Poll: But What If They're Right?
- Thread starter Space Spoons
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm all for it if if its done right. I think this will be very similar to when they first put ADULT CONTENT on metal and rap cds. I will just increase the the sales. I don't know why people keep doing this. "Bad" press only made Slayer and Marilyn Manson more famous and will do the same for the next Manhunt or Gears of War.
Also if this keeps more annoying 12 year olds from playing these games I think its a good thing
Also if this keeps more annoying 12 year olds from playing these games I think its a good thing
It's never good to argue on the basis of a slippery slope. The phrase itself is just as inflammatory as "murder simulator" anyway and holds just as much merit.goodman528 said:
Not that I disagree with your sentiment or anything.
On the other hand, people use modern insults, so they may be on the same level of thought to apply gaming logic to the real world.Jonathan Hexley said:
I don't see any improvement coming of this. People who insist that smokers are too ignorant to decide whether to smoke or not are never going to be satisfied with the labels unless nobody smokes anymore. People who smoke despite the warnings are, well, *going* to smoke despite the warnings.
The warnings have been out there forever, and anti-tobacco still constantly assaults tobacco companies and smokers. They have not been satisfied by warnings. In fact, I saw an ad that asserts that those labels make people more likely to smoke, and then tried to use this as a rationale for further action.
What I took out of this: smokers are responsible for their own actions, and they get it.
What collectivists took out of this: smokers can never be responsible for their own actions and more needs to be done to restrain them and the tobacco companies.
Because there is infinite data to corroborate either side's position and everyone is too biased to do a real evaluation, we get nowhere.
Now, to bridge back to the topic at hand.
The people who want tobacco-esque warnings on video game packages are going to insist that any violent crime that can possibly be the fault of video games and game companies, is the fault of the games and the game companies, no matter what the data suggests. They will not be satisfied with warnings and they will not blame it on the parents who don't read the labels. Then they will take further action.
People like me who don't believe that the companies should be responsible for the actions of individuals and those responsible, by law, for them will believe that.
In summary, I have no reason to believe this will have any effect, except to concede to the demands of screechy politically correct types.
And besides, we HAVE warnings on games. There's a HUGE LETTER ON ALL OF THEM. In a lot of stores, you can't go anywhere near the games without seeing a description of the different ratings and for whom they are appropriate. There's elaborate information on why it's rated how it is on the back.
The warnings have been out there forever, and anti-tobacco still constantly assaults tobacco companies and smokers. They have not been satisfied by warnings. In fact, I saw an ad that asserts that those labels make people more likely to smoke, and then tried to use this as a rationale for further action.
What I took out of this: smokers are responsible for their own actions, and they get it.
What collectivists took out of this: smokers can never be responsible for their own actions and more needs to be done to restrain them and the tobacco companies.
Because there is infinite data to corroborate either side's position and everyone is too biased to do a real evaluation, we get nowhere.
Now, to bridge back to the topic at hand.
The people who want tobacco-esque warnings on video game packages are going to insist that any violent crime that can possibly be the fault of video games and game companies, is the fault of the games and the game companies, no matter what the data suggests. They will not be satisfied with warnings and they will not blame it on the parents who don't read the labels. Then they will take further action.
People like me who don't believe that the companies should be responsible for the actions of individuals and those responsible, by law, for them will believe that.
In summary, I have no reason to believe this will have any effect, except to concede to the demands of screechy politically correct types.
And besides, we HAVE warnings on games. There's a HUGE LETTER ON ALL OF THEM. In a lot of stores, you can't go anywhere near the games without seeing a description of the different ratings and for whom they are appropriate. There's elaborate information on why it's rated how it is on the back.
For a minute there, I expected this to be about the next bailout. I don't think Congress, a body of people the majority of whom have probably never played a video game since Space Invaders, knows nearly enough about video games to make any drastic decisions about it. However, if the warnings that they intend on putting on the game boxes is reasonable, go for it. If not, bite me.
I think this is more a case of the government being seen to be doing the right thing.
Here in the UK, they commissioned a report into the connection between violent video games and violent behaviour (at a cost to the tax payer). The conclusion was that all games needed to be subjected to the same age rating system as films are in this country.
The sad thing is that violent games are already subject to BBFC ratings for a number of years now, so it rendered the whole thing rather pointless, yet the government made an issue about how they were addressing "the problem."
Here in the UK, they commissioned a report into the connection between violent video games and violent behaviour (at a cost to the tax payer). The conclusion was that all games needed to be subjected to the same age rating system as films are in this country.
The sad thing is that violent games are already subject to BBFC ratings for a number of years now, so it rendered the whole thing rather pointless, yet the government made an issue about how they were addressing "the problem."
No they don't. They have ratings for no reason and there is no reason whatsover why kids shouldn't play any game they want to. No one has ever found any causal link between violent videogame playing and real world violent behaviour - none at all. That means that videogames are no more dangerous than toy guns, G.I. Joes or action figures, all of which are toys built for kids to act out violent fantasies.TehCookie said:
And while I wouldn't buy GTA IV for my five year-old daughter, I wouldn't avoid it because of the violence (which is in all likelihood completely harmless). I would avoid it because she is too young to play it. As soon as she's old enough to work the controls, she will be able to play such games BECAUSE THEY ARE HARMLESS.
When I see warning labels on action figures and toy guns, then I might be willing to consider warning labels on video games. But if it gets to that point I expect we'll see warning labels on everything, because everything under the sun has a potential danger associated with it, and a nanny state would insist on warning us of all the possible dangers, however unlikely.
I wouldn't mind if it simply stopped with those warning stickers, but the second the gaming community makes one concession, people are going to want more! They'll want more regulations and less freedom for gamers. In that regard, I say no way.
I don't understand why they pick on games. Maybe because they suck at them? Probably because they need a scapegoat. All the violence my cousins learned about was from the news i.e. school shootings, rape murders, etc. He had no idea what sexual assault and rape were 2 years ago. He likes watching fox =(. I think it's because of the graphics on the splash screens.
There is no "saw it on GTAIV" the player with the controller controls what happens in the game (outside of missions) I remember letting my little sister play GTA:Vice City, and all she did was drive around, stopping at red lights, going on green lights and going in different buildings. There was no violence to be had with the controller in her hand, it's all about the choices the player makes.(in the case of the GTA series at least)Space Spoons said:
Yeah...that's just what I need...stupid people worrying about stupid things...People should stop attacking video games and start attacking the abusive parents that make these kids into little psychos...
Sort-of. Jack Thompson got nailed because he was totally making things up. This guy has a couple studies that show that there could be a link.Pyronox said:
What I'm most worried about is what parents would think if they saw this. The whole thing would probably be blown out of proportion as parents would have no idea what the actual situation is. I suppose the studies have some truth, but it would be misleading overall.
Even if a link doesn't really exist, it will take nothing less than a bill like this to stop angry parents and opportunistic politicians from continuing to use games as a scapegoat.E-mantheseeker said: