72 Percent of Adults Support California Game Law - UPDATED

[Cpt Corallis]

Fuck yes, get those kids out of my fucking online lobbies!

Lets be honest, the vast majority of parents fail hard. So we need the government to keep those dipshit parents from letting their kids join games i'm in.

Maybe, but how would you like those games you no longer have to deal with children in to have any and all possibly offensive elements removed. And that is ANY POSSIBLE OFFENCE. Anything any one touchy group complains about would be able to be removed.

OT: I am an A level English Student. If I can see that those questions are leading, and man is it obvious, then surely highly educated officials like the supreme court should be able to see this as well. I really, really hope so anyway.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

1. Would you support or oppose a law that prohibits minors from purchasing videogames that depict killing, maiming or sexually assaulting an image of a human being?

I agree. Problem is that there already is one. It's called the ratings board.

2. How concerned are you about the impact of ultra-violent videogames on your child?

I also agree, which is why the ratings board exists.

3. How would you rate the videogame industry when it comes to protecting kids from accessing violent videogames?

Uhm, it's not their job. It's yours.

 

[theironbat46]

OK
1. It's the parents job to check their kids games. You and only you need to be on top of your kids.
2. What people don't realize, if your kid is caught buying a M rated game [if this comes to pass] they might get a record, Records make it immensely hard to get jobs [from what I've heard] so it screws them FOR LIFE. Just for playing a game. Think about that.
/rant.
rant+thread=DONE

 

[Cynical skeptic]

So, Let me get this straight. They want to ban the sale of ultra-violent video games to minors despite the fact that stores like Gamestop already require an id check or a parent present when buying an M rated game? What exactly will this law do besides further enforce that rule?

By using the miller test, it redefines all video games as "not art," and thus treats them like controlled substances rather than video games.

It circumvents any currently existing rating systems and uses the miller test to redefine what can and cannot be "sold to minors." Since it becomes law, the till monkeys would either have to quiz every customer on every game to determine if it was for personal use, or refuse the sale if they at any point determine the game is intended for a minor. Retailers will most likely, rather than spend the time and money to retrain all their empolyees and still run the risk of "violent" games being sold to minors, opt to simply not carry anything that trips this law.

If they refuse to carry anything that trips the law, publishers stop comissioning anything that trips the law. All current projects that may trip the law will either be toned down to comply with the law or be canceled outright.

This is not simply, "making whats already happening into a law," this is "using an archaic and completely subjective legal concept to completely redefine how video games are handled."

I agree. Problem is that there already is one. It's called the ratings board.

The ESRB and MPAA are not law, they are independent bodies that issue guidelines and ratings that video game retailers and publishers agree to follow.

 

[Vitagen]

We the people of the United States of America have come to the conclusion that we are incapable of making our own decisions and therefore wish to be blindly led about like sheep.

Seriously, people, video games are an art form too. I know there are a lot of games that don't seem like it, but the same can be said of books, movies, plays, etc.

 

[Flamezdudes]

Stores which sell games already don't sell games to a person if they don't meet the age requirement, it's the parents fault for buying it.

At least, that's how it is in my area of England. I don't know if stores don't do that in America.

 

[captaincabbage]

The problem with the montage is not the games' ultraviolence, but the player being a dick. Not very impressive.

yeah, it's a pretty piss poor argument if you actually break it down. To be honest I never actually killed a hooker in any GTA, even though it's the stereotype that everyone has to havce done it at some point. I spent most of my time in San Andreas flying or playing the awesome arcade games XD

And as far as Ultraviolence, they didn't show games like God of War or Mad World and both of them also cover most of the real gore under enormous blankets of 'blood fountains'.
To be honest, I'm unimpressed. The way they even asked the questions was in a really biased manner, twisting the questions to make it seem like that was the only option for those games.

 

[bassdrum]

Much like MovieBob often does, I has fury.

THIS is what happens when misinformed idiots try to act in the best interests of their children, and ending up just fucking things up for everyone. It bothers me that I see parent's freak out that their kid has access to violent games, yet just the other day I watched a mother buy Mafia 2 (which is a textbook example of a violent/sexual/profane game) for her 8- or 9-year old son. I know that those people will never read this post, but... If you don't want your kids to have access to violent/sexual/profane video games, don't fucking buy them for your kids!!! Seriously, is that such a hard concept? Is the ESRB warning of 'Mature 17+' not clear enough for you (hell, it's even easier for our European brethren, many of whom simply have a huge red '18' in the corner of the box. Seriously, these ratings aren't mysterious.

I suppose that this is just another case of the mainstream meddling in video games when they don't know what they're doing (see Fox News' 'Sex Box' coverage about Mass Effect 1. It would be absolutely hilarious if they weren't serious). I'm getting really, really tired of bad parents blaming games for the way there kid turns out. Lady, the kid didn't turn out nuts because the game he's playing exists, he turned out nuts because you couldn't give enough of a fuck to stop him from playing content designed for people twice his age.

Well, before I go into full on rant mode, I'm just going to call it good and direct my fury somewhere else... online gaming, here I come.

 

[Deathfish15]

Just a thought (probably mentioned in this lengthy thread already), but why can't parents take responsibility for their own children instead of putting the blame on other things/people and instead pushing for the government to raise their kids for them?

When Columbine happened, who got blamed? The parents who had their kids building bombs and having a stockpile of guns in their basement? No, instead someone directed the blame to Marilin Manson and Doom. Why? Because those were things found amongst the bombs and guns. It's a scapegoat, nothing more.


In fact, when I went into Gamestop in the beginning of July to put up a reserve for Starcraft II, I was in line behind two parents who were buying Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and Grand Theft Auto IV for what looked like an 11 year old and a 9 year old (brothers). The Gamestop employee even asked if the parent was aware that "the games contained heavy violence, swearing, and sexual content as per the M for Mature ratings" and the mother said, and I quote "yes, yes, but it's the games they want and it'll make them happy".

 

[godofallu]

Fuck yes, get those kids out of my fucking online lobbies!

Lets be honest, the vast majority of parents fail hard. So we need the government to keep those dipshit parents from letting their kids join games i'm in.

Maybe, but how would you like those games you no longer have to deal with children in to have any and all possibly offensive elements removed. And that is ANY POSSIBLE OFFENCE. Anything any one touchy group complains about would be able to be removed.

OT: I am an A level English Student. If I can see that those questions are leading, and man is it obvious, then surely highly educated officials like the supreme court should be able to see this as well. I really, really hope so anyway.

Um WTF are you trying to say? That if this gets passed all games are going to become censored? You're not seriously trying to say that are you?

As far as your English level, noone cares, and I agree that the poll is misleading. That said the law is no big deal. It doesn't change anything really. M games were never allowed to be bought by kids, from what I saw this just reinforces that idea.

 

[JIst00]

All the results from this survey say to me is that these people must be somewhat unaware of the parental locks on games and the ratings system in place amoung, other things, that the industry have in place. Thats called ingorance. Or poor parenting, as I bet they dont even bother to check the ratings etc before they just buy their brat the game they're crying for.

That and people pay far too much attention to sensationalist media stories on the subject, and just like to jump on bandwagons with all their moral outrage.

The only time violence, sex and whatever affect people is when those people have a difficulty in seperating fanatasy from reality, and then re-enact the games in reality. These people have a serious problem, one that isnt caused by games, but by mental illness or poor parenting.

Lets face it, a normal person doesnt play GTA then go out and carjack someone, the people who do have something seriously wrong with them or the way they were raised.

Lets look at violence in another medium.

Tom and Jerry: a cat and a mouse hammering 12bells of shit out of each other, did that make people go out and do the same, no, because its a cartoon and not real, and most people understand what would happen if you did do that to someone.

I give up, it's a travesty that this is even happening, and I sincerly hope that sensationalism and soapbox, moral high horse wankers dont destroy my most beloved of mediums.

 

[Phoenixlight]

It's a great idea, anyone protesting this law is either a child or a morally corrupt idiot.

 

[captaincabbage]

1. Would you support or oppose a law that prohibits minors from purchasing videogames that depict killing, maiming or sexually assaulting an image of a human being?

I agree. Problem is that there already is one. It's called the ratings board.

2. How concerned are you about the impact of ultra-violent videogames on your child?

I also agree, which is why the ratings board exists.

3. How would you rate the videogame industry when it comes to protecting kids from accessing violent videogames?

Uhm, it's not their job. It's yours.

lol you just demolished some asses. XD

I wholeheartedly agree, it's not the ratings boards that are letting you down, it's the damn parents, wether they be weak-willed, ignorant or just plain stupid. It's them who actually buy the games and let their kids play them, so it's their fault.

Hell, I'm still asked for ID sometimes (just after I shave usually) when I go to buy a game. It's flattering, sure, but it shows that the games industry and the actual retailers both care and uphold the law to their best degree.

 

[Gunner 51]

I'm ambivalent about this. One one hand, I can see the whole games as art and how it is the parents job duty to show their kids around the world in it's beauty and ugliness.

On the other - we do have to protect the younger gamers from the more mature rated games. Because not only do they lack the emotional and intellectual maturity to deal with them - but they also clog up multiplayer lobbies by acting like complete idiots with their constant singing, smack talking and immaturity.

Unfortunately, parents are either too lazy or too busy to check what goes on in these games. Let alone supervise multiplayer sessions where the kids need their parents most, IMO. At least with this new law - it makes things slightly harder for the immature to get their hands on concepts they cannot deal with and it keeps idiots out of multiplayer lobbies.

In the long term, I don't think this law will affect sales all that much. Aren't most of the people who buy and play the games - on average - over the age of 18?

Though I have a query about this: does the law stipulate that if the game vendor thinks the game is being purchased on behalf of a minor - is the transaction a legal one? In any case, will it actually be enforced by the coppers when there's plenty of crime to go around?

In a way, I hope this proposed law does fall flat on it's face, but I can understand why people call for it. Seeing that this is a Californian matter, I can only urge every Californian here to not only vote against it, but actively campaign against it.

 

[Irridium]

I agree. Problem is that there already is one. It's called the ratings board.

The ESRB and MPAA are not law, they are independent bodies that issue guidelines and ratings that video game retailers and publishers agree to follow.

Law or not, its still better at stopping kids from getting violent content than any other industry. Every damn store asks for an ID. Even if there's a .1% chance that you might be below 18, they will ask for your ID.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I agree. Problem is that there already is one. It's called the ratings board.

The ESRB and MPAA are not law, they are independent bodies that issue guidelines and ratings that video game retailers and publishers agree to follow.

I can still be fined £5000 here for selling fireworks, knives, glue to a 17 year old.

Interestingly though, a 4 year old can happily buy the Karma Sutra or Reader's Wives. And, if pushed, I have to sell it to them. I've already had a twelve year old kid buy something with a credit card.

And I can be damn sure that if the ESRB/MPAA catch me doing it, it will be a LOT worse than just a fine.

However, if I play a short piece of music in the shop, we (The Company) can be fined up to a quarter of a million pounds by the PRS (?).

Priorities. We has lost them.

 

[KP Shadow]

Here's what I say we should do: Move the ESRB rating labels with the lists of criteria for a certain rating that it met from the back to the front (as well as making it bigger), and replace the label on the back with explanations of each requirement met, and put explanations of ESRB Ratings in places such as near/on the cash register, near the entrance to the store, or video games section (depending on whether it's a video game store or a place such as Wal-Mart, Target or Best Buy), on the game racks, etc. That way, when people complain that little timmy saw Kratos hacking people to pieces, you know what we can say? "We tried to make things as clear to you as possible that some things in this game might be offensive, but did you listen? Noooo, you went ahead and bought it anyways. You remember how [insert store here] carded you before you bought it? That's why"

 

[Discrodia]

Even with this, the judge can say that these sort of ultraviolent, women-hating, cop-killing ect actions are only a result of the players choices, and most players would not take such courses of action. Not to mention that they've shot it down every time before, and no one screams about how violent movies and books are, despite the fact they are infinitly more accessible to kids and even more potentially scarring.

Not to mention that games are a legitimate form of art and 72% of people play at least 5 hours of games a week and that they might have not even informed people surveyed on the protections already in place.

Also, all their gamers in their montage are ass.

 

[razer17]

It isn't the industry's job to keep the kids from buying games, it's the parents. If you can't keep a hold on your kid's wallet, you're doing it wrong. Grow up, take your responsibility, and learn to take care of your child.

A parent can't watch their children 24/7. It was pretty easy for me to leave my house, or especially after school, and spend my money on games, especially considering they couldn't look at my bank account.

I think people seem to overestimate how easy it is to use subterfuge on your parents.

I literally don't see the problem with this law. A 10 year old shouldn't be able to walk into BestBuy and walk out with GTA. I played GTA at that age, but I had my parents permission, and they bought it for me, since the shop wouldn't sell it to me. (Actually, I did once get GTA Liberty City Stories from the market, but he wouldn't sell it to me, so I asked a random guy to get it for me, literally in front of the seller.)

Basically, parents don't have infinite capacity to watch their children, it's good to have parents know what their kids are playing. As far as I see all this law does is make sure that parents know what their kids are playing, and if a parent doesn't think it's suitable for their kids then they don't get it.

 

[Epigone]

For a poll to mean anything you need a random sample, and an online survey does not provide a random sample. The people that would likely fill out the given poll are a biased group to start out with. Therefore these numbers mean shit to anyone with a little bit of education.