale of M games to minors is up 10% from last year. However, the only substantial increase is in the sale of M games to girls. Yet they don't really focus on this. Sale to guys basically didn't change. Just an interesting point.
 
Ah I watched the moronathon on C-Span last night. When they were showing the violence complete with cussing, I started to laugh. One good thing is I saw how crappy True Crime NYs controls and, graphics are.
To tell the truth it is fine, if they want to keep young kids, from getting the Adult games. Now they have to ask their parents and, I have no doubt that, atleast half the parents will buy, little jonny want he wants. What Im waiting for is then to want to restrict all games. It seems the parents and, government are always looking for a scapegoat, to blame their childrens bad behavior. Before it was Rock& Roll, then TV and, movies, now it is videogames. They never look to the source which is usually them. So fine make people show ID to get games if needed. I wont get carded Im an old fart.
And yes they are cranking out the same old same old. Also the one guy conceeded that all the hype over Hot Coffee was hype and, that the majority of players couldnt have utilized the key to unlock it. That I saw as, a change of pace someone admitting they over-reacted.
 
Don't forget Tipper Gore (the wife of the former VP) was the first one to push for content rating system in the first place.

Lets have a Clinton/Gore II presidency where a minor child can have an abortion without parential concent, but can't buy a video game.
 
Just the name "Family Entertainment Protection Act" makes my skin crawl.

Isn't it up to the FAMILY to protect itself? Shocking to hear it, but it's not the governments responsibility to make sure my kids aren't getting thier hands on "violent video games". Hell, there's more sexual content on TV than in most video games. 90% of the screaming about the GTA3:SA 'sex scene' is that video games are not really understood by the general pulbic.

Similar outcry and legilstation occoured as Motion Pictures and Television evolved and pushed the boundries of society. Too bad that society today puts the repsonsibility away from them selved.

My family is a family of gamers - boardgames, pc games (we love LAN parties), card games, and a "video game" now and then. All three of my kids have grown up playing games on the PC, and so will my grand daughter. They know the difference between fragging someone in UT and what happens in real life. Heck, we are so evil that WE PLAY THESE GAMES TOGETHER!!!! now THAT is Family Entertainment Protection, I don't need an Act of governement to "protect me". The key is my family know we are playing GAMES, and having fun.

None of the GTA games have every come into my house - my wife and I don't care for them, and that's that. If you wanna play them have fun - I know those that do and they are "normal" as far as I can tell other than the fact they are gamers. We aren't prudes or anything, we're likely more open minded than most of the people you know, and we're so horrible that we are involved and active in the lives of our children! <gasp>

I did some more digging, and this really is a PR type bill - the game industry does a good job of rating the games, and in WA state, they check ID. But what's to stop me from buying UT2004 for my 8 year old and installing it on her computer so she can Frag with the crowd at my next LAN party? NOTHING!!!!

:)

I don't need to have my families entertainment protected, I need my veterans taken care of, I need our country protected from REAL foes that want to undermine our security. I need my government to stop worrying about this sort of thing and takle more serious things like friggin cancer research and helping people that need it.

I think I need a beer...

Peace,
Tim
 
..if she really wants to "empower parents" ..then she needs to get out and about and kick some of them in the teeth so maybe they'll get off their duffs and be more pro active in their childrens lives instead of serving the almighty dollar and/or living for themselves only and the kid is just kind of their in there house is all ..

"empower " them to turn off or get rid of their electronic babysitters .."empower" them with the thought that maybe a family is more important then a career ... "empower" them with truth and not lies ..."empower" them with self respect .."empower" them with love and a sound mind .."empower" them with a sense of worth and not welfare programs...

...if you have children , then they are your responsibilty to watch over them ..if you dont know something , then its your job to find out (whatever that something may be whether not knowing where your kids are going , who is watching them , what the content of the music or games they are listenning to or playing)

anyhoo ..there is much more I could rant on about concerning the breakdown of the family unit as a whole in America anyways ...but this isnt GenMay ..so I wont ...yay!


[H]
 
my thoughts? if parents buy m-rated games for their 8 yr old kid, then sue when he goes postal, i would like the parents to be whipped with the cord of an n64 controller.

jeeez people....if you're that dumb, maybe we should just get rid of the ratings and bar parents from the store.....
 
oh...i have one more thing...has anyone seen the movie "traffic"...nuff said
 
somecallmeTim said:
I think I need a beer...

Peace,
Tim
Click to expand...

You win the thread.

Seriously though, I just read 3 books on the subject of violent entertainment and games and turned in a 12 page paper on the topic this Monday.

Someone already mentioned it but violent crimes have be dropping like a rock since the early 1990s. It is ridiculous how people think we live in this horrible violent society thanks to the media and video games must be contributing to this, when in reality violence from young people is dropping to amazing lows. It is all hype.

The ESRB has been doing a fantastic job of rating the games. What part of rated Teen or Mature do you not understand when buying games for your 10 year old? 83% of games are not rated Mature.

To top it off games aren't even very graphic or violent compared to childrens entertainment from the 1950s and certainly a lot more heathy than what children used to enjoy in centuries past.

A couple of good books that rip all this hype to shreds.
Savage Pastimes : A Cultural History of Violent Entertainment
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/03...002-2795011-8649642?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

&

Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...002-2795011-8649642?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Let's see.....we have laws about seat belts, we have laws about child saftey seats, we have speed limits, we apparently have laws about the sale of cigarettes to children, we have legal drinking ages, there are laws about what you should wear on a consturction site, the FCC tells us what time we can watch certain television programs at night, and how content can be delivered on commercial TV. Recently a bill was introduced that dealt with ala carte cable selection, but the major criticism about that bill was that it did not contain certain safeguards regarding program content(read protection for children against certain TV content) We even have a law that makes the school system promote kids that cant pass standardized tests.....ie the curve is lowered until everyone passes, so no one "feels bad."

It seems that slowly and quietly the government is trying to have a law for everything. This will eventually serve what purpose???? For those things in the home....remove or inforce ideals that parents are not willing to teach their children. ie "we're going to tell you what is right and what you can do."
In public life we're going to tell you where you can sit in your car and what you can drink and when......hey you put down that Big Mac its not healthy!

The government should not have to legislate common sense or right and wrong. We as parents have the responsibility to our children to educate them. We dont need the Congress to tell us what video games children should/can play.
This is just a popular boy to whip right now. The problems with fantasy and reality rests with the Congress not American parents. Id venture if Senators Clinton, etc ever sat down and tried Quake4 or FEAR; they might secretly enjoy it??????
anyway a long 2 cents. merry christmas. :D
 
And yet, I beg the question. Why? What is the difference? I've yet to see a retailer that doesn't card for restricted movies/games.
 
Well I think that they should look at the brain damamge done to kids, playing American Idol, Brittney Spears and, The Barbie games. Oh the horror!
 
Not an editorial

Anyone that complains about violence in children's entertainment as if it's some sort of new development that came along the same time that video games did, has never seen a Tom & Jerry cartoon.

We've already won this one, I think, because of the technological learning curve. One of the reasons comic books were so horribly stunted in it's growth was due to the Comics Code, and that was mostly successful because the youth the market was targeted at couldn't vote.

Honestly, who's buying the video games nowadays? Personally, I don't think the games on the shelf right now would actually appeal to a 12 year old. No - the generation that was raised on video games just didn't stop playing - and, sobering thought, we'll probably be playing video games when we're all 60 years old. Sure, I took a few years off when I had grad school, but I didn't have much time for -anything- in grad school. My first paycheck with my new jobs out of college and out of grad school, I got a PS2 - (Yes, I bought two. The first one made a good christmas present for my sister last year.)

More and more, it -is- adults playing video games, and to regulate the industry so that the only material out there is suitable for children will really -- well, you see what it did to the comic book industry.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
It looks like Hillary the Hypocrite is trying to appeal to conservatives. I hope she goes down, hard. This whole video game thing will hurt her more than she knows.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the bill, but I fail to see how it will hurt her. Conservatives don't trust the video game industry any more than they trust hollywood. Those most likely to be pissed are those under 18 through early to mid 20's. Some of them can't vote, while the rest rarely do.

That said, I'm not sure if the SCOTUS will uphold the law. My guess is they'd strike it down as for violating the first ammendment....at least they should.
 
Mohonri said:
Is this political posturing? That said, is it a bad idea? In my opinion, no.

In most people's eyes, movies and video games are quite similar. They're moving pictures on the screen accompanied by sound. We already regulate kids' attendance at R-rated movies, why shouldn't we do the same for buying video games?
Click to expand...

There is no such law that prevents kids from going to an R movie. The rating system was created by the MPAA and it is entirely up to the theater to enforce it. Unless something has changed in the last 30 years, there's no reason to believe that any 15 year old couldn't go see Jarhead tomorrow if they wanted to. In fact, given how many more screens each theater has, I suspect it's much MUCH easier.

I was never affected by the music rating system, but I bet that kids get around it fairly easilly too.

Kevin
 
I have been preaching it for years now that we are headed right into "Communism" no doubt about it. We are soon going to be told when and where to work. Then what we can wear, watch on TV oh wait we already are.........

KM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top