No more GTA for the under 18's in Illinois!

[CLB1110]

But what if the law gets passed? Then what would even be the point of ESRB? To tell you what games are bad even though you can tell by the screenshots of the cover? All im saying is what is the point of ESRB telling you that a game is bad if there is a law saying its too bad for a minor to buy?

[Peregrine]

But what if the law gets passed? Then what would even be the point of ESRB? To tell you what games are bad even though you can tell by the screenshots of the cover? All im saying is what is the point of ESRB telling you that a game is bad if there is a law saying its too bad for a minor to buy?

 

Congratulations, you've just discovered this thing called "politics", and taken the first steps to losing your innocent view of the world. Look a little closer and you'll also see a thing called "lack of responsibility", in which everyone blames someone else for everything that's bad, and passes pointless laws to hand the responsibility over to anyone they can find.

 

The entire purpose is to buy votes with a "see, we're doing something" law that sounds good in theory, and makes nice speech material. This law already has zero connection to reality, the fact that the ESRB ratings are completely voluntary just makes it even more pointless. Yep, that violent game with a little icon on the box is going to corrupt childrens minds, but take the icon off and it's perfectly ok to sell.

 

Clearly the solution is to ban rating icons, since they are responsible for turning children into murderers!

[Zmid]

But what if the law gets passed? Then what would even be the point of ESRB? To tell you what games are bad even though you can tell by the screenshots of the cover? All im saying is what is the point of ESRB telling you that a game is bad if there is a law saying its too bad for a minor to buy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, over here, anything that doesn't have a BBFC certificate has a PEGI rating, which are guidelines for the benefit of consumers. They have zero basis in law, so if a shop breaks them, there's zero consequences, but the theory behind them is that they allow consumers (most especially parents) to have some idea of what level of violence/swearing/whatever else is in the games before they buy them. However, in practice, fairly often, they may as well not exist, as, even when parents do actually see them and pay attention to them, sometimes they are inaccurate and sometimes even contradict each other.

 

As far as introducing this law in the US goes, if this were to go ahead everywhere, I would say either have the ESRB as the US equivalent of the PEGI system, or scrap it altogether. I would also say have a group that is as independant and impartial as possible in charge of deciding what game gets what rating under this new law.

 

Yep, that violent game with a little icon on the box is going to corrupt childrens minds, but take the icon off and it's perfectly ok to sell.

 

You're looking at this arse about face. You're saying 'Is it right to not sell these games to minors simply because they have these little icons on them?' I look at it as 'Should games like Manhunt be sold to children?'. I would say that the answer is 'not without the express consent of their parents'. How do you implement some kind of system that prevents the sale of these games to minors without the consent of their parents? You give each game an age rating, then put an icon on the box saying what the rating of the game is, then make it illegal to sell the game to anyone under that age.

[Peregrine]

Yep, that violent game with a little icon on the box is going to corrupt childrens minds, but take the icon off and it's perfectly ok to sell.

 

You're looking at this arse about face. You're saying 'Is it right to not sell these games to minors simply because they have these little icons on them?' I look at it as 'Should games like Manhunt be sold to children?'. I would say that the answer is 'not without the express consent of their parents'. How do you implement some kind of system that prevents the sale of these games to minors without the consent of their parents? You give each game an age rating, then put an icon on the box saying what the rating of the game is, then make it illegal to sell the game to anyone under that age.

 

The point is that it's a stupid law, since the rating system isn't a mandatory one, and isn't even government run. Manhunt would be perfectly legal to sell if they take the icon off the box, and there's nothing the government could do to stop it. And because it's not government-run, you're depending on the honesty of the publishers to rate their products accurately.

 

And the basic problem with the whole concept is that you're getting the government involved for no reason. Remember this often-forgotten thing called responsibility? There's a much easier way for parents to keep their kids from playing games they don't like. It's called "stop being lazy and take some responsibility". All they have to do is pay attention to what their kids are doing, and the games won't be an issue.

 

With the game --> violence connection proven false, the government has no business getting involved. There's no benefit to society, and this is a clear case of the governemtn taking too much authority.

[Dark0ne]

Just have it how the films are done, how cigarettes are done, how alcohol is done and I won't mind.

[Peregrine]

Just have it how the films are done, how cigarettes are done, how alcohol is done and I won't mind.

 

Bad example. Film ratings are just as stupid a law, as those ratings are voluntary as well. Most films use them, but an unrated film can have whatever contents its producers want and anyone can go see it regardless of age.

 

And alcohol and cigarettes are completely different, as they have clear health risks. Violent games do not.

[Dark0ne]

Bad example. Film ratings are just as stupid a law, as those ratings are voluntary as well. Most films use them, but an unrated film can have whatever contents its producers want and anyone can go see it regardless of age.

 

I've never seen such a thing happen, have you?

[Zmid]

The point is that it's a stupid law, since the rating system isn't a mandatory one, and isn't even government run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Assuming this law is enforced in much the same way as our UK law, this law would make it a mandatory sytem. If it isn't done this way, then, yes, I agree with you, it makes no sense to have this law. As for it being government run, IMO, the government is not the best organisation to run it, as they can be influenced by, for example, giving a particular game a high rating if they think it will win them votes at the next election.

 

Manhunt would be perfectly legal to sell if they take the icon off the box, and there's nothing the government could do to stop it.

 

...unless they do it the same way as over here, where, if a BBFC rated game goes out on the shelves without a rating icon, the publisher is liable for prosecution.

 

And because it's not government-run, you're depending on the honesty of the publishers to rate their products accurately.

 

...unless, as I said, they have a group that is as independant and impartial as possible deciding if a game gets a rating and what rating it gets.

 

And the basic problem with the whole concept is that you're getting the government involved for no reason. Remember this often-forgotten thing called responsibility? There's a much easier way for parents to keep their kids from playing games they don't like. It's called "stop being lazy and take some responsibility". All they have to do is pay attention to what their kids are doing, and the games won't be an issue.

 

As I've already written both earlier on in this thread and in another, what happens if the child buys the game? If he/she knows their parents would never let them have the game, unless their parents give them zero privacy and act almost Nazi-like, then it is quite possible the child would be able to buy the game without their parents knowledge, and quite possibly have it for quite a few days/weeks/months before their parents discover this.

 

I'm not normally in support of laws that restrict people's freedoms, but, in this case, I would simply not like to think that my nieces and nephews, who are all under 10, would be able to get their hands on games like Manhunt, so I am in support of this one. It isn't perfect, but I can't think of a better workable system.

 

With the game --> violence connection proven false, the government has no business getting involved. There's no benefit to society, and this is a clear case of the governemtn taking too much authority.

 

No, in this case, I would say it's a case of the law helping parents to take care of their kids. Remember, if the parent so decides, he/she can totally disregard this law and buy these games and give them to their kids. If this law made even that illegal, then I would be agreeing with you.

[Morbid_Pathologist]

i've noticed that racing games also have an affect on young kids, my cousin who is 8 years of age was playing need for speed, he started to run around the house with a toy car hitting people with it so it would look all smashed up, so i decided to make him play a more violent game, loaded up command and conquer (original) and he ran around the house thinking hes a commando...so i decided to try something more drastic, loaded up GTA3, now he thinks he can hi-jack cars and fly planes...so i stopped him from playing games...he becomes the biggest pain in the ass.

I guess it all comes down to the way parents raise the kid, whether the child can distinguish fantasy from reality.

[Peregrine]

Bad example. Film ratings are just as stupid a law, as those ratings are voluntary as well. Most films use them, but an unrated film can have whatever contents its producers want and anyone can go see it regardless of age.

 

I've never seen such a thing happen, have you?

 

You don't pay much attention I guess. I've seen plenty of films in the newspaper listings labeled "unrated" but with various notes about things that would make them over 18 only if they participated in the rating system. It's always the smaller film companies, but the point is it's a major loophole in a stupid law.

Assuming this law is enforced in much the same way as our UK law, this law would make it a mandatory sytem. If it isn't done this way, then, yes, I agree with you, it makes no sense to have this law. As for it being government run, IMO, the government is not the best organisation to run it, as they can be influenced by, for example, giving a particular game a high rating if they think it will win them votes at the next election.

 

Then if the government can't run it, it can't be mandatory. I refuse to accept the idea of giving a private organization government powers.

...unless they do it the same way as over here, where, if a BBFC rated game goes out on the shelves without a rating icon, the publisher is liable for prosecution.

 

I'm talking about just refusing to submit the game for rating. Fortunately in the US, you can still get away with ignoring the opinion of a private ratings organization.

 

..unless, as I said, they have a group that is as independant and impartial as possible deciding if a game gets a rating and what rating it gets.

 

That's hopeless idealism. Giving an organization power and saying "please be impartial forever" is just asking for problems.

 

As I've already written both earlier on in this thread and in another, what happens if the child buys the game? If he/she knows their parents would never let them have the game, unless their parents give them zero privacy and act almost Nazi-like, then it is quite possible the child would be able to buy the game without their parents knowledge, and quite possibly have it for quite a few days/weeks/months before their parents discover this.

 

If the parents care about what games their children are playing, it is their responsibility to pay attention and deal with it. Not the government's. If they don't want to reduce their kids' freedoms so much, then they can just accept the risk of playing violent games and quit whining about it.

 

I'm not normally in support of laws that restrict people's freedoms, but, in this case, I would simply not like to think that my nieces and nephews, who are all under 10, would be able to get their hands on games like Manhunt, so I am in support of this one. It isn't perfect, but I can't think of a better workable system.

 

Then deal with it. Lock up the consoles and only let them be used with supervision, give them a non-admin computer account so they can't install games. The better system is for parents to take some responsibility instead of expecting the government to protect them from everything they don't want to see.

 

No, in this case, I would say it's a case of the law helping parents to take care of their kids. Remember, if the parent so decides, he/she can totally disregard this law and buy these games and give them to their kids. If this law made even that illegal, then I would be agreeing with you.

 

Fortunately in the US we have this thing called a constitution. It might get ignored a lot, but it gives the government limited powers. And being a third parent is not one of them.

 

=========================================

Ive noticed that racing games also have an affect on young kids, my cousin who is 8 years of age was playing need for speed, he started to run around the house with a toy car hitting people with it so it would look all smashed up, so i decided to make him play a more violent game, loaded up command and conquer (original) and he ran around the house thinking hes a commando...so i decided to try something more drastic, loaded up GTA3, now he thinks he can hi-jack cars and fly planes...so i stopped him from playing games...he becomes the biggest pain in the ass.

I guess it all comes down to the way parents raise the kid, whether the child can distinguish fantasy from reality.

 

 

He's a kid. Kids play, and pretend to be things they aren't. But there's a huge difference between running around playing commando and getting a real gun and killing real people. Even most kids can tell the difference, and if you can't, you shouldn't be anywhere you could have power over kids.