Schwarzenegger Urged to Keep Mum On 'Unconstitutional' Game Law
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Angron said:
It seems that the new cool thing to do in the escapist is to support censorship without actually reading what it says.Im not trying to be mean but It seems all of you have misread what this law is saying.Simriel said:
"The law, authored by Democratic senator Leland Yee and signed by the Governator on October 7th 2005, would make the sale of games featuring 'virtual harm' to humans or "characters with substantially human characteristics" illegal to anyone under the age of eighteen."
Am I interpreting this right when I say that this laws means that even m games will be bumped up to 18 plus, how can you support that? Do you guys want your 17 year old children not to be able to buy Halo? I thought the sale of M or R games to children ie 10, was already outlawed.
I have spread the seed of logic into the minds of the Escapists! Muahaha!Joeshie said:
/manevolent logic nerd-ness
Really, though...
Why not legally enforce the ESRB? Of course, they'd need to knock a year off the age for adult games, there. Its already neatly laid out, after all.
But really, even if a kid wants a violent video game, but their parents refuse to buy it for 'em, they should just get over it.
I mean, that's how they'd prove their maturity.
Of course, how Sin City ever wound up on TV, I'll never know...
I don't think it would work out quite the way you think it would. You'd more likely end up with developers self-censoring in order to get a lower rating. Video games cost a lot of money to make after all, violent or not.Erana said:
I am unsure of U.S Law on the subject. That does seem a tad harsh. It goes on a sliding scale in Britain. Halo and Fable 2, where 15s, Whereas Manhunt, Gears of War, and Hitman are all 18s. Its a good system. I think making all games with 'Virtual hard' an 18+ is overly harsh, but the U.S seems to have no law, or harsh laws in every matter.Markness said:
I'm a bit lost, I hear in America 'the constitution' stops you putting a ban on selling manhunt to kids?
Surely if a 8 year old kid goes into Walmart or the like and wants to buy the Saw box set, he would get refused? How are games different?
However I go agree with a 15 and 18 rating, or as in America I think its 13 and 17.
The above poster makes good points about the difference between say Fable 2 and Halo, and games like Manhunt and Hitman.
I'm fully in favour of restricting some games by age, and I think if we want sensible decisions on gaming in future, for it to be treated on a par with the movie industry, then we need to be mature about it ourselves and admit some games aren't for the early teens or under.
Perhaps if we support these things, it will show Fox news reports up to be even more stupid and info-empty than they already look.
'Today a 35 year old man bought an 18 rated video game involving shooting aliens. Won't somebody think of the children?' We did, that's why its 18, sorry Fox.
Surely if a 8 year old kid goes into Walmart or the like and wants to buy the Saw box set, he would get refused? How are games different?
However I go agree with a 15 and 18 rating, or as in America I think its 13 and 17.
The above poster makes good points about the difference between say Fable 2 and Halo, and games like Manhunt and Hitman.
I'm fully in favour of restricting some games by age, and I think if we want sensible decisions on gaming in future, for it to be treated on a par with the movie industry, then we need to be mature about it ourselves and admit some games aren't for the early teens or under.
Perhaps if we support these things, it will show Fox news reports up to be even more stupid and info-empty than they already look.
'Today a 35 year old man bought an 18 rated video game involving shooting aliens. Won't somebody think of the children?' We did, that's why its 18, sorry Fox.
While I'm in favour of stopping 10 year olds buying the likes of Gears of War and Manhunt and various other uber violent games. The part that worries me about this law is the "virtual harm to humans or characters with significantly human charactaristics", but, correct me if I'm wrong, would that not result in the Medal of Honor series being automatically rated 18. Maybe that's not an extreme enough example, the Mario series perhaps, I'm sure theres some lawyer out there who could argue that Bowser has substantial human characteristics and that players have to harm him. Stupid.
Also, damn, we need to make parents take some responsibility, I like many other escapists have worked in a store selling games, and the amount of times I tried to explain why perhaps GTA Vice City wasn't the ideal game for 8 year old Timmy, despite him wailing that he neeeeeeeds it. The number of times I'd get crap like 'oh its only a game it can't be that bad', or even that they'd be buying the little shit horror movies too, just allowing the kid anything he wants to plug the noise coming out of his pointless face. I actually had them demand to see the manager when I said I couldn't sell 18 rated games to them. Fortunately I had the kind of manager who believes in some kind of standards and refused to sell to them too and defended my decision.
(Actually I believe I could legally sell them to a child's parent, but I was damned if I was going to help the Daily Mail write its own articles, I know it would have been my fault if the parent had decided the game was bad for kids, after I'd warned them 38 times)
If you won't limit your own child's access to materials not aimed at children, then don't blame the creators when he stabs you in the pelvis with a fishfork.
(Actually I believe I could legally sell them to a child's parent, but I was damned if I was going to help the Daily Mail write its own articles, I know it would have been my fault if the parent had decided the game was bad for kids, after I'd warned them 38 times)
If you won't limit your own child's access to materials not aimed at children, then don't blame the creators when he stabs you in the pelvis with a fishfork.
Didn't Bioshock wind up doing that?nilcypher said:
And don't many parents do the buying with a lot of retailers' in-house policies? I mean, I have to dig out my driver's lisence whenever I want to buy an M-rated game at wal-mart...
I just don't see how it would make a significant impact on the industry.
the ESRB rating Does do it, in Canada you have to show Proof your old Enough to play said game to buy itJamash said:The_root_of_all_evil said:*loud coughing*
I'll see your loud coughing and raise you;
Is a metal exoskeleton a "character with substantially human characteristics" and does ripping it's arms and legs off constitute as "virtual harm"?
I suppose this truely is a case of, "Do what I say, don't do what I do".
It hard to take this seriously, since there are so many violent (and crap) games out there with his (often mutilated) mug plastered on the front cover.
Anyway, I thought the E.S.R.B. already did this anyway, or does he want stricter ratings and harsher punishments?
What a horrible picture, his face looks like it is trying to escape from the rest of him.
Only because it's all already been said.
Only because it's all already been said.
I love the idea of this law. Targetting teenagers is what transformed the hilarious and self-knowing ultra-violent story of GTA into the mindless sociopath's wet dream that is Saint's Row. It's a thin line between a good time and a thinly disguised sadistic fantasy, and too many games are beginning to cross it, shedding gameplay, storyline and concepts as they go.
Violent games, or games with sexual content, that *have* to be aimed at young adults will inevitably be more sophisticated than the same games aimed at teenagers. Therefore, I think this law would be a good thing for the quality of games, but a bad thing for game-players and the games industry. Weird. On balance, I'm opposed to the law, but it's not like it's a watershed moment.
Violent games, or games with sexual content, that *have* to be aimed at young adults will inevitably be more sophisticated than the same games aimed at teenagers. Therefore, I think this law would be a good thing for the quality of games, but a bad thing for game-players and the games industry. Weird. On balance, I'm opposed to the law, but it's not like it's a watershed moment.
It's thought but has no one considered just buying it from the next state overor the nearest that doesnt have a law like this, same with austarlia why not order stuff from new zealand or another country to my understanding the law only prohibits the sale in that state/country not the import or ownership?
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 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 why people are angry....
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 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 why people are angry....