72 Percent of Adults Support California Game Law - UPDATED

[ph0b0s123]

What gets me about this is that it just seems to be a law that picks on and restricts videogames and not other media, like movies. If the videogames are to be treated in law like movies with the same level of violence getting the same rating and restrictions as a movie, with the same level of violence, then I have no problem.

But from what I am reading this will only affect videogames and will result in games with a level of violence that would earn a movie just a PG-13 or R rating (also a volantary system) would be made 18+. That's not fair.

But what would you expect from someone (Schwarzenegger) so close to the movie industry. Violent movies fine the volentary system is fine, no extra laws needed. But games are the devil and so needs new laws. That's I think why people are angry. Protection of kids fine, but that level of protection should be the same across all media either all done by a law or done via a volentary scheme. Not just something special that just picks on video games.

 

[Sneaklemming]

"A survey of 2100 adults from across the U.S"


About a CA law? What part of the US in particular? Diverse spread or narrow spread. What does this company advocate?

 

[Pearwood]

I don't see the problem with this. Films have ratings, we all accept those. Why should a format where we imagine ourselves as the ones commiting these acts of violence be less regulated? I realise that's a leading question but that's what parents will be thinking. And it is against the law isn't it? It's a difficult law to enforce because the certifications tend to be 12, 15 and 18 and I don't know about anyone else but I didn't carry ID when I was 12, 15 or even at 18 unless I was going out drinking.

 

[Abe_Z]

This poll clearly shows once again, parents giving more control to the government, because they refuse to be parents. Grow up, it's not the government, or societies job to make sure your kids acquiesce to your rules. That's your job.

Completely agree. I mean, this quote solves all problems right here. Parents don't want to take accountablity that when it comes to raising a child, they want to be able to blame someone else for issues or problems that is caused by their kid when grown up.

I can imagine a kid growing up, killing someone, going to prison, and asking their mom and dad how they ended up like this, and the parents saying something like "if it weren't for the video game industry, you wouldn't have become a statistic".

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!! Take responsibility for one god-damned moment in your parenting years. Parents, IT'S YOUR JOB to raise your kid, not the government! Always looking for ways to get out of accountability.

"I think I'll blame video games because my child is violent/crazy and not me cause I didn't have control over what my kid played". Does your child have a job and buys and rents game for themselves?

"I think I'll blame fast-food because my child is fat and not me cause I didn't have control over what my kid ate". Does your child make the grocery lists or decide to always eat McDonald'?

"I think I'll blame ___ because my child it ___ and not me cause I didn't have control over what my kid ___..." - whatever - fill in the blanks, cause that's all you do: blame someone else. People who have this attitude are so fucking stupid and it enrages me even further to think that these people have bred in the first place.

YOU are in control, not your kid! If you are not in control of your child's decisions, you don't deserve to be a parent. Fuck you...

 

[Dark_Kitsune]

72% of Californian adults are stupid as hell and need to test my nuts.

 

[Agayek]

Indeed.
DAM YOU AMERICA!
ruining games for the rest of us.
[small]No offence to America, Just Americas parents and government[/small]

The really sad part about it is that the USA was founded on the idea of extremely limited government.

 

[Agayek]

I don't see the problem with this. Films have ratings, we all accept those. Why should a format where we imagine ourselves as the ones commiting these acts of violence be less regulated? I realise that's a leading question but that's what parents will be thinking. And it is against the law isn't it? It's a difficult law to enforce because the certifications tend to be 12, 15 and 18 and I don't know about anyone else but I didn't carry ID when I was 12, 15 or even at 18 unless I was going out drinking.

The problem with that is that we already have essentially the exact same rating system as Films and TV have in place. An industry group (in the case of games the ESRB) get together and assign ratings to everything, clearly labeling the product's rating and a summary of why, with a more in-depth summary posted elsewhere.

Also, at least in the States, film ratings are not enforced by law. The movie and theater industry got together and said "Hey, we're going to enforce these rules on our products so the government, which is notoriously fickle and close-minded, doesn't attempt to censor our products". We already have that for video games, and the ESRB is one of the best rating systems from any form of media.

Edit: Apologies for the double post.

 

[Exile714]

I think many of you are missing a key point. Parents aren't worried about THEIR kids playing bad video games, they are worried about OTHER kids playing bad video games. It's all about society as a whole being destroyed by kids playing out their sick fantasies in a world created by sick people who write video games. And those sick kids will infect their precious little angels, and probably shoot them too.

Is it bad parenting to let your kid play violent video games or see violent movies? Because I do. And my kids are... FINE! Wow, they're not murderers or anything! At least I think they're not. What the heck do I know, I'm a bad parent.

I'm also a lawyer though, and you guys and your undergraduate interpretation of Miller is a little disturbing. There are nuances to the law, and I'm not sure it really applies in this case anyway. I would take this case in California if I were licensed there, but I'm not and I don't plan on it. California sucks. Case in point: this survey.

Hopefully in a few years enough parents will have played games themselves (not just Wii Sports). We know that games don't make you evil, and as we grow up and become adults we will replace the older, techno-phobic, generation. And we'll think something else is evil and messing up our kids... like virtual reality chat rooms where kids make out or worse in "virtual brothels" oooooh noooo!

 

[Samurai Goomba]

The way that's phrased is pretty insidious in itself. I mean, nobody wants to be "unconcerned" about their kids having violent games, that's not PC. Parents would much rather give more control of their kids away so they don't have to do as much parenting.

"He who would trade freedom for security deserves neither."

 

[cryofpaine]

The MPAA is not law. Like the ESRB, its an independant body that studios, theaters, and rental chains follow voluntarily. Not to mention, ticket booths and rental chains can't refuse to sell tickets unless its a NC-17 movie. But most cinemas will outright refuse to screen NC-17 films.

This law is about saying the ESRB is irrelevant and using the miller test to determine if games can be sold if even suspected for being for a minor. Rather than deal with this, most retailers will simply refuse to carry anything the law affects.

The absolute worst part about this law is it seems reasonable if you aren't exactly aware of the full ramifications and powers of the miller test.

And this is why I reworded the questions. Most people think the same thing that you do. And they're just as wrong. That kind of assumption is what makes the proposal seem so innocent to the majority.

There are only two forms of media(that I know of) that are regulated by law in the USA: hardcore pornography and child pornography. Everything else is regulated by the industry. That is the status that California is trying to place upon video games. Even softcore porn would rank higher than video games at that point. Does that sound reasonable? Is that what we want for our hobby?

This law is a wolf wearing fleece. It wasn't written to protect your children. It was written to take you, the parent, out of the equation. It is a legal document telling you that you are incompetent, and that the government knows best. And if it is let into your yard it will leave the gate open for even worse laws down the road.

My bad, I was looking for whether or not movies had the same restrictions, found where it talked about it being illegal, but didn't realize it was talking about someplace else. With my own experience and that erroneous information, it seemed perfectly reasonable to have this type of law, and treat video games the same as movies, since it seems to be working. Since the restrictions on movies doesn't exist, and they're doing just fine, then I agree there's no need to have the extra restrictions on video games.

Frankly, I don't know what I was thinking. Normally I'm very distrusting of government.

 

[RelexCryo]

This survey was rigged. Read the fine print. Why won't this thread die? It's about a rigged survey.

"3. How would you rate the videogame industry when it comes to protecting kids from accessing violent videogames? (Excellent/Good: Adults 12 percent, parents 13 percent; Fair/poor: Adults 76 percent, parents 75 percent)"

Fair does not mean bad. Fair means decent. Fair means good enough. Pairing Fair with poor is like asking someone "How would you rate your neighbors? Perfect/Saintly or Decent/Evil?"

 

[Ickorus]

Seriously? Parents need to take care of their own kids instead of expecting everyone else to do it for them. The game industry already does tons to protect children from exposure to games not meant for their viewing.

I have genuinely seen a mother go into a game store and purchase a copy of GTA 4 for her 10 year old son because "He's been asking for it for months".

 

[ph0b0s123]

Who said I wanted the MPA

 

[DayDark]

Steyer continued. "What we've learned from this poll is that parents want to be the ones who decide which games their kids play, not the videogame industry."

I can't take this...it's too much...there's no hope...humanity is doomed...*cries*

 

[ph0b0s123]

What gets me about this is that it just seems to be a law that picks on and restricts videogames and not other media, like movies. If the videogames are to be treated in law like movies with the same level of violence getting the same rating and restrictions as a movie, with the same level of violence, then I have no problem.

But from what I am reading this will only affect videogames and will result in games with a level of violence that would earn a movie just a PG-13 or R rating (also a volantary system) would be made 18+. That's not fair.

But what would you expect from someone (Schwarzenegger) so close to the movie industry. Violent movies fine the volentary system is fine, no extra laws needed. But games are the devil and so needs new laws. That's I think why people are angry. Protection of kids fine, but that level of protection should be the same across all media either all done by a law or done via a volentary scheme. Not just something special that just picks on video games.

The problem with that notion is that movie ratings are already widely abused by the system that controls said ratings. The MPAA is an independent body, comprised of individuals not elected in a country founded upon the principal of elected representatives. As stated in an earlier post...these are the people representing the populace of America, when it comes to MPAA ratings:

Head of the Board: Joan Graves (the only member of the board whose information the MPAA makes public)

Anthony "Tony" Hey - 61 - separated - age of children: 16, 28, 30
Barry Freeman - 45 - married - elementary school aged children
Arlene Bates - 44 - married - age of children: 15 and 23
Matt Ioakimedes - 46 - divorced - age of children: 17 and 20 (had served as a rater for 9 years as of 2005)
Joan Worden - 56 - married - age of children: 18 (twins)
Scott Young - 51 - married - age of children: 22 and 24 (next-door neighbor of Mrs. Bates)
Joann Yatabe - 61 - married - age of children: 22 and 25
Howard Friedkin - 47 - divorced - no children (aspiring screenwriter)
Kori Jones - deceased

Even more frightening? The members of the MPAA Appeals board:

Matt Brandt, President, Trans-Lux Theaters
Pete Cole, film buyer, The Movie Experience
Bruce Corwin, chairman and CEO, Metropolitan Theatres
Alan Davy, film buyer, Regal Entertainment
Mike Doban, president, Archangelo Entertainment
Steve Gilula, CEO, Fox Searchlight Pictures
Frank Haffar, COO, Maya Cinemas
John Lodigian, vice president of sales, Sony Pictures
Michael McClellan, vice president and film buyer, Landmark Theatres
Milton Moritz, CA/NV chapter president, North American Theatre Owners
Len Westenberg, VP of operations, west coast division, Loews Cineplex Theatres
Jonathan Wolf, director, American Film Market
The Reverend James Wall, United Methodist Church minister representative, National Council of Churches
Harry Forbes, representative, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Do you think that list is really indicative of mainstream America? That's ultimately the problem here, people want to adopt some kind of MPAA regulation on games...when the MPAA is in bed with the film industry to the point of having a choke hold on it. The problem ultimately is that retailers and theaters _never_ carry NC-17+ rated movies. You'd think that's justifiable, until you understand that they have absolutely no coherent formula for how they rate. It's one of those day to day things, where someone might be having a bad day and whoops, fuck you, your movie just got screwed.

If the ratings board were electable, I'd be all for it, as long as _someone_ can be held accountable. But, to have it like the MPAA, where nobody gets any say other than movie studio bigwigs, and theater execs? Screw that.

Who said I wanted the MPAA to be in control of rating videogames. Not my point at all. My point is that if you are going to restrict video game purchase by Law, you should do exactly the same for movies. And the second point that probably confused, is that the ratings should be consistent across both movies and video games. At the moment the proposal is that games with any violence to humans must be +18 (as I understand it). Imagine if that same rule was made for movies.

So that was my point, the unfairness of targeting video games with quite draconian restrictions while leaving movies alone. That is why I have no respect for this law or it's proponents.

But wait a minute, a law that only affects video games so minors cannot buy as many any more, but can still go and watch violent movies. Wait a minute is that the movies industry striking first through their puppet (Schwarzenegger), because they are scared that games like Call of Duty and Halo are a threat to Minor's dollar coming to them?

 

[odanhammer]

You making a point that would suggest its ok for children to also buy guns , beer , and take up smoking since they can go buy a pack , while also going to the strip club on friday nights with there allowance to shove down some girls g-string.
Your also saying that its ok to have sex with a minor and take them to a R-rated movie, that its ok.

All of those things are against the law in the USA , so if its not OK to do it in real life then why is it ok for them to buy a video game that allows them to do such things in a game.

Yet no one has a problem with them buying a movie and watching people they respect do all of those things. Hypocritical much?

Actually i didn't mention movies as they have always been controlled in my life.
The government forced the movie industry to create a standard in which people knew what was going to be seen in a movie and rate it. The governing board created a rating system and this is where G , PG , PG-14 , R , etc etc etc come from.

As with movies , video games had the same thing happen.
Book on the other hand had no control , and maybe once in a while a very graphic board is banned aka catcher in the rye in the USA type of thing.

Video games do need control on what is being displayed , as unlike movies , video games allow choices, now i'm not saying they should remove the blood, but did fallout 3 really need to have you blow someones head off and watch the eyeball roll across your foot?
Did Niko really need to run over the cop ? and do all fantasy based RPG's really need girls with huge tits with little pasties covering there nipples , weilding huge swords and little armor?


The best video games ever created have had great stories , most if not all have had very little gore or violence, and those that do show it in a proper way , not like No Russian in modern warfare 2 which had almost zero point of being there. Infinity Ward really should of asked itself it they needed a mission where the whole point was shooting people in an airport , rather then just having a cutscene with the news saying it happened.

 

[squidbuddy99]

The parents who agree to this law are simply being immature. Even worse, they're scapegoating the video game industry for their own stupid mistakes. The only way a child could obtain a violent video game is if the parent, choosing not to recognize the obvious warning labels on both the front and back of all games that describe the content, bought it for them. They have nobody to blame but themselves. Does the video game industry make violent games for the purpose of scarring children? No, they make it for those people who are mature enough to handle such material.

Approving this law is like making your child watch Pulp Fiction and blaming it on Quentin Tarentino.

 

[curelightchild]

You making a point that would suggest its ok for children to also buy guns , beer , and take up smoking since they can go buy a pack , while also going to the strip club on friday nights with there allowance to shove down some girls g-string.
Your also saying that its ok to have sex with a minor and take them to a R-rated movie, that its ok.

All of those things are against the law in the USA , so if its not OK to do it in real life then why is it ok for them to buy a video game that allows them to do such things in a game.

Yet no one has a problem with them buying a movie and watching people they respect do all of those things. Hypocritical much?

Actually i didn't mention movies as they have always been controlled in my life.
The government forced the movie industry to create a standard in which people knew what was going to be seen in a movie and rate it. The governing board created a rating system and this is where G , PG , PG-14 , R , etc etc etc come from.

As with movies , video games had the same thing happen.
Book on the other hand had no control , and maybe once in a while a very graphic board is banned aka catcher in the rye in the USA type of thing.

Video games do need control on what is being displayed , as unlike movies , video games allow choices, now i'm not saying they should remove the blood, but did fallout 3 really need to have you blow someones head off and watch the eyeball roll across your foot?
Did Niko really need to run over the cop ? and do all fantasy based RPG's really need girls with huge tits with little pasties covering there nipples , weilding huge swords and little armor?


The best video games ever created have had great stories , most if not all have had very little gore or violence, and those that do show it in a proper way , not like No Russian in modern warfare 2 which had almost zero point of being there. Infinity Ward really should of asked itself it they needed a mission where the whole point was shooting people in an airport , rather then just having a cutscene with the news saying it happened.

I was saying hypocritical in that one industry gets treated better then another. However, to respond to your points:

1) What makes video games shine is that they have choices. It's what makes the medium so great for storytelling. However, there are other ones that allow choices. Adventure Books where you choose which page to flip to, and thus what part of the story you get next. Table-Top RPGs such a Dungeons and Dragons, Mage, Exalted, etc. In fact - you have more choices in Table-Top games then you do in video games. Using the argument of "it has choices therefore it should be treated different" doesn't work if you ignore other media that also have choices. Why isn't Dungeons and Dragons banned to minors? I know people who specifically play evil campaigns and talk about exterminating elves. They aren't mean people; they just like playing mean characters. Heck, look at the Book of Vile Darkness and tell me Dungeons and Dragons doesn't have any gore.

2) I have seen both games and movies where it was obvious that blood and gore was added for shock value, so I can appreciate how it can get in the way. However, if people want to play those types of games the industry should be able to make those games.

While these things shouldn't be done in real life, this is a game. Any well adjusted person will be able to tell the difference. Just like how some people want to play evil characters in table-top games, some people want to watch people's eyes roll off in video games. It doesn't mean they are going to think that's what is appropriate in real life.

The problem you get is when little kids see those things, and don't know yet that the world isn't like a cartoon - that people won't just bounce back. That's why every retailer I know asks for your ID when you buy a M rated game. I am not for one second saying kids should play these games. The issue is larger then that. If this law goes into effect, video games will be treated like porn or drugs. The same government that changes it's mind on what is "good for you" based on what will win them an election will now decide what is good for children. Can we say Big Brother?

Parents should decide what they show their kids and at what age. The industry should provide parents with the information they need to make informed choices. After that the government/legal system should stay the heck away. If parents choose not to do their research on what they are giving to their kids then no one but themselves is to blame.

If adults want adult games, then make them. If we as consumers think that a trend of too much violence is happening in games, simply boycott the games. Don't make someone else who has 1000 different cases to see a year and doesn't know you from a hole in the wall decide what you can legally show your kids.