Josh H

If anything that provides support that it's more important to keep violent games out of minors hands than R-rated movies.

And thus backs my point that it's silly that stores and theaters generally card for R-rated films and many stores (especially the gaming stores) don't card when selling m-rated games.

Shilex

I would really like to know what percentage of "underage" kids are getting these M rated games from retailers who don't care, and what percentage is from parents who don't care. I'm willing to bet that the "parents who don't care" wins out over the retailers. And yet these are the same parents who are the first ones in an uproar when they discover the mature content in the game. Just look at the grandma who is suing Rockstar games because she bought GTA for her grandkids. It was fine for her kids to play an M rated game, but when she found out there was a hidden "hot coffee" mod in the game it became frivolous lawsuit time. Ridiculous. So let's put all the responsibility and blame on the retailer. It seems like we are all so busy now, we don't even have time take responsibilty for our lackadaisical attitudes. Let's blame everyone else. Next time a kid orders an adult movie on cable, let's sue and fine the cable company. Next time a kid sees a porn site online, let's sue the ISP. Hell, next time a kid emulates being "gangsta", let's sue America.

mrpayroll

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=11497

IEMA opposes California's violent videogames bill

Ellie Gibson 13:28 13/09/2005

Retailers' association claims new legislation is "impractical and unconstitutional"

The Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association has issued a statement expressing strong opposition to AB1179, a bill designed to restrict the sale of violent games to minors in the state of California.

According to the IEMA president Hal Halpin, the bill is "impractical" and "unnecessary" and would essentially create "a California-only class of products requiring retailers to buy, warehouse and distribute California videogames separately from other inventory."

Halpin goes on to argue that IEMA members have already offered their commitment to a scheme which would require consumers to show proof of age, and that AB1179 is "clearly unconstitutional."

At present, the state government imposes no restrictions on the sales of other forms of entertainment and the IEMA claims that: "Time and again courts have uniformly held that videogames, just like books, movies and music, are expression that is fully protected by the First Amendment."

The bill has already been endorsed by the Californian senate and assembly and is now awaiting approval from the state Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"We refuse to believe that the Governor will allow this matter to become further politicised and divisive - leading only to a course which would inevitably cost the taxpayers valuable resources," said Halpin.

"We instead hope that he will veto AB1179 and ask that the State work more closely with the games industry in much the same way that it does the music and movie businesses."

The bill is also opposed by the ESA, which represents game publishers in North America. The ESA's general counsel, Gail Markels, has claimed it represents an attempt to "subsitute the government's judgement for parental supervision."

Governor Schwarzenegger has until October 9 to either pass or veto the bill.


Chris

Josh H

Once again the retailers showing all they care about is making money. The game stores make a lot of money selling GTA to 16 year olds with part time jobs and even younger kids with big allowances and lazy parents.

kenage

I do know and have seen first hand that my local Gamestop does card for M rating games. They wont even let a younger child sell back an M rated game without an adult present. So some game retailers do enforce the rules.

outer-edge

I am 27 and vehemently opposed to legislation restricting media, games or otherwise. I have many reasons for my stance on games and have stated them repeatedly in this forum.

I don't buy the "games brainwashing our children theory." Yes, games can have a negative influence, but so can every other form of stimuli, it depends on the person. Games are not designed to be more influential. Depressing music has led teens to kill themselves, but again, it is if the person is susceptible. I've heard the argument that games are more interactive, but I really don't think it should be an issue anymore than music, movies, books and DnD, all of which have had their day in the crosshairs.

If reactionary groups were right about every other form of challenged media in the past, we'd be in total anarchy, among other states, right now.

The problem is, and the answer to why movies are better at carding, is that games are still relatively young. Even younger is the idea for serious enforcement of a ratings system. It takes time to get the system in place and make it effective. Beyond the occasional backlash against a Mortal Kombat game, outcries against games are still in their infancy too.

I still believe the industry could do better and fully support revamping the ratings to a more effective, informative system, but this kneejerk reaction of slapping laws down is not the answer to the problem.

mrpayroll

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12593

Florida moves to restrict sale of games with violent content
Ellie Gibson 12:38 28/10/2005
State to follow in California's footsteps with new SB492 bill

Less than a month after Californian governor Arnold Schwarznegger signed into law a bill restricting the sale of games with violent content to minors, Florida is set to follow suit with an almost identical piece of legislation.

Bill SB492, which has been introduced by state Senator Alex Diaz de la Portilla, defines violent videogames in the same terms as the Californian bill and seeks to impose the same USD 1000 fine on retailers who break the law.

The bill also requires games with violent content to bear a 2-inch square "18 rating" sticker. However, there is one addition - SB492 covers games in arcades as well as those sold in shops. The full bill can be viewed on the Florida Senate website.

The Entertainment Software Association has yet to issue an official response, but it's likely to oppose SB492 just as it is taking strong stance against the California bill. The ESA has already joined forces with the Video Software Dealers Association to file suit on the grounds that AB7119 restricts First Amendment rights.


Chris

tonyc3742

Teenage violence and crime *is* down. Youth *aggression* is not, however. Most gamers who read the studies fail to make that distinction. Since these kids aren't killing people, it must be okay! But it has been proven that long term repeated exposure to violent media including games does correlate to increased aggressiveness in children. Some aggressiveness is good, certainly; but lots of it is not, and expresses itself in more 'mundane' ways than offing someone [for examples, check out, oh, any internet message board].

As a parent I have no problem with the concept of this law. I don't like them creating another board or ranking; I think they should use the ESRB, and fine companies who release games under 'incorrect' ratings. I think a general assumption would be that I don't want my underage child playing M-rated games, and when I saw 'No, I'm not buying you M-rated games', I would like some help from the state rather than hindrance. If he really wants a specific M-rated game, I could then review it and decide if this particular game is suitable for him, and then buy it for him, making exceptions on a case-by-case basis [which is my job as a parent].
I also think that gratuitous, offensive, or 'abusive' sex scenes should be included in the 'adult' label.

I do NOT agree that laws like this violate First Amendment rights. Rockstar can make whatever game they want, and include whatever they want. WalMart can decide to sell whatever game they want. The adult consumer can then decide to buy whatever game he wants--if Walmart doesnt' have it, Best Buy does, or EBGames, or Gamestop, or Amazon, or Toys R Us, or Ebay, or LikSang, or directly from the manufacturer/distributor. As long as the creator of the work isn't being fined or jailed solely for the *content* of the work, it's not a First Amendment issue. You have the right to produce what you want, there is no Amendment stating "You have the right to have your item sold on walmart's shelves."

orangecrush

But correlation is not the same as causation. Don't get me wrong. I will not let me son (when he is old enough to play video games) play games like GTA. However, it does seem that there are a large number of other factors that could be more directly related to childhood aggression than violent video games.

njchris

Ratings should be enough. It's not up to the government to parent the kids and release them of responsibility.

mrpayroll

It seems the words 'correlation' & 'causation' are very popular today

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...5&page=1&pp=40

Post # 39


Have you guys been studying together?

Chris

mrpayroll

But what if most parents don't give a damn what their kids are up to? And that seems to be the case in this country.

Chris

tonyc3742

Sure, correlation isn't causation. And no, I'm not saying, nor do I believe, that violent video games are the only thing that can make a child/teen aggressive. It can serve to strongly reinforce and reward those tendencies, however.
But we know that they *do* contribute to aggression, and while I don't expect [or want] the State to rear our children, a simple law like this [again, I do have issues with its level of detail, it's not a perfect law by any means] can not hurt the situation.

Parents who care and are involved will appreciate the support, and will make case-by-case decisions. Or just say 'No, you can't play M-rated games until you can buy them legally yourself', which isn't necessarily a bad thing to say.

Parents who don't care and aren't involved [and such lack of involvement can also be a factor in the aggressiveness of children] will either say 'I don't care' and buy it for their kid without researching it [currently the kid could get the game now anyway], or say 'If you can't buy it, you can't have it' and again, the child doesn't get to play the M-rated game, the lack of which is certainly not going to harm him, the presence of which might.

Josh H

To clarify, I don't buy that games cause kids to be violent or whatever either. Same with other media.

I just get sick of hearing the politicians bitch about it. You don't hear it much with movies, since most places won't sell R rated movies or movie tickets to minors. With games, that's not the case. Thus I'd prefer the government step in and pressure stores to not sell M rated game to minors so they'll shut up (or a least bitch less often).

orangecrush

Could be. I do think it is important to note the difference though. It seems that greedy lawyers will point to a study that shows a correlation and say "the games made him do it” Perhaps a third unknown thing caused both an interest in violent video games and a tendency toward violent behavior. I tend to lean towards personal responsibility and say parents should grow up and act like parents.

Terrell

Agreed! But it's also obvious that the people at Rockstar don't have any morals to speak of. Why is there a need to place sexual content in a game that they know some kids will get a hold of? Does the sexual content really make the game better. Personally, I have no use for GTA or Rockstar. They should be allowed to make it though. However, it should be rated X and place in an adult shop as far as I'm concerned.

gimmepilotwings

So any rated R movie that shows a naked breast should be rated X? What about a bare ass? What about a woman only in a bra, what about cleavage? Why not go further, why not tank tops? What about halter tops? Get the point.

If anything video games and movies should get at least the same treatment. There is nothing in GTA or many games EVER that should be considered X rated. R rated, definitely, X rated, no way.

Josh H

Yeah, the M-rating is fine for the GTA series. There's no x-rated content there, just r-rated.

The ratings just need to be enforced with the same standarad/frequency as movie ratings by retailers.

mrpayroll

He may have been talking about the recently uncovered 'Hot Coffee' sex scene in GTA.

Chris

Josh H

Hot Coffee scene is still an R-rated sex scene. Far from being X-rated.

Michael Ballack

You're right. Despite politicians over dramatizing for political gain, the hot coffee mod wasn't that bad. Anyone see a penis in it? THe only thing you see is breasts, bare ass, and humping that can be seen in many r rated films. I still don't get how you can do the most violent things in a game and get a m rating, but add a little r rated sex and you must rate a game as adults only or the nc 17 equivalient.

nodeerforamonth

You'd be right, in my opinion. I'm 38 and I was carded a couple years ago when buying Grand Theft Auto.

On the other hand, I've seen and known countless of parents buying GTA for their kids.

Original Desmond

Trust me guys, in the long run, this is better

It will mean that gaming companies will produce Proper games aimed purely at adults knowing that they can't have their media on their butt because if it has an adult rating, it wouldn't be their fault if kids get hold of the game.

Currently we are only getting 'Tweener' adult games. the companies aren't going full bore because they know that the public still think games are for kids, now with this division, it will make it easy for them

tonyc3742

Agreed. I have no problem wth 'adult' content, since I'm an adult. But the current state of 'adult' themes in games is primarily limited to gratuitous T&A or demeaning meaningless sex [GTA]. Oh, and lots of cursing. That's hardly adult.
Give me an A Clockwork Orange-level 'adult' game, rather than a Something About Mary-level 'adult' game.
I don't think Hot Coffee would qualify for 'X'. An enforced M-rating would do fine for me.

Michael Ballack

Adults don't curse and have meaningless sex?