OMG Stupid! Write your congressman!

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:55 pm

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/592/592861p1.html

Now video game makers are to be responsible for people using their product as an excuse for violence? This is possibly the stupidest thing I've read in 2005. And I've read some stupid shiat!

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:18 pm

It's a state Bill from Washington state (which will probably die in committee). Either way, it wouldn't apply outside of Washington state.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:34 pm

erg.. that's bad law in the making. It's too vague and leaves a wide berth for interpertation. Nice way to further clog the courts.

Personally, I tend to agree with the guy, but... laws like this are a bad idea. Lables and rating schemes are fine and a good idea as most parents are out of the loop when it comes to games thier content. Any media company, whether its games, TV shows, movies, books, magazines, are responsible for its content and ideas conveyed and implied. People on the whole are stupid and will believe a lot of crappola. Discretion would be the best, although seems to be completely absent from anything main stream.

I would not have agreed with this when I was 15 or 16, but now a 40 year old parent, my opinions have moderated a good deal.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:27 pm

I think it is a horrible bill. I feel that as a society we have got to stop legislating responsiblily for kids behavior away from them and their parents.

There is no way in hell that my kid is going to own a video game, book, movie, or anything else that I don't know about and approve of.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:02 pm

if I had the time, I might call up a state senator or somebody and complain.

Only, if you've read the "Homeless Insanity" thread, you know I've got better things to complain about.

Phoenix Red · Post by **Phoenix Red** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:29 pm

"If you sit up and watch this and play these games over and over again... it seems that this is alright to walk up and hit a police officer over the head with a bat."

HAH

Learn to love the rating system folks, it's there for a reason.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:14 pm

Stupid people give me a headache. After reading that news article I got a migrane out of this world.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:06 am

When did they let mental patients become senators?

Samuel Dravis · Post by **Samuel Dravis** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:24 am

Ferno wrote:When did they let mental patients become senators?

Because they're the only ones that will take the job. :p

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 12:45 am

Ferno wrote:When did they let mental patients become senators?

Probably around the same time they let a test tube reject become president.

SolidAir · Post by **SolidAir** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:06 am

And I've read some stupid shiat!

that DBB...

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:51 am

In other stupid video game censorship news, here's an article I linked to recently. Consider this an enlightening reminder of the mentality of the video game industry's most staunch critics.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/ ... 6446.shtml

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:59 am

So videogame violence is bad, but it's perfectly okay to see people getting blown up on the 6:00 news..

SolidAir · Post by **SolidAir** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:16 am

People do not get blown up on the 6:00 news.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:42 am

Not on a daily basis, but in other daily news they just get shot, stabbed, mugged, carjacked, kidnapped, raped, hospitalized...but that's ok because now it's time for the weekly weather and sports reports

I don't watch the news because it is an information medium that informs me on things I already know about or WILL know about eventually anyways. Violent video games or music will make me go out and kill people just as much as the local news program would, never.

I'm sick and tired of reading about people blaming these mediums that, for the rest of us, are releases and outlets from our everyday lives. These things don't twist individuals into psychotics. IMVHO they were already psychotic or on the road to becoming one before they ever put their hands on a controller, a pair of headphones, or a tv remote.

When are people going to realize that these things don't encourage people to actively live out what they hear, see, or interact with. That the parents of these people are not victims, but a guilty party that has failed in teaching their children basics such as right and wrong. Failed in identifying that their child may have some serious issues that, unless they are treated, could become potentially harmful to themselves or to others down the line.

These types of people don't just wake up one day and decide they're going to kill somebody based on the influence from an outside medium. The sad thing is I don't have much faith in our lawmaking process nor do I have much faith in the courts. Everything is done for personal gain under the guise of justice. Trust me...it will get a lot worse before it gets any better.

I just wonder when we'll all start saying that enough is enough and force the system designed to work FOR us to start putting some focus back onto personal responsibility. We all have free will, no outside source can force us to do anything. Ultimately we have the choice to do or not to do something. The fact that a murderer should not be held accountable is asinine. We are all solely responsible for our actions.

but, anything to shift the blame, drag out court proceedings and line Ye olde pocket books. God bless America

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:16 am

Duper wrote:erg.. that's bad law in the making. It's too vague and leaves a wide berth for interpertation. Nice way to further clog the courts.

Personally, I tend to agree with the guy, but... laws like this are a bad idea. Lables and rating schemes are fine and a good idea as most parents are out of the loop when it comes to games thier content. Any media company, whether its games, TV shows, movies, books, magazines, are responsible for its content and ideas conveyed and implied. People on the whole are stupid and will believe a lot of crappola. Discretion would be the best, although seems to be completely absent from anything main stream.

I would not have agreed with this when I was 15 or 16, but now a 40 year old parent, my opinions have moderated a good deal.

i disagree. you are saying that people can't - and shouldn't need to be able to - tell an idea from a good idea.
the way i see it, in our society the ability to tell a good idea from a bad idea is one of the prerequisites for being SANE.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:16 pm

Yeah, but one persons good idea is another persons bad idea. It doesn't make the people with the bad ideas bad, it just means they shouldn't be making decisions for the rest of us

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:14 pm

Weird coincidence, but the guy who does the web comic Ctrl+Alt+Del was asked to do a Q&A session about this very same subject matter for CBS News. It's a little more elaborate then what I posted, but generally follows the same form of thinking that most of us share. I highlighted the questions from the CBS correspondent.

Tim Buckley Q&A wrote:What constitutes violence in video games?

The same things that constitute violence in real life constitute violence in video games. Blood and gore, for instance, is just as much violence in a video game as it is in real life. However there is a psychological difference with video games, in knowing that, just as in movies, what is happening on the screen is not real, and is stylized and even exaggerated.

What percentage of all games made would you say are violent, based upon your previous definition of violence in video games?

I would say that easily at least half of all video games could be classified to contain some sort of violence. Even the original Mario game features Mario stomping on the head of goombas. I'm sure that, while not bloody or gory, could be construed as a form of violence.

How many hate or violent crimes would you say are linked to or directly related to violence in video games?

Very, very few. I think it may seem like more just because the ones that are in any way related to a video game get so much publicity, it gives us the impression that it's a constant issue, an epidemic even.

Does age or sex play a factor in violent, aggressive behavior?

I'm sure that males are more prone to aggression than females, and younger people may not have the life experience necessary to properly differentiate between right and wrong. But this is the case with everything growing up. Nobody is born knowing right from wrong. That is something that is taught. Parents either teach it to their kids the right way, or ignore their kids and let television and video games do it for them.

Is there a correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent manner?

I don't believe so. I think that if someone plays a video game, and then goes out and harms another human being, or themselves because of what they just saw in the video game, they were screwed up in the head long before they got their hands on a controller. In my profession I have met thousands and thousands of gamers, all of whom have played the same type of violent video games that I have, and we've managed not to kill each other.

Is gaming escapism?

Gaming absolutely is escapism, in the exact same way that a book is. It allows you to be someone else, to go on adventures and experiences that you would never be able to do on your own, and to do some from the comfort and safety of your own home. And I also feel that it is a healthy way to relieve some natural stress and aggression, in the same way a punching bag would be. If you had a bad day at work, better to come home and let loose in a video game than to let loose on your friends and relatives.

Do you think the interactivity of game violence makes it different than violence on television, which is passive?

I think that violence is violence, and that if someone doesn't have the capacity to differentiate between real life and fiction, that they have a problem that precedes their exposure to violence in the media.

Different mediums, as they've come along, have had their share of controversy. From pulp horror, graphic novels, to movies, music and television; is this part of a cycle?

It most certainly is part of the cycle. People will find any reason they can get their hands on to shift possible blame off of themselves.

Is the self-imposed rating system for video games enough? Is the ESRB working? What is the relevance of a rating system for video games if the powers that be will black-list certain games because of their graphic content?

As with any rating system, it's only as good as the people who enforce it. There is no "magic system" that will automatically keep mature games out of the hands of kids. If we put an "Adults Only" tag on a video game, but then the parent still goes out and buys it for their child, or the store clerk still sells it to a minor, nobody turns and yells at the parent, or fires the store clerk. That same parent will even turn around and attack the video game companies for putting out a violent game, when it was their own ignorance that placed it into the hands of their child

How does free speech factor in?

I think that free speech should cover video games as well. Quite simply, the free speech amendment states that people have the right to speak their mind, and if someone else doesn't like what they are hearing, they have the right not to listen. So how is it different for video games?

Video game companies have the right to make the games that they feel are entertaining, and if a parent or someone else doesn't want to play it, or doesn't want their kids to have it, they have the simple choice not to buy it. It's really not terribly difficult to keep an eye on what your kid is playing, or doing with their life.

If your kid gets his hands on a game that he shouldn't be playing, you take it away and discipline him. But some parents just can't be bothered with raising their own child. They expect others to simply stop producing things that they feel their child shouldn't be playing, instead of regulating the child's behavior.

Are parents paying attention to what their kids play?

Some do, certainly. Not all of them do. And the ones that don't are the first ones to start crying when they've found out their kid has gotten a hold of a violent video game, or heaven forbid, that they've bought one for their child themselves.

Do you think that video games are similar to sports? There are much-touted statistics that link aggression levels to video game playing, but isn't that precisely what happens in any kind of competition?

The goal of any competition is to win.

We hear stories about football players getting drunk, doing drugs, raping girls at parties, injuring people in bars, etc. But I don't hear anyone suggesting that we ban high school football. Aggression is part of competition sometimes. Most people can separate competitive aggression from using aggression to solve trivial problems. Some people can't, and you'll find these people in any hobby imaginable, not just video games. I'm sure that at one point or another a golfer snapped and beat someone to death with a 7-iron.

Let's ban golf, shall we?

According to the Center for Child Death Review, 1,242 kids were murdered with guns and 174 children died from accidental firearm-related injuries in 2000. Aside from stories that get covered in the news [like Columbine], there are few, if any, actual statistics that show how many children's deaths are directly linked to video games. Do the facts speak for themselves? Or is it just that nobody is really keeping tabs?

I don't think that there are very many deaths that are directly linked to video games. However, in any violent instance that does arise, if there is even a video game system in the ROOM, the media will jump to point out that the violence must be somehow related. Or the parents will, out of reluctance to admit that perhaps it was a lack of attention or shoddy supervision that lead to a tragedy.

Where does the accountability lie? Are parents responsible for their children's behavior? Society?

There will always be a scapegoat.

Comic books, movies, video games, whatever. People will find any reason that they can to make it someone or something else's fault.

I think that bad parenting has a lot to do with it. Parents who don't pay attention to what their child is doing, or can't be bothered with taking some time out of their own lives to keep tabs on their kids. Parents who want television to raise their kids for them. But that's not to say that perfect parenting is the answer either.

It's entirely possible that even in the most loving, attentive family possible, a child could have some sort of learning defect, or other abnormality that wouldn't allow him to properly differentiate reality from fantasy, or right from wrong. There are so many factors that need to be taken into account, but to say that video games are the sole culprit is irresponsible and naive.

And to deny everyone, all of us who do know the difference between video games and reality, when parents could simply moderate their child's video games on a case-by-case basis as they saw fit, is completely ridiculous.

CBS Article

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:26 pm

There's a program right now on CBS 60 Minutes about Grand Theft Auto. Its not a game, its a killing simulator. Devan Moore is a criminal because a video game made him.

Typical sensationalist trash. Never blame the criminal, always find a scapegoat.

Edit: Now they show a "study" how a teenager who "rehearses violent acts" can lead a violent life and how someone who may not turn to violence because they dont have as many "risk" factors.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:24 pm

Tyr, not exactly a "coincidence" -- that's the same set of questions as in kyouryuu's article, and not surprisingly, his article said they were going to interview the Ctrl-Alt-Del guy a week later. Looks like you found the week later article ;)

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 11:23 pm

heh, I didn't follow up on any of the links posted here. The only reason I came across that is because I read Ctrl+Alt+Del regularly and just happend to read his news post today which linked to his interview.

EDIT: Holy crap, just followed up on that first article and WOW, what a loon. I got through about 4 paragraphs and had to close the window because his opportunistic extremism was giving me a headache. I hate activists. They all need to be shot, GTA style

No, seriously...

BigSlideHimself · Post by **BigSlideHimself** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:56 am

What's really at stake here? I'm actually curious. The article glazes over government intervention, but is that the reality? As far as I know there's been no government tinkering with games (ESRB aside). Anyone know how close any of these threats are to fruition (in terms of bills in transit)?

I just remember a couple years ago when Joe Lieberman was on the board that told Hollywood to "cleanup or we'll do it for you" that blew up in his face. Is it expected that screwing around with game companies will have a different result?

Then again, the vid game industry is pretty small in terms of the entertainment industry as a whole (I read somewhere that vid games do 10 billion a year whereas movies do 180 billion and books 23 billion) so I wonder if the game industry has the clout to fight off Big Bro if that is a very real possibility.

Overall, I like the debate. I think it's opened alot of parents eyes to what they're kids are doing. Vid games are new to these old timers. They know to keep their kids from R flicks and porno mags but up until the big debate started most didn't have a clue what their kids were playing.

Even still, there will always be those parents who let their kids play whatever (same kids that read porno mags and watch R flicks).

I like the interview with the game guy. Alot of times these interviews are with extremists on either side, and I don't think that helps the vid game case too much. You have to concede some things, and let's face it, we're a pretty biased segment here on this videogame BB.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:52 am

So how many of you that are against holding video game makers responsible for end use users going off the deep end...are for holding gun manufacturers responsible for their product?

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:59 am

woodchip wrote:So how many of you that are against holding video game makers responsible for end use users going off the deep end...are for holding gun manufacturers responsible for their product?

heh...that strikes right at the heart of the matter.

...whatever it is

Let's face it, in this tort-ridden society, accountability has become severely displaced. It's a shame, but it's a fact of life.

IN the meantime, I'd go out and buy yourself that handgun TODAY, because you never know when it's gonna end up regulated. The next step is 'voluntary' registration...

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:04 am

woodchip wrote:So how many of you that are against holding video game makers responsible for end use users going off the deep end...are for holding gun manufacturers responsible for their product?

Not me. I was even against the Governments law suit against the cigarette manufacturers. Not very liberal of me I know, but I thought it was a stupid, baseless suit given the fact that health warnings have been printed on packs since at least the early 80â??s. I didnâ??t see how anyone who has developed cancer could possibly blame the ciggy companies.

BigSlideHimself · Post by **BigSlideHimself** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:41 am

I recently read in my marketing class that only 9% of people who read the cig ads see those warnings. Which is strange because I'm a non-smoker and can't help but notice them.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:25 pm

I'm against any regulations that would make it seem that manufacturers of a products are solely responsible for the outcome of some twisted individuals sick fantasy. Video game violence has garnered the attention of media outlets ever since Mortal Kombat was a hot topic back in the early 90s. Just like with anything though, it all depends on the type of person using said item.

All things like this does is further prove that some people would like to open the door to more frivolous law suits to shift blame from personal responsibility and to reap the benefits of a hindered judicial system. Everytime I hear about some idiot suing some big company because they either got cancer, spilt coffee, got fat, used a gun to injur and/or kill someone to shift the blame it makes me wonder how a court can even entertain the notion that someone else is responsible. As soon as those cases even reach a court they should be thrown the hell out. You'd think common sense would dictate that they would. Sadly, as I've said before many times on this board, common sense it seems isn't so common.

Being a smoker, I know if I develop cancer that it was a risk I took when I started. Even sans a Surgeon General warning it stands to reason that inhaling smoke is BAD FOR YOU.

It just doesn't compute that someone would think that it is the fault of someone else that, if they'd been smoking for 30+ years, they wouldn't suffer a consequence.

Any regulations against violent media wouldn't serve the greater good. I am a firm believer that these people would have found some other excuse to go out and kill or to not stand up and take responsibility for their own stupidity.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:26 pm

BigSlideHimself wrote:I recently read in my marketing class that only 9% of people who read the cig ads see those warnings. Which is strange because I'm a non-smoker and can't help but notice them.

I think what that may show, is that people will see what they want to see. People should have the right to not see what they don't want to see. However, along with that is they should also be held personally responsible for the choices they make.

Ned · Post by **Ned** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:37 pm

one of the game makers is talking about making ordering a real pizza from inside the game an option. Whats next? ordering a 'Ho' and 'drive by shooting' from inside Grant Theft Auto? Anything that blurs the lines of fantasy versus reality is idiotic, since teenagers arent sure what the lines are, or worse, are snorting the lines.

my 2 cents

http://everquest2.station.sony.com/pizza/

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:28 am

Considering that King James I called smoking a "disgusting, unhealthy practice" back in the 17th century, I think it's safe to say that these types of suits don't have anything behind them.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:35 am

Ned wrote:one of the game makers is talking about making ordering a real pizza from inside the game an option. Whats next? ordering a 'Ho' and 'drive by shooting' from inside Grant Theft Auto? Anything that blurs the lines of fantasy versus reality is idiotic, since teenagers arent sure what the lines are, or worse, are snorting the lines.

my 2 cents

http://everquest2.station.sony.com/pizza/

uh...the difference is ordering a pizza is legal last I checked. Soliciting prostitution and ordering a "hit" are not. Lets not get crazy here

btw, if teenagers don't know the difference between right and wrong then somebody has failed as a parent. Sure, they do some pretty stupid stuff, but they all should know better. The ones who don't are the ones we should be worried about. More specifically they are the ones that end up sparking these debates.

Ned · Post by **Ned** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 pm

You're right. That Ned is an idiot

Wait, that's me!

...note to self, read before posting

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:25 pm

Also, I should have noted that most teenagers should know what is real and what isn't. Then again there are some adults who can't differentiate between the two

Ned · Post by **Ned** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:48 pm

Tooth fairy gave me bottle of vodka last year . . .