Terrell

It doesn't really bother me, as I haven't given it the time of day. But explain this to me with an honest answer. Why was there a need to put that in the game? Did it make the game better? Was it needed for any other reason than to generate a controversy in order to sell games.

I don't argue their right to make it, but it's just such a stupid, useless, immoral thing to put in a game. I'm not saying the game industry should parent the kids. What I am saying is parents shouldn't have to worry that there is some secret mod that their kids may stumble upon, even if by accident.

I would like to ask a question though for people in the know. Does GTA have any white people commiting violent acts, or is it all black people and latinos running around being the thugs? Because that's all I ever see when I happen up a clip from G4. If so, it's seems like a major stereotype, and I'd probably be a bit offended by it. But since I've never played the game, I can't say.

Michael Ballack

There's a lot of things that don't have to be put in games or movies, even movies like our beloved Star Wars. Sex entertains. It offends some, but so what?

THe first two games stared white guys. GTA San Andreas was the first to star a black character. The game sterotypes every race. It also makes fun of both exteme political sides. It has very good satire. Very, very funny bits on the radio by the great Lazlo who can be heard on the Opie and Anthony show.

P.S. With all due respect Terrel, since you haven't played the game, I don't think you are any more qualifed to talk about it than Hillary Clinton or any other Johhny Comelatelys

kenage

If the parents buy the games for little Jonny or Jenny it doesn't matter what law you come up with. Why not make the parent sign a waiver taking all responsibility away from the game retailer and publisher of said games from action by Jonny after he plays the game? Than all the resposibility of actions by Jonny are where they should be, the parents.

Recca

G4TechTV aired a special called Violence In Games that talked about the recent California legislation. One interesting point that they brought up is that the video game industry is more compliant with FTC guidelines as far as marketing violent content to children than the movie industry. If anyone's interested in checking it out, they're running repeats, although very late at night.

10/28/2005 11pm ET / 8pm PT
10/30/2005 1am ET / 10pm PT
10/30/2005 2am ET / 11pm PT
10/31/2005 3am ET / 12am PT
11/1/2005 11pm ET / 8pm PT
11/2/2005 2am ET / 11pm PT
11/7/2005 1am ET / 10pm PT

Another thing is that most games retail for $40-50, which is a substantial amount of money. If an underage kid is at an age where he earned that money on his own, then he's probably mature enough to handle the content of any video game. If a parent gives that much money to their kids, they should probably show some interest in what their children are spending that money on.

outer-edge

This is a ridiculous reason to support this in my opinion. Movies, music, books, have all been around much longer than games. Any kind of rating or restrictive system has also been around longer than the ESRB and had time to settle in. I highly doubt movie ratings were strictly enforced the minute they came to be (if they were, I'd love to read about it). When video rental places popped up, I doubt all employees retricted rentals/sales to kids. It takes time for something like this to take effect. But, people are ignoring that and want to slap laws on video games just because it is the growing and popular form of entertainment.

Do you think movies, music and books should be held accountable under similar laws? What about Internet sites? Newspapers and magazines? Objectional material, depending on the child or adult, can be found almost anywhere.

I believe that there is NO reason games should be held to different standards than any other media. My son could play GTA and see lots of violence, or he could go to the library and read some real-life stuff far worse. Yet we propose to restrict one by law, and not the other?

What about material outside violence/sex? What if I am a hardcore religious zealot and see something I consider mindwarping for my son that goes against my teachings, possibly that I see more harmful than violence/sex? Why wasn't I warned about that? Where was the rating? Why is only select types of content more important than others?

It is my duty as parent to filter content to my child. PERIOD. I do not need my hand held by politicians who are jumping on the latest witch hunt.

orangecrush

I could not agree more. One thing I do find odd is how willing some parents are to let someone else (ratings boards) decide what is objectionable for there children. For example, I have known a number of people who won't see/let their children see R rated movies because they are rated R. Those same people are more than willing to go to a PG-13 movie w/o bothering to learn about the content. I have seen a number of PG-13 movies that would be far more offensive to these people than a movie like Waiting for Guffman which is rated R.

tonyc3742

There is a difference between movies/tv and games.
With movies, you're watching *someone else* do stuff for 1.5-3 hours. WIth games, *you* are controlling a lifelike avater do those things for 5-30 hours or more [some games offer virtually unlimited repetition.] The level of immersion is more more intense than a movie.
And very few movies have the sex/violence proportion as some games do, there's usually something else in there. With GTA, for example, you could spend hours just mugging/killing pedestrians. And the movies that *are* primarily sex or violence [say, porn films or splatter films], most adults probably won't let kids watch, so they are similar.

I do think movies and music should be held accountable--R-ratings or Parental Advisory lyrics should be enforced. It wouldn't be illegal to possess such things, rather, to buy them without an adult. I agree it should be consistent.
Books are a little different, there aren't really any 'ratings' on books. But even then, the same issues apply--the level of immersion is less, the content proportionality is different, and honestly, is kids *reading* really a problem nowadays?

None of this is meant to 'replace' parents [although what is your opinion on the parental replacement and claptrap taught in most public schools?].
Enforcement of ratings merely helps support a parent; if a game is rated M, the assumption is, according to the makers, it's not suitable for a 12 year old, for instance. If I say I don't want my child playing that game, this at least helps in the fact that he can't legally buy it [Yes, he can still steal it or borrow it, of course, and both of those are parental issues]. If I want him to play it, I can buy it for him.

Certainly adults curse and have meaningless sex. Does that make them 'adult'?

If the parents buy the game for Johnny, then we can assume they are approving his playing it, and waives responsibility, as long as the game did not misrepresent its rating.

People let the government decide what to do with their lives all the time. Your kid's in school? How much control do you have over what s/he learns there? In a public place? You are relying on the government's rules and assuming it's a safe place for you and your child to be. Heck, every week or two we give up to half our income, that we work for, to the government to do *whatever they want* with--where's the outrage there?
Overreacting over a law like this that is at worst 'unnecessary' for large portions of the public, but can help support others [who may *not* be gamers, and may not know what GTA is about, and relies on the ratings, just like they do for movies], really seems silly.

Josh H

I don't think anyone's saying the ratings need to be enforced to stop lawsuits and what not when kid shoots someone or whatever.

Just simply that it will stop the politicians from bitching so much about the fact that kids under 17 can buy these games for themselves at many stores.

outer-edge

Again, I think it depends on the susceptibility of someone as to which form of media will truly affect them. Maybe a game allows you beat someone repeatedly for hours, but it is a visually bland, unfulfilling experience for someone. But a movie is filmed in a way to glorify an act of revenge, sparking an interest in the same person. Or maybe listening to the same lyrics are the trigger instead, or perhaps acting it out in a game such as DnD.

We are picking on games because they are the latest thing, regulated for a short time. We absolutely would not stand for this as a society if we replaced "video games" with "books." And yes, we get back to the same argument of video games being more immersive, but I've seen people ignore video games but get absorbed in a good book as if it's real.

So, while I believe media can be harmful, to those susceptible to the different forms, I believe it is the job of family and friends, not law, to filter content to children, and adults for that matter.

But where does it stop? I'm not trying to throw together conspiracies here, but let's say the public and industry gives in and allows thee laws. And it doesn't work. What's next?

A ban on M-rated games altogether? I just don't see how these laws will truly change anything. The kids that want access badly enough WILL get it. THe kids that are susceptible to violent media that causes them to act out, WILL still have that happen. It's an unnecessary level of control.

I do fully support the ESRB and industry taking a strong er stand, making a better ratings system (or clearer one) and self-enforcing. But, I don't think we need the states deciding what is or is not OK.


I have a feeling none of us here will ever change each other's minds. But, it is always fun to read what everyone else thinks. This forum is the one place I've ad intelligent debate about this issue.

Josh H

There would never be a ban. If the law didn't work, they'd just have to step up fines of retailers who sell M rated games to minors. If the problem was still parents buying m-rated games for their kids, then people would just have to deal with it and the government could spend some money on a public awareness campaign in line with the talk to your kids about drugs ads.

I don't necessarily like having to have state laws. But maybe it will take having one or two for force the industry to self regulate. Mainly the lame ass, dork staffed game stores are the major problem. Most of the big box stores like wal-mart already enforce the ratings. Though I'm sure that varies from store to store to some degree. As wella s employee to employee.

tonyc3742

Because they can afford these games, they should be able to buy them? That's silly. A 10 year old can buy a GWAR or Eazy E album with one lawn mowing. He could buy two copies of Penthouse or Swank with that same lawnmowing, does that mean he should? Oh, but those magazines are illegal to sell to a child [and I would have no problem if the Parental Advisory albums were as well]. So some books *are* already limited in sales, should we revoke those laws?

I agree, I don't think there would [or should] ever be a ban. If a state or federal government banned certain games or types of games, I would certainly be against that.

And yes, there will always be kids who will get what they want, regardless. But that argument can be applied to virtually anything, say, gun laws--who is punished by gun laws restricting ownership or making ownership illegal by adults, guaranteed that right by the Second Amendment? Law abiding citizens, the crooks get them anyway.

This law might not change anything. Contrariwise, it might. The parent who says to Little Johnny, who's 13, "I don't want you playing M-rated games", now has a little reinforcement of that request, seeing as how Johnny can't buy or rent [I assume/hope this law would apply to rentals as well] those games.

But it also doesn't *harm* anything. Adults can buy whatever games they want. Children under this law are *required* to have at least token adult supervision when buying these games, as opposed to now. How can that be bad?

As of now, this is simply the government enforcing that an entity [ESRB/gaming industry] do what they say [stand by their ratings], and say something useful [meaningful ratings].

Certainly different people have different catalysts, and different media affect them differently. But again, videogames are an entirely different medium from the others--realistic, repetitive, rewarded immersive violence that the player controls. Books and movies and even music are different, and your mention of D&D does bring to mind some historical similarities, but even that example is flawed [and was then as well]--D&D is imaginative, and unrealistic/fantasy. Talking about rolling a d6 to do 4 points of damage on a half orc, usually to save the world or something, in a social environment, is different from being and controlling and visually seeing TJ for 45 hours beating pedestrians and cops with baseball bats and being rewarded for it. And if TJ dies, he starts over in the hospital, no harm done; or the player hits Reset. Any real D&D player gets attached to his characters, and they feel the loss/death of a character much more [and yes, that can go too far, I think people who who would commit suicide with Brian Boru gets killed by a hobgoblin need help]. Violence with some level of consequences.

Another issue is exposure. How often did kids play D&D, long term? Probably not more than once or twice a week. How often did they watch a splatter film or Terminator movie, if at all? 2 hours at a time, maybe 2ce a week at most, for a short term.
But kids who video game have been known to do nothing but game for hours, for weeks. Last time I was on Guild Wars there was some kid in my guild who was in Spring Break, from what he said, he had played 8-12 hours a day for that entire week, and 6 hours or so a day, when he wasn't on break. Add to the fact that many parents use the TV/computer as a babysitter, or as a replacement for active involved parenting [which is another issue, and something I don't condone], and virtually the only, or at least the major, exposure these kids get, is realistic, consequence-free, violent video games. It wouldn't be as bad if the parents would even play the game with their kids, or discuss it with them, but people do tend to absorb traits from the things they are exposed to.
So your argument about books, movies, d&d, etc, isn't necessarily wrong--if someone did nothing but read Stephen King novels, or if a kid watched all the Nightmare movies every day for a month, that might have a similar long-term affect on the child, just like video games can.

outer-edge

I hate to rehash arguments, so I won't.

But, as a member of the media, I just can not agree that video games should fall under some magical label of media that needs government enforcement, when other forms remain self-enforcing. I truly believe video games can be self-enforced well. Are they now? No. But, that is something the ESRB needs to step up and start doing, as well as every other level of the industry (including developers putting out blantantly stupid attention grabbing games or content).

I also see a problem with just changing laws if they don't work, or public awareness or other campaigns. There are far too many parents in this world, that if a law exists for ratings, it becomes a safety blanket for them. If it's law, my kid is surely safe, correct? Then, when their kid is caught with a game or worse, there is a major public outcry. It certainly wasn't the law that failed, and not the parent, but the industry. And that's where things could go downhill. Maybe we here like to think this won't happen or everything will be OK. But, too many people want the quick or easy solution and none of the blame and responsibility.

These laws may stop politicians from bitching, but frankly, that is all it will do. And that is not a good reason to make a law.

mrpayroll

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...?track=tothtml

December 23, 2005

Judge Halts Limits on Game Sales to Kids

Once civil liberties advocate observes that the ruling follows a pattern of " . . . law passes, gets challenged, gets struck down. Rinse, lather, repeat."

By Julie Tamaki and Chris Gaither, Times Staff Writers

A federal ruling that blocks California's ban on the sale of violent video games to children is the latest setback to lawmakers trying to clean up a medium that is increasingly graphic — and just as popular.

The preliminary injunction granted late Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte delays implementation of a measure that would make it a crime to rent or sell games that "depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" to people younger than 18.

The law, written by Assemblyman Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) and signed in October by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, was to take effect Jan. 1. Whyte, whose courtroom is in San Jose, blocked that until lawyers for the game industry and the state can argue whether the sales ban tramples free-speech rights.

In granting the injunction sought by the Entertainment Software Assn. and the Video Software Dealers Assn., Whyte concluded that the trade groups "are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the act violates the 1st Amendment."

The ruling comes as the $25-billion global game industry faces sharp criticism for sex and violence in some of its titles. Much of the furor has focused on "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas," a game that allows players to shoot cops, run over pedestrians and have sex with prostitutes.

Legislative efforts to keep violent games away from minors have faced constitutional challenges as backers try to extend some of the same laws restricting access to pornography to violent material. Courts have been unwilling to endorse that reasoning.

"This is not a surprising result," said Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney with civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It brings into question whether this is really the best use of the state's resources to constantly put up these clearly unconstitutional laws, only to have them challenged and thrown out…. It does seem to be one in this series of: law passes, gets challenged, gets struck down. Rinse, lather, repeat."

Game makers noted Thursday that Whyte's decision marked the sixth time that a judge had ruled in their favor on sales bans. Most recently, a similar law in Illinois was blocked this month.

Nevertheless, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) last week joined Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) to introduce a bill to restrict sales to minors. They joined a chorus of critics who say game violence differs from other forms of media violence because games are interactive.

Studies on the effects of video games have been inconclusive or contradictory — and have provided fodder for both sides.

"The science indicates that the participation and identification with the violence has a greater effect than simply passively watching violence," said Kevin Saunders, a law professor at Michigan State University and author of "Saving Our Children from the First Amendment." "If not now, sooner or later the science will get to the point where courts will recognize it justifies the statutes."

Whyte, however, wrote in his ruling that California lawyers appeared unlikely to be able to prove a causal relationship between violent video games and violent behavior. Even if they could, he added, "it is uncertain that … the 1st Amendment allows a state to restrict access to violent video games, even for those under 18 years of age."

Schwarzenegger spokesman Vince Sollitto predicted that California would prevail in what he and other state officials warned could be a lengthy court battle over the measure.

"The court will have a full opportunity to understand why the governor and the legislature believe the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from potential harm from exposure to extremely violent video games," Sollitto said.

A spokesman for California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer said the issue ultimately might be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although video game sales have grown rapidly in recent years, they have cooled considerably in 2005 as game players await a new batch of consoles from Microsoft Corp., Sony Corp. and Nintendo Co. Market researcher NPD this month said November game sales were down 18% from the same period in 2004.

Complaints about violence have existed since the earliest days of video games, but technological advances in recent years have made games more realistic and involved. Game makers counter critics by saying parents should take greater responsibility in determining what games their children are allowed to play.

The industry follows a voluntary rating system administered by the Entertainment Software Rating Board. Many retailers refuse to sell "Mature"-rated games to children under 17. In 2004, 16% of computer and video games sold were rated "Mature," 53% were rated "Everyone" and 30% were "Teens."

Yee's law would require exceptionally violent games to carry a label with the number "18." Publishers that fail to mark their games could face fines of $1,000 for each violation, as could retailers that rent or sell such games, if properly labeled, to children.

Game publishers complained that the definitions in Yee's law were too vague and noted that new technology gave parents more control than ever to manage what their children see on screen.

Microsoft's new video game console, Xbox 360, for example, includes a "family setting" feature that allows parents to grant or restrict access to games based on the ESRB rating system.

"Technology will wipe away this issue in the next five years," said Jeff Brown, a spokesman for Electronic Arts Inc., the world's largest independent video game publisher. "The new consoles from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo will all have parental controls so that game systems are far beyond television and DVDs in the ability they give to parents to restrict content."


Chris