Washington state to ban sales of violent games to kids [Archive]

odysseyzine

04-18-2003, 03:35 PM

Anybody see this yet?

OLYMPIA (AP) - Retailers would face a $500 fine for selling video games depicting violence against police to children, under a bill passed by the Legislature.

Gov. Gary Locke is expected to sign House Bill 1009, which passed the Senate 42-7 Thursday despite attempts by game companies and Amazon.com to change it.

"Democrats and Republicans from across Washington came together to stand against these toxic games," said Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, the bill's sponsor, who watched nervously from the Senate gallery as several amendments were voted down.

Dickerson, who has been trying to ban or limit the sale of violent video games to children for the last five years, said the bill is the first of its kind in the country.

Although the bill applies only to violence against police officers, it would effectively keep many of the market's violent games out of the hands of children, Dickerson said.

One amendment would have expanded the bill to include all video games rated "M" by the game manufacturers because of violent content. But Dickerson and other sponsors opposed that, saying the state Constitution forbids delegating the authority of rating games to private entities.

Another failed amendment, offered by Sen. Luke Esser on behalf of Amazon.com and other Internet retailers, would have allowed such retailers to assume a buyer was 17 or older if the game was purchased with a credit card.

Twenty-one Republicans and 21 Democrats voted for the bill.

"These video games are awful," said Sen. Dale Brandland, R-Bellingham, a former sheriff of Whatcom County. "It's not just violence against police officers. You've got rape, you've got murder of prostitutes."

Four Republicans and three Democrats voted no.

"It really doesn't accomplish anything," said Esser, R-Bellevue.

The American Psychological Association has reported, based on studies involving college students, that playing violent video games can increase aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior. The researchers said the interactive element of video games may make them more harmful to users than violent television or movies.

Video games already have a rating system voluntarily adopted by the industry. But Dickerson said spot checks have shown that many retailers continue to sell games rated M, for people 17 and older, to younger children.

The bill, which previously passed the House, now goes to Locke, who is expected to sign it, said Michael Marchand, his spokesman.

Charlie

04-18-2003, 04:01 PM

Anonymous

04-18-2003, 04:03 PM

In theory these things should help. If every state enforced a ratings system by law, then we'd see more specifically adult titles.

Charlie

04-18-2003, 04:07 PM

In theory these things should help. If every state enforced a ratings system by law, then we'd see more specifically adult titles.

I agree totally. Although I'm not neccesarly intrested in only adult games (I'm only intrested in FUN games lol), but actually I don't think this bill in question goes far enough. Only violence against cops? So basically this bill bans Vice City and State of Emergency. Not far enough says I.

bargora

04-18-2003, 04:07 PM

So this bill would restrict, what? Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City? State of Emergency? (I'm guessing--I don't have any of these games yet.) Anybody want to guess whether the law passes scrutiny under the First Amendment? Can a similar law be passed to restrict movies that depict violence against police (example: Lethal Weapon, or, say, just about ANY action movie)? What about games where you play the part of a cop (like G-Police for PSX)?

I'm not entirely sure I follow you, Charlie.

And I'm not sure I entirely agree with you, Fluke. How many NC-17 movies have you seen released lately?

chadtower

04-18-2003, 04:27 PM

I agree totally. Although I'm not neccesarly intrested in only adult games (I'm only intrested in FUN games lol), but actually I don't think this bill in question goes far enough. Only violence against cops? So basically this bill bans Vice City and State of Emergency. Not far enough says I.

It shouldn't happen at all. What they should ban is stupid people who won't watch them from having kids. It's MY job to protect my children from such things, not the government. A parent should be aware of the content of games their child is playing. Anything less is negligence.

Charlie

04-18-2003, 04:30 PM

This isn't about freedom of speech and expression... other then Jesus Christ himself has anything ever been a victim of name dropping more then the 1st Amendment? This is about making the parents of children responsable for the content they watch/view/play/read. I think it's assinine to point to the first amendment and say "See, you can't ban this!" It's not being banned... copies of Vice City will not be outlawed... all bootleggers can stop making trips to Oregon to get Vice City and sell them here... , it's being restricted, not banned.

And don't bring any other medium into this. This isn't about movies or books. This is about preventing children from getting games that they shouldn't be allowed to play. All it requires is common sense. I want to bitch slap everyone who says "Well, Mario kills badguys, that's violence." Yeah, and Mario doesn't squash a goomba after having sex with it. And when he squashes the goomba, blood doesn't splatter everywhere. In Washington, someone under the age of 18 can't go see an R rated movie. I know, I get carded everything I go to see one. But that doesn't piss me off. What pisses me off is when I go to see Gladiator or Knockaround Guys or Eyes Wide Shut and I can't hear the movie because some fuckhead has brought his little kids into the movie. I'm an adult, and when I go to an R-Rated movie I expect to be in the company of people my age, not 15 year olds, not 12 year olds... that's why I bowl in Monte Carlo on Saturday Nights... it's an adult activity. But now in Washington, for all you bowlers here in my state, they're trying to ban Monte Carlo because KIDS CAN SEE YOU DOING IT AND IT LOOKS FUN AND IT'S GAMBLING!

In case you don't know, Monte Carlo is regular 10-pin bowling with three colored pins (Red, Yellow, and Blue) and you get money if you get a strike when the colored pins are in a certain formation, and you get money for picking up splits. You also get money for having the high game of the night. And they're trying to ban this because it glorifies gambling to kids. This is outrageous... where I bowl they don't even allow kids in the bowling alley during Monte Carlo.

This is just the point I'm trying to make... some parents don't want to take responsability for their kids. Enough is enough, it's time to say "if you fuck them into this world, then you are held accountable for every time they fuck up between now and the time they are 18." Maybe some parents will actually stop acting like douchebags and do their fucking job. If they can't handle it, use protection or gets yourself fixed. Goddamn shit like this pisses me off.

ManekiNeko

04-18-2003, 04:33 PM

The problem is, Mary Lou Dickerson (whose last name is offensive to me and must be censored... I'll call her ****erson from now on) isn't satisfied barring children from buying violent video games. You can tell that much from her rhetoric. She won't be satisfied until the games are banned entirely. Now, she may think that she'll get rid of the games by limiting sales to adults, because she and others like her are convinced that adults don't PLAY video games, leaving Grand Theft Auto without an audience. That's an ignorant assumption, however... adults have played video games from the moment Higgenbotham tweaked his oscilloscope to play Pong, and the kids who were playing Nintendo in the 1980's are all grown up and still interested in the hobby now.
So hey, go ahead and prevent children from buying Grand Theft Auto... that still won't take the game off the shelves. And when Ms. ****erson continues to protest the game and attempts to have it banned completely, her true agenda (an agenda against the freedom of expression that defines our country) will be revealed. This is what always happens... congressman keep setting limits on violent video games, and no matter how far they go, it's never enough to satisfy irresponsible parents like Ms. ****erson. It's time to fight back.

JR

bargora

04-18-2003, 04:41 PM

Charlie, I fully agree with you that parents should take responsibility for what video games and other influences their children are exposed to in the home.

But in your response I think I see a couple of assumptions.

1. Videogames contain neither speech nor expression.

2. Videogames deserve fundamentally different treatment from books, movies, comics, etc.

If you agree with these points, please explain why, because I disagree with them.

Sniderman

04-18-2003, 04:43 PM

<singing>

So here's to you, Mr. Lieberman....

</singing>

Remember, if Gore had won, this chucklehead would've been VP and this shit would've already been enacted and enforced nationwide. Don't believe me? Welp, here's his most recent rant, dated 4 months ago. Enjoy! (http://www.senate.gov/~lieberman/press/02/12/2002C19808.html)

My favorite quote:
"The content of many cutting edge games is becoming more and more vivid, violent, and offensive to our most basic values. This relatively small but highly popular minority is not just pushing the envelope - they are shooting, torturing and napalming it beyond all recognition, and beyond all decency."
- Joe Lieberman, on why "games is bad."

bargora

04-18-2003, 04:48 PM

well then thank god bush stole the election, eh snider? :P

Sniderman

04-18-2003, 04:51 PM

One of many reason I'm glad we stole...er....won. ;)

Achika

04-18-2003, 05:02 PM

I think it's a good thing. Sure, even the parents that DO monitor what their kids watch/read/play can't be there all the time. What I mean by this is, little Johnnie or Jane of said parents see this really cool game [insert really cool, violent game here]. They KNOW there is no way in hell their parents would buy the game. So, while going to the mall with a group of friends and said friends parents, they decide to check out the local game shop. And because said friends parents aren't as "attune" to their parenting abilities, say said kids and group of friends can walk around the mall by themselves. Perfect opprotunity for Johnnie & Jane to walk into the mall's video game boutique and try to buy [insert really cool, violent game here] At which point the store clerk, now under these new laws asks for ID. Poor Johnnie and Jane look at said store clerk with puppy dog eyes, which said store clerk says "Request Denied."

It shouldn't happen at all. What they should ban is stupid people who won't watch them from having kids. It's MY job to protect my children from such things, not the government. A parent should be aware of the content of games their child is playing. Anything less is negligence.

I have no doubt you are a great parent, but you can't be there 5.67648e+08 (whatever the hell that means) seconds of your childs life until they turn 18. I don't think the bill is restricting you from buying your kids these games, I think it's restricting your kids from buying the games themselves without your consent (see said situation above) by imposing hefty fees on retailers. If that's not what you meant, just disregard me. :)

Arcade Antics

04-18-2003, 05:16 PM

Outstanding.

I'm all for these kinds of actions, because it takes the responsability out of the game companies hands and into the parents, so if some kid in Washington goes crazy and guns down his school, then the parents are to blame and not the game companies.

Wrong.

It just makes it slightly more difficult to argue that the game is bad and the store is bad for selling the game. Regardless of whether or not the law is passed, idiot parents of psychos will STILL claim that it's the fault of the game companies, stores, UPS delivery guy, etc.

Charlie

04-18-2003, 05:19 PM

If you didn't vote for Gore because of his running mate's view on Video Games, then you need a reality check.

This is not censorship... this is insurance that children can't get the games into their hands unless the parent says it's ok... the parent has to buy the games. What's so wrong about that? As an adult, you're losing no freedom.

"It's MY job to protect my children from such things, not the government. A parent should be aware of the content of games their child is playing. Anything less is negligence."

That's great that you can follow your child around everywhere, but even the best parents can't. Kids can be sneaky... with laws like this getting the games would be next to impossible.

OK, let's use your logic of "it's my job to raise my kid and not the government." But let's change the words "video games" to "porn magizines." It's your job to know what your kids are wacking off too and not the governments... do you also volenteer to take responsability for every parent that can't possibly follow their children around 24/7? Hell, while we're at it, let's shuck the laws that ban minors from buying cigarettes and alcohol... after all it's your job to decide what's good for your kids and not the government.

For some reason, stupid people are scared to ban minors from doing adult activities. Why? You lose no freedoms, and in fact baning minors from buying things like violent video games gives you as an adult more freedom.

I just don't understand it. Why are you so scared? Maybe it's ok for you if your child goes into a store and buys Vice City, but if I had a child it would not be ok to me if my child could walk into a store and buy it. Yeah, it should be up to the parent... if it's ok with the parent, then the parent can go to the store and buy the game. It would be a situation no different from smoking. In the US, underage smoking is not banned! It's true... a minor can smoke his little head off, but only in his own home with his parent's permission (except in Alabama and Alaska). That is not against the law... a minor just can't go buy cigarettes.

odysseyzine

04-18-2003, 05:23 PM

�Democrats and Republicans from across Washington came together to stand against these toxic games.�

I�m guessing she cackled wildly after she said this. You can almost see this lady�s forked tongue and her glowing, red eyes.

A bill like this doesn't really place responsibility in parents' hands (in my opinion).It places the responsibility on retailers. Most retailers I've been to card for M rated games already (but that's in Minnesota & North Dakota). I'm sure game retailers will place the responsibility on their employees (by firing them or forcing them to pay the fine with their wages). Poor college or high-school students that work at the mall for minimum wage will likely have to bear the brunt of any fines.

I don't think a bill like this will do much of anything for Washington�s video game menace. When GTA3 was still a new game, I was browsing at the local Software etc. I watched a kid who must have been about 10 to 12 try and buy the game. The guy at the counter refused to sell it to him. About 5 minutes later, the kid marches in with his dad -- who buys the game for him. The fellow behind the counter told the parent how inappropriate the game is, but he made some remark about how "that's what he wants" and he bought it anyway! I�m sure this kid got on the phone and had every 10 to 12 year-old buddy in the neighborhood come over to play GTA3 that afternoon. That�s what I would have done at that age.

Another example, I'm involved in the Big Brother Big Sister program, and my little brother's mom has no problem with him seeing R-rated movies. He asks to go to a movie that's rated R, and I'm the one who has to say no. (It's against BBBS rules to go to R movies anyway.)

Kids shouldn't have easy access to certain kinds of entertainment, but a lot of parents just don't care. There is no amount of legislation that will change that.

Violent media is here to stay. It's too bad they can't legislate programs to teach kids how to develop some media savvy so they can properly deal with it. On one hand I think that GTA has some awful content, but so does a Gwar CD! And I was a huge fan of Gwar when I was 12. I think I turned out ok despite being exposed to some horrible stuff growing up. One thing that I had on my side was decent parents. They monitored my entertainment pretty well, and if they found something they didn�t like, they told me, and they told me why. I think that�s probably more important than completely blocking kids� exposure to this stuff. I learned to live with violent entertainment without getting completely swept up in it.

bargora

04-18-2003, 05:48 PM

Here's a link to the bill that passed the legislature yesterday:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1000-1024/1009-s_pl_04172003.txt

Dig through it and you see that it only restricts games in which the player harms human law enforcement officers.

(4) "Violent video or computer game" means a video or computer game that contains realistic or photographic-like depictions of aggressive conflict in which the player kills, injures, or otherwise causes physical harm to a human form in the game who is depicted, by dress or other recognizable symbols, as a public law enforcement officer.
So I can gun down Mappy, no problemo? And Rockstar hacks GTA to turn all the cops into yakuza enforcers. Or Mappys. Looks like it's not gonna do much good to stem the tide of violent media. At least they've picked a narrowly drawn battle to fight. It's the best way to get started down the slippery slope.

Check this, too:

The legislature finds that there has been an increase in studies showing a correlation between exposure to violentvideo and computer games and various forms of hostile and antisocial behavior. The entertainment software industry's ratings and content descriptors of video and computer games reflect that some video and computer games are suitable only for adults due to graphic depictions of sex and/or violence.
Sounds like Space Channel 5 may be next. That Ulala IS a wicked creature. And all that shoot shoot shooting! X_x :2gunfire:

Charlie

04-18-2003, 05:53 PM

"Poor college or high-school students that work at the mall for minimum wage will likely have to bear the brunt of any fines."

Well if the law is on the books and they break it, then they should have to pay it... no different then convience store workers that sell tobacco or alcohol to kids.

"When GTA3 was still a new game, I was browsing at the local Software etc. I watched a kid who must have been about 10 to 12 try and buy the game. The guy at the counter refused to sell it to him. About 5 minutes later, the kid marches in with his dad -- who buys the game for him. The fellow behind the counter told the parent how inappropriate the game is, but he made some remark about how "that's what he wants" and he bought it anyway! I�m sure this kid got on the phone and had every 10 to 12 year-old buddy in the neighborhood come over to play GTA3 that afternoon. That�s what I would have done at that age."

That's right, and it's the father's responability if his kid and the kid's friends decide to camp out in the middle of the highway and then gun down all the people who get out to yell at them. The father accepted the responability when he bought the game, despite the warning from store that sold it to him, and from the warning right on the case of the game.

"Another example, I'm involved in the Big Brother Big Sister program, and my little brother's mom has no problem with him seeing R-rated movies. He asks to go to a movie that's rated R, and I'm the one who has to say no. (It's against BBBS rules to go to R movies anyway.) "

Good for you, an adult who follows the rules. That's the perfect way to set an example for children as to what is off limits.

"Kids shouldn't have easy access to certain kinds of entertainment, but a lot of parents just don't care. There is no amount of legislation that will change that."

I understand this and except it... my concern is who gets sued when a child gets insperation from this stuff and takes action with it.

bargora

04-18-2003, 06:05 PM

Charlie, you're also assuming that

3. Videogames cause children to commit acts of violence, and

4. This law will provide protection to retailers, publishers, and designers from lawsuits.

You may also be assuming that

5. This law will prevent children from buying any sort of violent videogames.

I think that 3. is unproven and that 4. and 5. are incorrect.

Charlie

04-18-2003, 06:51 PM

No, you're assuming that I'm assuming those things, and when you assume you make an ass out of u and me.

"Videogames cause children to commit acts of violence"

I'm talking less then 2% of the population... but I don't need studies or statistics... common sense tells me it's true because there are some REALLY dumb kids out there. There's an old saying, "Monkey see, monkey do." It's true. Not for the majority, but it only takes one person to get inspirtation from a game to go gun down people. It only takes one person to kill someone else, and that someone else could be someone I hold near and dear to my heart.

"This law will provide protection to retailers, publishers, and designers from lawsuits."

Not protection from having lawsuits filed against them, but it will help them win the suits. The parents of all the columbine victims sued the entire industry and lost, so common sense provails. In most courts, common sense will provail. The media only covers the frivious lawsuits that are won, which is rare. Most of them don't even get heard in court (and not because the case gets settled).

"This law will prevent children from buying any sort of violent videogames."

Oh of course not... some sorts sell cigarettes to kids. But at least with the law on the books MOST stores wouldn't, and getting the games would get harder.

bargora

04-18-2003, 07:17 PM

I'm afraid that I must coninue to make an ass out of u and me, Charlie. LOL

You start by saying that some small percentage of youngsters are going to imitate the violence in videogames, because it's only common sense. Well, anyone with common sense can tell you that the earth is flat, too!

Anyway, let us ASSUME that you are correct, and that some small number of violent acts will be CAUSED by playing violent videogames. Is this different from the small number of violent acts that will be caused by viewing violent movies or reading violent books or comics? Note that I am ASSUMING that other violent media cause violence as well. Common sense?

Oh, wait. You said that this is about videogames, not movies or books or comics. OK, so why ARE violent videogames different from other violent media? If you don't think that a valid analogy can be drawn between the different forms of violent media, I must assume that you believe they are fundamentally different, and so deserve different treatment. Please elaborate on your previous answer of "common sense".

Next, you assert that the law will help retailers, publishers, and designers win lawsuits (which is actually what I meant by "protection", as I didn't mean to imply that the law would preclude filing of suits). I'm not sure how it would do this, as the law only restricts games that depict violence against police. I think a much broader law (e.g., restricting all varieties of videogame violence) would have to be in place before a defendant could hope to successfully use the law as an additional argument that it is not to blame for the latest atrocity.

In short, I don't think this law will help the industry win lawsuits (except maybe those filed by police or their families).

As for your last point, I agree that the law would make it harder for kids under the age of 17 to purchase videogames that depict violence against police. I disagree that the law would reduce children's access to violent videogames in general, because that's not what the law restricts.

Charlie

04-18-2003, 07:26 PM

"Anyway, let us ASSUME that you are correct, and that some small number of violent acts will be CAUSED by playing violent videogames. Is this different from the small number of violent acts that will be caused by viewing violent movies or reading violent books or comics? Note that I am ASSUMING that other violent media cause violence as well. Common sense?"

Sure... and underaged people are already banned from R rated movies without a legal guardian present in this state, and in many other states. I guess I'm not understanding your argument, because you're pointing to things that are already off limits. There is a reason why violent games are blamed more then R rated movies when stuff like Columbine happens... because movies are moderated, and games aren't... or weren't at the time. It's slowly coming around now.

As for printed media, I don't think that has anything at all to do with video games. I'll save you the time and say that I think guides for M rated games should be off limits too, but I don't think anyone of any age should be banned from comic books that aren't pronographic in nature... those things actually require you to use your imagination... with movies and games, you see the thing happen on the TV and dumb children will try to reinact that. LOL, notice how when kids jump off the roof of their house trying to fly and break their leg, it's the TV and movie versions of Superman that are blamed and not the comic book.

bargora

04-18-2003, 07:54 PM

@ Charlie-- Oh--I didn't think that some states have laws that enforce the MPAA rating system. Are you sure about that? As far as I knew, laws attempting to do that have generally been found unconstitutional (because they effectively delegate governmental authority to a private organization). Please let me know if I am wrong (and what state you live in).

Regardless of whether states enforce an "R" rating, though, you haven't said why videogames are different and (more importantly) deserve different treatment from books and comics.

And since you didn't address my last two points, I must assume that on those issues a winner is me. :P

@ Achika, I agree that a parent can't police a child's every moment, but I don't think it's an excessive burden for a parent to at least take some interest in what the kid is playing for hour after hour on the family TV or computer. Of course, I realize that it might get a little harder when Sony releases the Gamestation X handheld system in 2012, which runs ports of GTA3 and Vice City...

Charlie

04-18-2003, 08:33 PM

Because in video games you're doing something other then watching. You're not watching Rambo gun down people, you are Rambo gunning down people. That's why video games are a different standard then movies, tv, and books. You take part in the violence. As for helping lawsuits, I'm talking about censorship in general will help win lawsuits... I already said that I believe this law doesn't go far enough.

"And since you didn't address my last two points, I must assume that on those issues a winner is me."

If you're serious then I will simply ignore you from now on... I thought I was talking to an adult but clearly I'm not... no wonder you're so concerned about the issue.

Actually, I think that anyone who is against this law or similar laws has to be under 18 because you seem way to offended by a law that doesn't affect you in any way.

Felixthegamer

04-18-2003, 09:56 PM

What's the point of a rating system? I thought it was supposed to eliminate this from happening in the first place. There are always going to be certain kids who get "adult" or violent games, laws or rating systems won't stop this. I could go either way on this. It doesn't seem entirely bad nor completely good.

Anonymous

04-19-2003, 03:12 AM

Personally, I don't care too much about the kid issue, because it doesn't have any relevance to me right now.

The reason I promote video game ratings that are enforceable is because that's what allowed movies to get violent and adultlike. Back in the day, when there was no ratings system. movies weren't even allowed to swear. After the ratings system was released, puportedly to protect the kids, it opened up a whole range of movies that could finally be made because of one simple thing.

When you create a definite line beyond which minors are not allowed, you also create a line beyond which adults can be adults. A ratings system is not constrictive, nor does it equate to censorship.

Charlie

04-19-2003, 04:04 AM

Good point. And like I said, the only people who should care about minors being banned from buying adult games are minors themseleves.

ManekiNeko

04-19-2003, 01:21 PM

Do you really think it's going to end here, though? The whiners demanded a voluntary rating system, and got it. They wanted more. The whiners demanded a MANDATORY rating system, and got it. They wanted more. Now they want gamers to be carded before they buy games. It's pretty obvious that even this won't make them happy. They'll just keep demanding more and more until all objectionable content is entirely removed from video games, because they're convinced this hobby is just for kids.

JR

Bratwurst

04-19-2003, 01:41 PM

Crazy kids, when will they learn?

Anonymous

04-19-2003, 08:44 PM

Yeah, Just like the whiners got all the bad language and violence banned from all the movies. No matter how hard you may try, you're never going to take away freedom of speech where media are concerned. Video games aren't going to be taken seriously until someone treats them seriously, and as long as we allow video games to be generalized as a children's medium without creating guidelines for children's content (and, by proxy, mature content), serious attention will not be given to interactive media as an art form. That is the most dangerous thing.

bargora

04-20-2003, 07:34 PM

Geez, Charlie. Yes, I was just kidding. I was just kidding in the sort of way like "if you can't or refuse to respond to the previous points, it must be because you just don't have any response worth posting."

Oh, and LOL

All right, so thank you for responding. So you say that video games are different from other media because you control the onscreen action. Or at least, you cause the onscreen avatar to do any of a number of things which have been made possible through the programmer's actions. I agree that there is a higher degree of identification there than in most movies. What about a movie shot from a first-person shooter perspective? Or a book written in the first person, describing despicable acts in detail. (Think "American Psycho") Well, I suppose that a video game can still provide a greater immersion factor. But enough that it needs to be censored? And that IS what you are endorsing. And since I'm one of those crazy people who don't like censorship, I'm leery of this proposal. See ManekiNeko's post above, 'cuz I agree with it.

I mean, all sorts of legislation is enacted for the CHIIIIILDREN. And anotherfluke, you say that a ratings system is needed for the industry to be taken seriously. Isn't there already a ratings system in place? Or do you mean that the government has to step in and decide who can see what before a medium can be taken seriously? Like that governmentally enforced ratings system for paintings?

Oh, and again, LOL

Anonymous

04-21-2003, 12:39 PM

What I'm saying that Ratings do not equal Censorship. Paintings and Texts were never considered a children's toy, but Movies were, and videogames are. And they stayed that way for a long time. The government created an organization that rates movies based on content, but it doesn't censor the movies.

Does a ratings system mean that certain movies will not be released in major theatres because they are too violent or controversial? Yes. Does the ratings system prevent those movies from being made? No.

People make movies for the love of making movies. People make games because they get paid. There are a few people who don't; I suspect Shigeru Miyamoto and Sid Meyer are in or near that crowd, but the right now videogames are a business. A business that is seen as 'for the kids'. Until there is a ratings system which allows mature, serious, non-'kiddie' titles to be released without parent's groups screaming bloody murder (which granted may never happen, but at least it's more likely with a government sanctioned ratings system. I don't need to tell you how many people will do something if the government says it's ok), video games will continue to be a 'business'.

And yes, Bargora, there is a ratings system in place right now, but it is not enforceable by law, it is only a guideline for parents. I'm not saying that we must have ratings, I'm just saying that allowing the government to set up a commission for video game ratings is kind of like the government saying 'yes this is something powerful enough that we feel the need to monitor it'. Things like Judge Limbaugh's blatant lack of knowledge of video games makes the fact that he has the ability to prevent their sales extremely scary. These guys refuse to accept the validity of video games as a serious form of entertainment because their acceptance would validate video games in the eyes of many people. A similar analogy would be NASA's refusal to publicly acknowledge Bill Kaysing's absurdist claims of a faked moon landing. To do so would instantly validate him in the eyes of the internet (and Fox's producers).

bargora

04-21-2003, 01:37 PM

I think I get the point you're making, fluke. You believe that the current ESRB ratings system is inadequate and that a governmentally imposed ratings system will be better for the retailers and the industry as a whole.

Before we go any further, though, I want to make one thing clear (becuase I'm not sure of your views on the matter based on your posts). The MPAA ratings system for motion pictures is entirely voluntary, and the MPAA is a private organization, not a governmental organization. Currently, there are no states or municipalities that enforce a governmental movie ratings system. Furthermore, there are no states or municipalities that legally enforce the MPAA ratings system, for example by fining theater owners who admit 16-year-olds to rated R movies without a parent.

I'm not sure that I agree with your generalization (about movies being made for love and videogames being made for money). Both movies and videogames (at least the big ones) take lots of money to make, so I would think that the makers of both types of media would be interested in recouping these significant outlays. I also think that we are much more likely to hear about moviemakers who make movies "for the love of movies" because (1) film is a more mainstream medium, (2) film is generally regarded as an artistic medium while videogames are not, (3) there are more filmmakers than videogame makers, and (4) the "underground" videogame movement is small and generally unnoticed (perhaps similar to the state of the "indie" film scene 20 years ago). By "underground" videogame production I mean both homebrew development for classic systems and small-market PC game productions. If you don't think that anybody makes videogames "for the love of videogames"...well, then I'm not sure why Koffi exists. (Must...remember...to buy...Koffi!!)

All right. But I think our main disagreement is that you think that a governmentally imposed (and enforced?) ratings system (A) will provide a better mechanism for (1) controlling the sale of mature-themed games to children and (2) giving videogames in general an air of legitimacy as a medium of artistic expression (at least I think that this is what you are saying), and (B) that the benefits of (1) and (2) will outweigh any possible chilling effect that a governmentally-imposed scheme may have on game development in general. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding you.

I agree that governmentally-created and -enforced ratings system would more effectively keep GTA3 out of the children's hands. If you mean what I say in (2) above (and I'm not just mistakenly setting up a straw man), then I don't think that getting the government involved will lend any greater legitimacy to videogames as a worthy medium of expression. In fact, I would think that it would be a stigma of sorts, as the government typically regulates dangerous "things", not ideas or expressions. Thus government control of videogames would be entirely in line with the unfortunate common perception of videogames as digital commodities, rather than expressive artforms.

Besides, I'm worried that once the politicians get through with the ratings system, the only violence we may have in videogames will be stuff like Ikaruga. Wait...maybe it wouldn't be that bad, after all!

Finally, I think that there would be a chilling effect on videogame production if a restrictive code were imposed by the government. I worry that it will result in the stunting of the medium (hard to conceive given the current juvenile state of things, but I have hope for the future). I can only point to the results of "the Code" imposed decades ago with respect to comics sales. While you could get graphic novels with mature themes as early as the late 80s, the imposition of the Code resulted in comics being "kiddie-ized" from its imposition (in the 50s?) through the 80s, when independent comics producers began to blow it off. If there is some obvious reason why a governmentally-imposed regulation of videogames would entirely avoid this sort of effect, well, give it to me (between the eyes, both barrels).

In short (and it's about time), I think that the detriments of government regulation will outweigh the benefits. I don't think that videogames are so dangerous that they need to be governmentally restricted like poisons (e.g., nicotine and alcohol), and yes, I am generally opposed to government regulation of ideas and speech. Color me liberal.

And, as always, LOL
And if you made it all the way through this post, then :drinking: \^_^/ IT'S MILLER TIME!!!11!

Anonymous

04-21-2003, 03:06 PM

You have some excellent points, Bargora. I hadn't considered the case of either the comics code, or the government regulation of "dangerous" things.

One of the reasons it is hard to find my point of view on these events is because I tried to keep my point of view out of it. I read the posts people make, and I reply with information and explanations that they may not have thought about. Personally, I don't want the government to regulate games. I can see how it probably looks that way, but the truth is, I think this can be an instance of the government protecting the Video Game Industry's right to make 'Sexy communist zombies IV' against the holier than thou groups. The only reason this is an issue is because games are seen as completely and utterly for kids. Along with the right to create Sexy Communist Zombies IV comes the right to make 'Schindlers List: the game' or some other serious treatment which can help to redefine what a video game can be. Yeah, 'Schindler's List: the game' sounds absurdist, but one day it may not be. I don't think we'll find out until we have a way to designate that it is not for children, and while I am fine with the ESRB, Joe Schmoe is not, so I have to appease him in order to get what I want, and I think the government will back me up on this. Or at least I hope it will.

One of your points about movies was that the MPAA and theatre orgs. for ratings are voluntary, and I do realize that, but they were placed there under heavy pressure from the governement in the 30's and 40's. Production studios did have fines levvied against them (remember the 'controversy' surrounding Gone With The Wind's "I don't give a damn" line, and the subsequent fines placed on David Selznick?) by the Hollywood Production Code, which actually was censorship (albeit self censorship). It was later replaced with the MPAA and the current ratings system, which allows for movies of all sorts to be made because they can be targeted to the appropriate audience. [EDIT: I just wanted to add that I think this is what happened in the Comics code too, except it was never removed ala the HPC]

While the ESRB and to some extent the ISDA help to avert a HPC debacle in the VG industry, I think that many people feel that a more stringent set of guidelines re: how and when a game can be marketed (not programmed, or developed, just marketed: similar to the marketing laws that took Joe Camel away, and similar to the stealth marketing techniques Nintendo Used with Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day). And I am ok with that, as long as it doesn't involve censoring the games. Hell, they can even make "TV" versions with bad language removed, I don't care, as long as the uncensored original is still there for me to play.

And btw, I think the homebrew market is slightly different. I didn't mean to say that there are no 'for the love of it' people in the VG industry, but in the movie industry, Large Studios have satelite groups like miramax and sony pictures classics devoted specifically to picking up the odd indie flick. There are things like that (treasure, EA's Fresh Games, etc.), but nothing specifically fosters alternative thought and independant development. There are no 'patrons of the game' so to speak.

Nature Boy

04-21-2003, 04:07 PM

The problem I have with this: "I don't think that videogames are so dangerous that they need to be governmentally restricted like poisons (e.g., nicotine and alcohol)"

...is that it's difficult to actually prove you're correct. Nicotine and alcohol, because of their nature, have an obvious cause/effect thing happening. Once you have to use the word psychology, well, we just don't have anyway to actually *prove* anything. Maybe they're not. But maybe they are dangerous.

I think what the industy needs to do the most is educate non gamers (i.e. the parents buying the stuff as gifts) about the ESRB. Hit them over the head with it. I swear I see parents buying games for kids and they don't even know it (the rating) exists. Maybe the ESRB's biggest problem was coming up with their own lettering system. Maybe they should've used "R" instead of "M". I wonder how many problems we'd've had if that were the case.

bargora

04-21-2003, 04:30 PM

I see what you're saying, fluke. I think that in time, even without governmental intervention, the ESRB ratings system would become better understood by the public, and that the public at large would become aware of videogames as being more than a child's medium. Part of it could come about through advertising and marketing. Part of it might come about because eventually enough groundbreaking and artistic games would have enough commercial success to finally puncture through the public's idea of what videogames are or can be. And eventually, the rulemakers and legislators will be people who have personally eaten Inky, Blinky, Pinky and Clyde or gunned down granny in Liberty City.

But it looks like there's a lot of demand that something be done now.

I understand what you're saying about a more publicized or rigid ratings system possibly providing the industry with the freedom to produce "mature rated" media, too. It doesn't have to work out like it did under the Comics Code. But I guess I'm unsure that it would work out as well as it has for movies, either.

I think that in large part it will depend on whether the distribution channels remain open under a new or more rigidly enforced ratings system. Whereas under the Hays Code, the studios themselves refrained from producing movies with mature content, under the Comics Code it simply became impossible to get your comic distributed if it didn't carry the seal. Right now Wal-Mart carries GTA3 and Vice City, and maybe its clerks even card kids trying to buy them sometimes. If the government puts in a ratings system AND imposes fines for retailer violations, I could easily imagine Wal-Mart simply refusing to carry such games. Isn't that what happened to certain musical recordings when Tipper Gore and the PMRC took an interest in certain rap recordings? If nobody will carry your mature game, then there's not a whole lot of incentive to make it, and maybe it would be better to just make Mario Kart 10.

Really, I don't know what would happen. I said that I don't know if a new ratings system for games would work out "as well" as it has for movies, but if you think about it, when was the last time you saw a NC-17 movie playing at your local theater?

Edit: Oh, and NatureBoy, I agree 100% that the IDSA and ESRB need to step up and publicize the hell out of the ratings system, because you're right--it doesn't seem like many people know about it. I mean, it's gonna be hard, since a lot of adults are still sorting out that whole "Gamestation" vs. "Nbox" thing, but they gotta try harder.

And as far as psychology, well, psychologists do studies all the time, and if there were some solid studies that showed a high probability that Vice City was REALLY SUPER DANGEROUS BAD FOR KIDS, well, then maybe I'd be a little less resistant to the idea of putting governmentally imposed restrictions in place. I mean, if psychologists aren't doing studies, what the hell are they doing? LOL

Cheese

04-21-2003, 04:40 PM

Along with the right to create Sexy Communist Zombies IV comes the right to make 'Schindlers List: the game' or some other serious treatment which can help to redefine what a video game can be.

I would hope you don't play as the German Commander! Although...

To borrow a good slogan:
http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/images/prop%20posters/prohibition-sm.jpg

Today violence on cops, tomorrow violence on animals, next week violence on inanimate carbon rods. Restricting (man that's a scary word) games because 2% of the population is allergic to seeing images of violence is like banning peanuts because some people are allergic to them, Hell, peanuts can more directly KILL you, and a lot more then 2% are allergic to them!

This law, like those on porn, have always boggled my mind How bizarre is it that our American culture runs rampant with images of death and destruction while images of people nude are hidden behind plastic bags and in sock drawers? Sure TJ Hooker can shoot the bad guy in the face, but a pair of titties will bring twist Timmys soul. How long will it take until GTA3 is sold in a plain brown rapper behind the counter out of Timmys sight? Yeah, that'll be great for sales.

http://www.idsa.com/pressroom.html

The average video gamer player is 28. 90% of games are bought by people over 18. This isn't a law to protect children, as much as Mary Lou Dickerson may have deluded herself that it is. This is step one in a tug of war, 1950's conservatism "family values" on one side, and the radical beliefs of our founding fathers on the other. Pat Boone vs. George Washington.

If they were worried about kids they should be worried about other harmful things in games, such as say in Zelda, WindWaker. Here you got a kid running off on his own, carrying a sword and killing the neighbors dog! Or any game where characters fly, they used to go after Marvel and DC when kids jumped off roofs, will they go after games the next time some moron takes a leap? I'll bet you $100 they do. In the 40's parents blamed jazz music for their wild teens, in the 50's it was rock and roll, in the 60's it was specifically the Beatles, then hippies, in the seventies and 80's it was movies and then TV, now in the 90's and ought it's video games. To quote David Cross, "What were the violent video games the nazi's were playing?"

"These video games are awful," said Sen. Dale Brandland, R-Bellingham, a former sheriff of Whatcom County. "It's not just violence against police officers. You've got rape, you've got murder of prostitutes."

What game has RAPE in it?
At least in America, I know there's that Japanese rape/fighting game (can anyone post a link to that one for me, I can't seem to find it, there was a pretty funny review of it a while back.) but I can't think of one here.

Anonymous

04-21-2003, 04:55 PM

Too true re: the NC-17 moniker (aka the kiss of death). One thing that worries me is that some things (*cough*porn*cough*) will never be taken seriously, but I don't think those industries want to be taken seriously. The other thing to keep in mind here is that although the issue here is a little bit censorship, a little bit morality, and a dash of pride, the video game companies themselves are the ones who do the most censorship. This is of course less true for american (and by proxy PC) game developers, but many game companies simply don't see the need for blood, guts, and cuss words in their games.

I would totally be down with giving the ESRB some serious marketing cash and/or converting it to the MPAA standard of ratings. I think if parents saw what kinds of games would get by with a PG or PG13 rating (pretty much everything shy of GTA3), they would begin to realize how little of an impact video games have in our mediacentric (and violence-happy) society. And I think the industry would see how many games have really NOT taken that step to be a little more serious in their work.

I think we need to really start worrying when NBC produces some "The More you know" segments with some burnt out actor working off their debt to society by telling us to 'Please. Game Responsibly'.

Brought to you by the committee for responsible gaming. If you think you or someone you know has a gaming problem, please call 1-800-INSERTCOIN today.

Kid Fenris

04-21-2003, 05:53 PM

What game has RAPE in it?

Some games make reference to it (Final Fantasy Tactics) or use imagery to suggest similar acts (Xenosaga), but I'm hard pressed to come up with an EB-sold game that actually depicts rape, much less one that allows the player to carry it out. Methinks Brandland is getting his information from the same place as the congressman's site which insisted that Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball lets players make the girls topless and control the sizes of their breasts. Such informed lawmakers we have.

At least in America, I know there's that Japanese rape/fighting game (can anyone post a link to that one for me, I can't seem to find it, there was a pretty funny review of it a while back.) but I can't think of one here.

That review can be found over at Something Awful (http://www.somethingawful.com/hentai/), along with reviews of other X-rated games. Needless to say, it's not for the kids.

This gives me a nice segue into a related query: the regulation of games in Japan. Since the Japanese gaming market has far more adult-oriented releases than the American industry, what stops Japanese kids from buying Fluffy Magical Midnight Mansion Tentacle Violator 2? Perhaps someone knowledgeable about Japanese society can answer this for me. Where's Kobunheatforum when you need him?