Escapist Publisher Says Banning Games Is Slippery Slope

[Alar]

What people fail to realize is there is a nice little system to keep games out of minor's hands: the ESRB. But the parent needs to read it and determine if the game is suitable.

Joe "Average" Parent: READ?! DETERMINE?! But that takes... takes.. *shudders* the dreaded "w" word.

Me: Work?

Joe "Average" Parent: GAAAAAAH!! NOOOO! *ears act like they were dipped in acid* We need the government to do that FOR US! Lest we start taking... *cringes* the "r" word...

Me: Responsibility?

Joe "Average" Parent: AAAAAAAIIIIIEEEEE! *Bursts into flames*

OT: At least the CEO of this site is helping defend the medium. I never like "slippery slope" speeches, but sadly most of them have a bit of truth to them. Especially how this will set legal precedent for future cases against things "corrupting our youth" (translation: the new government scapegoat, translation: things middle-aged/old people think is bad despite them having NO understanding .)

Hehehe, yes, absolutely.

I'd love to go on a show that is popular for parents like, say, Oprah. Once I make my appearance on Oprah, I'd love to explain the ESRB rating system and say that PARENTS (you guys out in TV land and getting free things in the audience) need to take a more active role in monitoring what their kids do.

If they think video games are bad for their kids, DON'T BUY THEM VIDEO GAMES.

 

[vxicepickxv]

Video games, the new generation's rock and roll.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

That's dark but very true.

*sigh* But even if they do shut it down, if we care enough we can revolt. Hehe, who's in for the video game revolution?

 

[manaman]

Don't we already have a law banning the sale of 18 rated games to minors in the UK? or is that only a guideline as well?

No, that's legally enforced by a government rating (soon to be an EU enforced one with PEGI). Apparently in America, doing such a thing would cause the universe to implode.

[small]There's a very minute difference between their thing of making it illegal and ours, and I really haven't got a fucking clue what it is, because every time someone explains it always ends up with games dropping off the face of the Earth because Timmy has to get his mum to buy CoD for him.[/small]

Put simply the only way the law can exist is if free speech does not apply to video games (interactive media). Once interactive media loses that right it opens up a whole host of restrictions you can place on them.

So while they make it sound like the case is about kids buying violent video games, it's really about the legal status these items fall under.

Crazy Americans...

Only, you know, his response was wrong and viewed only from the perspective of someone with a very limited understanding of this country and it's laws.

 

[nick_knack]

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Nowhere in history does it exist.

There is the thin edge of the wedge, but that is slightly different.

 

[Raziel_Likes_Souls]

There can be no debate; anything spoken, written or created in any medium is protected and cannot be banned or censored by the government. We allow the klan and the new black panthers to spew their hate, so anything in a video game should be protected too regardless of how offensive or disgusting it is or how many people don't like it, and that includes that rape game people got uptight about.

That doesn't mean businesses have to carry them if they don't want to, but the government has no right placing boundries on creative expression or expression of thought.

Dammit there has to be some place that still cares about that, most western nations now are nanny-states that ban offensive cartoons and websites because a majority finds them offensive and tells artists they can't create certain things.

EDIT: just to point out, people in the early 20th century said the exact same things about comic books; that they harm children and make them violent. All new media is resisted and hated.
http://www.thecomicbooks.com/nsp1-21.html

Thread.

But, really, banning games shouldn't be allowed. It would be pretty much slippery slope, that will lead to no freedom of expression. And anyways, gaming will survive. Comics and rock music did, so gaming should too, right?

 

[Nurb]

There can be no debate; anything spoken, written or created in any medium is protected and cannot be banned or censored by the government. We allow the klan and the new black panthers to spew their hate, so anything in a video game should be protected too regardless of how offensive or disgusting it is or how many people don't like it, and that includes that rape game people got uptight about.

That doesn't mean businesses have to carry them if they don't want to, but the government has no right placing boundries on creative expression or expression of thought.

Dammit there has to be some place that still cares about that, most western nations now are nanny-states that ban offensive cartoons and websites because a majority finds them offensive and tells artists they can't create certain things.

EDIT: just to point out, people in the early 20th century said the exact same things about comic books; that they harm children and make them violent. All new media is resisted and hated.
http://www.thecomicbooks.com/nsp1-21.html

Thread.

But, really, banning games shouldn't be allowed. It would be pretty much slippery slope, that will lead to no freedom of expression. And anyways, gaming will survive. Comics and rock music did, so gaming should too, right?

I dunno, something seems different this time. Liberties are slowly eroding, so there's a real possibility laws like Germany, UK and Australia have could show up in the US

 

[Raziel_Likes_Souls]

There can be no debate; anything spoken, written or created in any medium is protected and cannot be banned or censored by the government. We allow the klan and the new black panthers to spew their hate, so anything in a video game should be protected too regardless of how offensive or disgusting it is or how many people don't like it, and that includes that rape game people got uptight about.

That doesn't mean businesses have to carry them if they don't want to, but the government has no right placing boundries on creative expression or expression of thought.

Dammit there has to be some place that still cares about that, most western nations now are nanny-states that ban offensive cartoons and websites because a majority finds them offensive and tells artists they can't create certain things.

EDIT: just to point out, people in the early 20th century said the exact same things about comic books; that they harm children and make them violent. All new media is resisted and hated.
http://www.thecomicbooks.com/nsp1-21.html

Thread.

But, really, banning games shouldn't be allowed. It would be pretty much slippery slope, that will lead to no freedom of expression. And anyways, gaming will survive. Comics and rock music did, so gaming should too, right?

I dunno, something seems different this time. Liberties are slowly eroding, so there's a real possibility laws like Germany, UK and Australia have could show up in the US

Yeah, you got a point, it's not like the 50's where we said rock music and comics rot your brain and make you worship Satan, it does seem kinda different.

 

[boholikeu]

Don't we already have a law banning the sale of 18 rated games to minors in the UK? or is that only a guideline as well?

No, that's legally enforced by a government rating (soon to be an EU enforced one with PEGI). Apparently in America, doing such a thing would cause the universe to implode.

[small]There's a very minute difference between their thing of making it illegal and ours, and I really haven't got a fucking clue what it is, because every time someone explains it always ends up with games dropping off the face of the Earth because Timmy has to get his mum to buy CoD for him.[/small]

It's essentially because the US courts already ruled that regulating anything that isn't legally obscene is against the first amendment.

In order to be legally obscene, something needs to overtly offensive and lacking in any significant artistic or educational value.

Video games are already subject to this regulation. For example, pornographic video games can't be sold to minors. The CA law is seeking to add extra regulations to video games because they are "more destructive to our youth than other forms of media. If the new law is passed it would make it so any game involving torture could be regulated whether or not it was artistic or educational. Hopefully you can see why this is pretty significant for both video games and free speech in America.

 

[lostzombies.com]

Every entertainment media has had to pass this proverbial kidney stone before; violent/provocative lyrics in rap in the early 90s; Rock and Roll had to cope with this culturally in the 50s and 60s. Multitudes of literature throughout our nation's history prior to that even.

I'd say that this public banning litigation was inevitable. Though as a society, we have the power to change our minds, we must seek to never establish double-standards. Doing so would be discarding years of progressive reasoning.

I would have hoped that this pointless little anti-gaming crusade would have died along with the prior generation of politicians. But that did not come to pass it seems, so again as gamers, we must engage in pointless arguments.

Agreed. It's the same crowd who wanted to ban Elvis, Clockwork Orange and the Sex Pistols etc..

The only thing is...none of the above changed their creations down to a few people spitting their dummy out and as such their media became accepted and the norm. I kind of fear that this will not happen with video games as publishers such as EA will seemingly do anything not to cause offense (re opposing force in medal of honour)

I mean remember the days when GTA was top down and manhunt were pushing boundaries. I can't remember anything which pushed the (terribly low compared to other media) video game boundary in the last decade.

 

[Something Amyss]

Headline: Escapist Publisher states obvious.

The problem with attempts like this is they don't really care about the repercussions.

 

[headless Monkey Boy]

okay being in the uk this is unclear to me, but this is how i understand it. It if this motion passes the idea is that if little Jimmy of six walks into a games shop and trys to buy "viscerated crack whores extreme" (x/r/adult/18-21 rated game) he's asked to provide some id. Is this so bad?

okay i know theres a worry about Wall mart (ASDA other here, same shop different name)may then refuse to stock these games then publishers panic and they stop getting made. Thats not going to happen, ASDA still sells 18 rated games because they want our money (not so many but they mostly only sell the crap games anyway)And even if they did is it so bad?

Think about it for a second, if wall mart/ super family freindly supermarkets stop seliing these games then that opens up room for local competition. Think about it Local independent shops selling games that are run by people who care about games and sell the good stuff. (or just get it online)it'll be like the day where you had a local butcher, or green grocer (only for games)

Somone mentioned games having the stigma of porn (rubbish, they already have the stigma of porn)that games will be segregated way from porn. I cant use the Asda example cos (obviously being wall mart its not sold) but WH smith is a like a chain of Magazine/books and stationary type of shop and pretty family orientated, and they have a top shelf secection dedicated to porn (soft- very crap, boring). And your right this porn has no artistic merrit. But head into a black (dont ask me why, but there all painted black) seedy porn shop of ill repute and you will see depravity catering all tastes and fetish's from wall to wall (can't reomommend it enough)

My point here is that this could be a good thing leading to more freedom of choice, Dev's arn't suddenly going to panic and sop making them just because of what wallmart think, and the market won't dissapear.

and as for the freedom of speech and the first Ammendment. Minors dont have freedom of speech! Not till they turn 21 and gain that freedom, Minors can't even vote. They can voice an opinion but it doesnt count at the most basic level of government.

or maybe i've totaly misunderstood.

 

[boholikeu]

okay being in the uk this is unclear to me, but this is how i understand it. It if this motion passes the idea is that if little Jimmy of six walks into a games shop and trys to buy "viscerated crack whores extreme" (x/r/adult/18-21 rated game) he's asked to provide some id. Is this so bad?

Under current US law "viscerated crack whores extreme" would already be restricted. Minors wouldn't be able to buy it due to obscenity laws.

The CA law is seeking to set video games apart from other media and add extra regulations to them because "video games can be much more damaging than books, movies, etc." It also says that certain games can be regulated even if they have artistic/educational reasons for the violent gameplay. This goes against previous first amendment decisions, so it could literally change the way free speech is handled in the US.

Finally, it does matter whether or not Walmart will stock a game because most publishers won't fund a game that can't be sold in Walmart. This practice is already common with AO rated games, which is one of the reasons why you don't see many games (even from EU developers) pushing that rating.

 

[headless Monkey Boy]

i guess i get it, while i disagree on some points, and would favour age restrictions across all media. There Shouldn't be any bias to any one kind of media. Thats just wrong something should be done about that. Though i'm suprised the debate holds ground for just that reason.

Whats more the Wall Mart issue has got to be more complex. If all the big publishers were to grow a pair (not going to happen because i'm sure sharholders of say ea also have shares in wall mart)and release more AO (i'm assuming that thats our 18, like gta right?) games that Wall Mart would probably fold, they're in it for the money and have less to loose.

I find it hard to belive that wall mart can have so much pull, you must have other film, music and game franchises that dont have the option catering only to pg13. Also while the big devs may be stuck catering to wall marts pr crew the smaller/indie ones arn't and yet my fantasy of playing "viscerated crack whores extreme" remains unfulfilled probably because it would be crap. Like in any other medium sex and violence can make for an interesting setting/story but to its own end is just boring, and thats probably why there arn't many more out there.

still scary stuff

 

[ReverendJ]

Video games, being an interactive media, ARE a bit different from books and movies. If I watch, say, a horror flick, I see someone else murdering and dismembering people. If I play Manhunt, I'M the one doing it. While I will be the first to jump up and scream that no causal relationship has been proven, I completely understand the idea that this shit isn't for kids.

 

[ReverendJ]

What I see are a lot of people claiming that a simple carding system would equate a ban. It doesn't. We currently regulate the sale of media and more to minors, but I, as a legal adult, can go get all the porn and spray paint I want.

Games like Manhunt are defended because they're obviously not intended for children, it is a mature product for adults. So why, exactly, would ensuring that such things aren't sold to kids bring about the collapse of the industry?

Electronic forms of distribution allow skirting around such regulations. So, since it's possible to get around restrictions, let's not bother with them? Jimmy can get porn on the net, so let's just let him buy it at the Circle K?

We've been on a slippery slope since we decided to arm some people and told them to police the rest of us. No time to get jumpy about them now.

 

[Michael O'Hair]

Back in the day, the video game industry regulated itself. Now there's the ESRB, and the threat of banning games for having interactive content.

Wait, what?

It's been years since I played a video game where I could steal individual forks and spoons off of a dining table and be chased by the city guards, or murder random NPCs until I was arrested or killed by the city guards. Or city guards the city guards until the city guards...

There seems to be a theme here. People who don't play games lack the insight to make any decisions involving them, legislation or otherwise. There are games where if you do or try something socially unacceptable, such as poisoning a well or stealing food or killing a child, the game will punish the player character in a fairly reasonable way (usually, by caving their skull in). This element is overlooked too often. Legislators and other sycophants want to ban games because they allow the player to commit illegal acts that allegedly would lead to those same acts being carried out in the real world. What they ignore is that there are elements in place to dissuade those types of behavior, such as "bad endings" or the city guards.

In GTA4, players interact with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher to blow up traffic. The narrow focus of the anti-game lobby focuses only on this fact. What they fail to see is that doing so will probably get you killed by the cops, unless you can drive fast enough to escape from the scene of the crime. Indirectly, the game dissuades the player from engaging in that kind of behavior.

I think the fear of games being banned merely for having interactive features is a bit of an absurd stretch. It's not just about interactivity; otherwise there would be an aggressive lobby against people skip chapters to get to the good scenes or alternate endings in DVD movies and choose your own adventure books. It all comes down to content.

 

[STeepH]

Are Violent Video Games more damaging to people than other forms of media such as TV, Films, Internet etc? im doing a report for school and needa reasearch