Obviously I am quite terrified by the prospect of not being able to play violent games anymore as should you.
People who support this law do it for reasons like I suppose it is teaching our kids violent things even though there is no research to back this up. Most people polled said they would give the industry a negative rating.
" These responses seem contrary to findings from the Federal Trade Commission: In November, a report from the FTC stated that "The electronic game industry continues to have the strongest self-regulatory code," and that "compliance with [that] code was high in all media."
Also if the law does pass then the states of Connecticut,Florida,Hawaii,Illinois which is where I live,Louisiana,Maryland,Michigan,Minnesota,Mississippi,Texas, and Virginia will also try to pass similar laws.
People against the law claim that it violates the first amendment.
I would love to know what you think so post some stuff about it.
This is from the article in Game Informer
"We think government efforts should be focused on joining with us to ensure greater understanding and use of our system,because it's the parents-not the government,and not the gaming industry-that should make decisions about what games are suitable for their children"
Once again please place your thoughts below and explain why you think it should be a law or not.
I certainly think there are a number of video games that a person under the age of 18 should not have access. I do not agree with EXTREME censorship, but I do agree with shielding some of the nonsense from kids.
So, depending on the principals of this proposed law, I'd have to see them.
Well of course. I myself don't think a 13 year old should be playing an M rated game but I still think it should be up to the parents to decide.
If you believe a minor should not play an M rated game, then why should the parents decide anything? The game is still M rated, and still just as violent.
Sorry, I should of clarified my stance. I don't think a game should be stopped being sold to minors purely because it features weapons or something. I do however feel that if it contains enough blood, gore, violence or swearing then it should be sold as 18+. It doesn't mean that minors can't play the game - just that the parents have to buy it and have to choice of whether it is suitable for their child or not.
If you believe a minor should not play an M rated game, then why should the parents decide anything? The game is still M rated, and still just as violent.
Just because I don't think so doesn't mean someone else might think it's okay. I wasn't able to play M rated games till a year or two ago. Sure I don't think that kids should play Really violent games but I don't think that we should chose. It should be the parents decision if they want there kids to play a game or not.
"We think government efforts should be focused on joining with us to ensure greater understanding and use of our system,because it's the parents-not the government,and not the gaming industry-that should make decisions about what games are suitable for their children"
Avorne, I'm leaning towards the same ideals as you about this.
9 times out of 10 I think the parent is suitable to decide what is okay and not okay for their children. And most games could be handled in this way. There are a few out there that no one under 18 should play. Manhunt, is one of those, in my opinion.
Yes, I agree - that was certainly a video game that inspired violent (and in one case fatal) actions in minors. It's hard to say whether than was a one-off incident or not though and so I'll keep that out of my 'video games increase violent behaviour' argument. Actually, I'd like to change my argument and say that certain video games can inspire certain minors to commit certain violent actions - not all minors of course but there is still a risk.
Holt - it isn't really taking any freedom away - you're still free to own and play the game. It merely means that your parents (who would in all likelyhood pay for the game anyway) have to be present and make the decision as to whether you can have the game.
What I was pointing out, is that you had opposing beliefs. You wrote earlier that you do not think a 13 year old should play an M rated game. Then you turned around to say that you felt a parent should decide.
Holt - it isn't really taking any freedom away - you're still free to own and play the game. It merely means that your parents (who would in all likelyhood pay for the game anyway) have to be present and make the decision as to whether you can have the game.
Sure but it has been speculated that many game stores will stop selling games that are violent so they won't accedently sell it to a minor and have a 1000$ fee.
Avorne, I have read some psychology journals on this. Those that I read concluded that violent children are attracted to violent video games. It does not work in reverse.
Which, I agree with for the most part. You have to already enjoy violence to want to purchase a violent video game. But, I am sure that newer violence shown to an already violent kid will encourage him to act out.
What I was pointing out, is that you had opposing beliefs. You wrote earlier that you do not think a 13 year old should play an M rated game. Then you turned around to say that you felt a parent should decide.
So, which is it?
Allow me to clarify. I don't think that a kid should play an M rated game but I also don't think it's my decision it should be the parents.
Sure but it has been speculated that many game stores will stop selling games that are violent so they won't accedently sell it to a minor and have a 1000$ fee.
Let's look at a country that already has restrictions on selling certain games - England. They ask for proof of age before selling you a game - too young and they won't sell you it. The shelves are still stacked with 'violent' games. I don't see the problem.
Holt, your parents would be purchasing it, not yourself. Or whomever your legal guardian is.
An example would be one of the drinking laws in Texas. A minor is allowed to drink in a restaurant as long as they are accompanied by their legal guardian. However, the owner of the establishment is not required to serve that minor.
Ahh, I've just looked through some of my old Psychology notes and this actually came up. You're right Asherlee - several studies have been carried out (with the same basic hypothesis and research method) which do confirm what you say - there's even some nice quantitative data to back it up.
Let's look at a country that already has restrictions on selling certain games - England. They ask for proof of age before selling you a game - too young and they won't sell you it. The shelves are still stacked with 'violent' games. I don't see the problem.
and you think people don't break those laws by using fake IDs
