Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Asuko on April 11, 2008, 03:50:26 pm
-
I noticed this article a few days ago but hadn't had the time to read it until now. And it's amazing.
The kotaku refer (http://"http://kotaku.com/376518/stephen-king-weighs-in-on-video-game-violence")
The article (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20188502,00.html) It's only 2 pages but well worth it.
-
Ever since I turned 18 I find myself being more and more detached from stuff like this cause it doesn't affect me either way.
Even so, I applaud Mr. King, and agree with him 100%. :nod:
-
Glad to see someone high profile speak out against the stupidity in legislative bodies the world over.
-
Glad to see someone high profile speak out against the stupidity in legislative bodies the world over.
What he said. :nod: :yes:
-
His argument seems to be that 17 year olds can buy Saw but Grand Theft Auto would be banned. Therefore the law to prevent the sale of 18 rated games to 17 year olds shouldn't be passed.
This is a stupid argument. Surely a more sensible argument is that there should be some parity in deciding what counts as graphic violence in films and games rather than simply bowing to Hollywood pressure to certify graphic horror movies as 17 for financial reasons. Of course it's doubtful you're going to get someone responsible for making horror movies to argue for that.
The simple fact is that you can't argue for parents to take responsibility for their offspring and then undermine their ability to do so. If a game is rated 18 then it shouldn't be legal to sell it to under 18s. I fail to see what is the point of the ratings system if it's completely ignored.
-
The simple fact is that you can't argue for parents to take responsibility for their offspring and then undermine their ability to do so. If a game is rated 18 then it shouldn't be legal to sell it to under 18s. I fail to see what is the point of the ratings system if it's completely ignored.
The Constitution would like a word with you.
-
Are the ratings included into legislation in the US of A?
Or rather - is the organ that rates movies and video games in any way connected to official legislative system, or is it something else?
MPAA is not, AFAIK, a legal authority (thank the Spaghetti Monster of Kobol for small things). Thus it can't really enforce legally binding age restrictions, it can just suggest things. At least, as far as I know... :nervous:
-
I remember when the crusade was against the Satanists who brought us D&D, or something screwy like that.
-
Are the ratings included into legislation in the US of A?
Politicians are (as of late) always trying to pass legislation that would make it illegal to sell games (M-rated+) to minors. These are almost always identical to pornography laws, in that the legislation would treat games as if they were smut. All forms of legislation (in the U.S.A.) regarding 'game laws' has been shot down by the courts because said legislation disregards The Constitution.
One of the things that really bothers me is that people think that ratings for movies, music, and games is a form of government regulation. All of these industries (in the U.S.) are self-regulated.
E.g., the only thing keeping anyone of any age from entertainment that is not recommended for one's age is a business's right to refuse service. That's why the AO rating is considered a death mark for games, no major retailer will stock them.
-
So wait a second. Are you telling me if a company wanted to sell porn to 12 year olds that would be legal?
And if it is illegal explain to me why in constitutional terms why banning minors from viewing graphic violence is an abridgement of freedom of speech but banning graphic sex isn't.
-
i have nothing against ratings so long as the rating organizations aren't trying to tilt the market (as with the mpaa was caught doing) with them. what disturbs me is that parents are handing these kids $50 under the pretense of buying a game. what stops these kids from buying a $10 game out of the bargain bin and spending the other 40 bucks on crack? that parents would just hand their kids that much cash so they can spend i on whatever. i find that even more disturbing. if the kid has a job, they have already proven themselves mature and should be allowed to buy whatever they want. kids are devious bastards, i personally wouldn't even give them the money to screw around with.
as for the constitution, as old and bass akwards as it is, i say we should revise it. we should cross out all the instances and variations of the word freedom, and replace it with the word butseks followed by a smiley.
-
kids are devious bastards, i personally wouldn't even give them the money to screw around with.
I was a kid once :lol:
I think King's premise for his article was for politicians to quit spouting blame on pop culture for societies' ills.
I also think that it is perfectly reasonable to think preventing minors from viewing graphic violence as ok. Who here said it was against the Constitution?
-
I was a kid once too...never asked for allowance...didn't need it. If I wanted something I would ask, and if my parents agreed they would buy it.
When I went to buy something for me I always told the right price to boot. My parents were well aware of my expenses (and there weren't many). I'm one of hteose people that's very happy with very little :D
-
One problem with the article is he believes that parents can do somthing. When are they, and the ****ing politicians going to learn they can't?
-
The parents can take part in the rearing of their child, for a start
-
I'm talking about kids getting their hands on pornographic and violent content.
-
They can't stop them but they can at least make it harder if they wanted to. All that working hard to get porn and violent movies is character building. :p
-
You can't really stop much of it. Internet.
However, I do agree that parents do have a responsibility in rearing their child. They do have the responsibility to try.
-
So wait a second. Are you telling me if a company wanted to sell porn to 12 year olds that would be legal?
And if it is illegal explain to me why in constitutional terms why banning minors from viewing graphic violence is an abridgement of freedom of speech but banning graphic sex isn't.
Pornography was banned from being sold to minors because it violates obscenity laws, or something crazy like that. That's not to say that I think it should be alright to sell little Billy the "film" Bump Uglies 72, because I don't. By the same token, I don't think little Joe should be playing the game Manhunt: Vengeance. But it still violates The Constitution to ban both of these mediums. Of course, the main responsibility for a child lies with said child's parent(s).
Back when I was a kid, I was physically punished if I did something wrong. I haven't shot up a school, or gotten into fights. I've never done drugs, smoked cigarettes, or anything of the like. Do you want to know why? It's because I was raised properly. I was raised to say "please" and "thankyou." I was raised to speak to my elders with respect. I was raised to obey the law, even when the law was wrong. And I think I turned out just fine.
Once again, The main responsibility for a child lies with said child's parent(s).
Of course, in the end, people get what they want. After alcohol was banned in the U.S., black markets formed. These black markets, combined with the scarcity of alcohol, led to huge profits for those who sold it. This huge sum of money led to kingpins, which then led to an increase in organized crime. This led to ridiculous crime sprees. And all of this could have been avoided if alcohol was never banned.
One reason why I'm completely against government regulation of games, is that it will change what developers will create. E.g., If violent games (M+) are banned for sale to minors, then developers will almost always attempt to neuter their own work. The reason why they would do this is because they need to sell as many games as possible. Most modern games that are released by major publishers cost so much money to create, that over 200,000 copies have to be sold to break even.
The best example of self-regulation would be Soldier of Fortune. SoF had great violence blocks, as well as parental controls.
-----------------
I'll write more later.
-
Oh, now I understand why such a law would be against the Constitution.
-
Pornography was banned from being sold to minors because it violates obscenity laws, or something crazy like that.
And in that single statement you point out the weird dichotomy that affects America where sex = bad but violence = good.
It's not a constitutional argument really is it? It's simply been decided that since sex is bad kids shouldn't see it but violence isn't bad so it's okay. If preventing kids seeing violent movies and games is a violation of their freedom of speech then preventing them from watching porn is too. I can't see how you can make any constitutional argument that distinguishes the two.
That's not to say that I think it should be alright to sell little Billy the "film" Bump Uglies 72, because I don't. By the same token, I don't think little Joe should be playing the game Manhunt: Vengeance. But it still violates The Constitution to ban both of these mediums.
Banning them from adults, yes. Banning them from kids. I'm not so sure about that. The simple fact is that porn is banned by doing an end run around the Constitution and claiming that it is obscene to sell a kid porn. Well if that's legal then why not simply say that selling a kid a violent game is Contributing to the delinquency of a minor or somesuch and be done with it? If you can say porn is obscene you can say graphic violence is obscene too.
Of course, the main responsibility for a child lies with said child's parent(s).
Back when I was a kid, I was physically punished if I did something wrong. I haven't shot up a school, or gotten into fights. I've never done drugs, smoked cigarettes, or anything of the like. Do you want to know why? It's because I was raised properly. I was raised to say "please" and "thankyou." I was raised to speak to my elders with respect. I was raised to obey the law, even when the law was wrong. And I think I turned out just fine.
Once again, The main responsibility for a child lies with said child's parent(s).
Who said it wasn't?
However just because the main responsibility lies with the parents doesn't mean that everyone else has the right to ignore their own responsibility. Just cause a parent makes the decisions on whether their kids will learn to shoot doesn't mean any gun shop can sell kids guns and leave it up to the parents to remove them from the child if they don't want their kids having them. Same goes for porn, cigarettes, alcohol, tattoos and a whole list of other things that kids often want but parents don't want them to have.
So why make an exception for violent video games?
One reason why I'm completely against government regulation of games, is that it will change what developers will create. E.g., If violent games (M+) are banned for sale to minors, then developers will almost always attempt to neuter their own work. The reason why they would do this is because they need to sell as many games as possible. Most modern games that are released by major publishers cost so much money to create, that over 200,000 copies have to be sold to break even.
Hang on a sec. You're saying that the reason you're against government regulation is because at the moment companies not only sell to children ignoring the M+ rating they themselves have set but that they only design games knowing that they plan to ignore the rating and that if they were actually forced to pay attention to the voluntary code they currently only pay lip service to they would lose sales?
Do you not see something fundamentally wrong with that argument? :lol:
The best example of self-regulation would be Soldier of Fortune. SoF had great violence blocks, as well as parental controls.
Except that parental controls are useless if the minor is the one who runs the system. If only the parent could buy the game then it's his choice to ignore his responsibility to turn them on. If the child can buy the game the parent never gets the choice.
-
It's not a constitutional argument really is it? It's simply been decided that since sex is bad kids shouldn't see it but violence isn't bad so it's okay. If preventing kids seeing violent movies and games is a violation of their freedom of speech then preventing them from watching porn is too. I can't see how you can make any constitutional argument that distinguishes the two.
You shouldn't really..
Both should be banned for kiddies.
F'course, what REALLY needs to be done is slapping the bad parents sensless till they wake up and get some sense.
-
people are forgetting that theres a huge population of adults that play video games. so long as adults play games there is a market for adults only games. the fact that kids cant get into rated r movies doesn't stop film makers from making violent movies. for example i cant imagine id software not making m rated games.
-
You shouldn't really..
Both should be banned for kiddies.
Of course they should.
The point is that you can't simply say that banning minors from violent games is unconstitutional but banning porn isn't. Pretty much everyone agrees that 12 year olds shouldn't be able to buy graphic porn that adults are allowed to buy. So you can't hide behind the Constitution when it comes to violent games.
Remember this isn't a ban on minors playing violent games. Simply a ban on them buying them. If the parents feel they are mature enough to play them they're still able to buy Manhunt 2 for their 6 year old. :p
-
i used to know a 4 year old that played doom. she was all cute about it. "daddy, look, im killing deamons!"
-
Doom should be approved for all ages.
-
As should freespace ;)
-
Violence has meaning. Children shouldn't be subjected to pointless violence, but meaningful violence should not be hidden from kids! Why do these idiots in the seats of power think that hiding the ****ing truth will prevent it? With life comes death. This is the one truth about this world, and the children should know it well to better serve humanity when times of trial will undoubtedly come. Since it is rare for most children in my country (USA) to be shown death first hand, they should know just what it can do at least from their computer screen. I'm not asking for a damn moral lesson when one kills a boss or something, but at least something to subconsciously instill in young minds that killing is evil and usually avoidable, even though it sometimes (inevitably) must be done.
-
its probably better to show kids real violence than it is to show them hollywood violence, so that they can connect with the consequences of shooting someone. saving private ryan vs diehard. in spr you get people on the beach with their guts spilled all over the place, screaming in agony. die hard on the other hand is pop, your'e dead. maybe you will get a graphic death scene for the main bad characters, or a big explosion. id rather kids see the realistic violence so they damn sure know what happens when you shoot someone.
this applies to games as well. not only is having somones guts sprayed all over the wall pretty damn cool, it also gives the kids the truth about violence.