Illinois Videogame Law Moves Forward 192
The ongoing trend of legislating the sale of video games moves forward. Gamasutra has news on the Illinois law currently moving through the legislature, which apparently has "overwhelming support". From the Illinois debate: "An industry that is making so much money selling these things to your children is dealing with things like decapitation, defecation on people. There's vivid pictures of nudity. It's an industry that needs help being policed..."
No more than other media... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
No! (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn whiny dems.
I have 10 bucks that says this crap actually passes and wastes our precious $ on its way to the Supreme Court, which of course, will over turn it.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Illinois Congress, meet Foresight.
Re:since when... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of bad [somethingawful.com] games out there. But then, there are millions of games out there. By the same token, I don't have anything morally against making parents come in and buy games for their kids if they want them to have them. I've known far too many people in the retail sector who have told kids no, and been yelled at by the parent for stopping their kid from buying, say, Manslaughter. Inevitably, the parent then comes back the following day and freaks out on the poor underpaid associate for selling such filth to their kid.
I think the generation which preceeded ours has certain expectations about cartoons and videogames which ours does not. To them, more mature cartoons or videogames is like Jack Daniels flavored breastmilk. Or black leather studded diapers. In exactly the same way that movies were seen as kid's stuff at the turn of the century, so too is videogames the realm of kids. And therefore anything that gets released in a videogame is marketed at kids, and all of that stuff that you see in videogames is people trying to mess up your children.
It's a different perspective. While I don't disagree with the idea of restricting the sale of certain videogames to minors, I do disagree with the perspective.
Re:It's about time... (Score:4, Insightful)
yet another example... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I seem to have digressed slightly. If parents have a problem with something, then they should police their own kids; they don't need to force their beliefs on the general public.
Re:No more than other media... (Score:4, Insightful)
This will prevent 13yo boys from giggling each other to death while playing Vampire: Bloodlines.
And it should be that way.
People need to understand that parents cannot possible watch their kids 100% of the time. It just isn't feasable. The best we can do is to teach them well and hope they make the right choices when we aren't around.
Unfortunately, not every parent teaches their kid properly (whatever that is) and peer-pressure is very strong.
Remove cigiratte laws and kids will smoke.
Remove CD warning labels and kids will listen to fiddicent singing about shooting 2pack and fucking his mom.
Remove MPAA ratings and kids will end up watching violent movies.
Why not limit the avalibility of HL2 to prevent 13yo boys from fragging each other?
I know most people say that watching something or doing it virtually will not cause it to happen in real life. I tend to agree.
Most kids will never shoot an AWP into a crowd. But how many of them will call women "bitches" and "hos"? Kids may never do battle with the legions of hell, but how many will think of shooting a gun as "cool"?
A good quote (badly paraphrased) is: Thoughts lead to actions. Actions lead to habits. Habits build your character.
This law should prevent kids from playing violent games in the same way that it prevents them from seeing a violent movie. It won't be 100% effective, but it'll help when the parents can't be there. And this law will never prevent you from buying violent games, cigirattes, girls gone wild, or anything else that adults generally enjoy.
If only logic agreed with them... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Nice knee-jerk, I give it a 9.5. (Score:2, Insightful)
shock (Score:4, Insightful)
Witch hunt
This is nothing more than a simple ploy by some politicians to push ahead on the morals front
If you don't want your children to play these games then please do so parenting and don't let everyone else suffer from increasingly restrictive laws due to your moral sence of misplaced duty.
Most of us here played games as violent as these when we were kids , The graphics may not have been as good , though kids have great imaginations. I turned out OK,
Most of the other people here turned out OK.
Violent games don't make violent people
go to a maximum security prison and asked some of the inmates about their childhood
Um... no. (Score:3, Insightful)
Enron needed to be policed. Spam needs to be policed. Telemarketers need to be policed. Any industry that relies on fraud, embezzlement or harassment to turn a profit needs to be policed. And, as the video game industry does not (yet) fall into any of these categories...
Oh, and one more industry should be policed: politics. If the state legislators in Springfield have this much free time on their hands, perhaps its time to shorten the length of the legislative session in Illinois.
Re:Here's my suggestion (Score:1, Insightful)
But that's not ridiculous - it's how things ARE! Mainstream cinemas won't touch unrated movies; movies that want to be marketable to kids have to be certified to deserve a suitably low rating!
If you start from the opposite premise, and assume that all unrated cartoons are suitable for children... well, let's just say I sure hope you don't mind getting home one day and finding your nine-year-old son watching tentacle rape scenes on Cartoon Network.
Why should games be any different? Why should we NOT assume that games are unsuitable for children unless they have actually been checked and found suitable?
Re:Errrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
Also worth noting for its oddity value, there are exactly 18 games intended only for people over 18.
The reason that congreess people are so up-in-arms about this is because there are 3 sides to this issue. Pro regulation: You think that video game violence is dispicable and the sexual content is deplorable, even though you've never played a video game nor have you ever seen any of this content you're so enraged at. Anti regulation: You think that the industry is doing a good job of regulating itself. You play games and if you have children, you monitor what they play and consider the ESRB ratings before making any purchase. Apathetic: They're just games... who cares?
What makes lawmakers so fervent about this is that the type of people who are for regulation call them and write them constantly to make sure it happens. People who are anti-regulation write reactionary articles and either post them online or send them to the lawmakers, but since the lawmaker doesn't want to look like a "flip flopper," they refuse to change their stance. And the vast majority of people are apathetic on the subject, so even though they really aren't calling for regulation, nobody notices because they're not saying anything at all.
Just Illinois Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing to see here folks! This is just Illinois politics. The governor has been a profound disappointment here and is now scrambling for easy targets to win reelection. They all know this law won't stand constitutional muster.
This is just a waste of taxpayer money. [proliphus.com]
My two cents (Score:1, Insightful)
It's stupid to try to legislate the games you can sell and who you can sell them two. I think movies are far worse offenders, often featuring far more violence and language than most computer games. I'm seventeen, and I've never once been carded when I've bought movies. Even when I bought a spectacularly profane, violent and drug-filled double feature: Reservoir Dogs and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Where's the outrage of politicians when kids buy violent movies? IMHO: The government can not legislate things that parents need to do.
Re:No more than other media... (Score:3, Insightful)
I still don't see the need for a law, however, any more than we have a law enforcing PG-13 movie ratings. Unless this is purely focused on X-rated games, of which there are only a handful.
Re:No more than other media... (Score:1, Insightful)
Or it could have been that you were disciplining them for their bad behavior. An equivalent punishment may have resulted in the same outcome.
A lot of people say that spankings kept them in line then they were kids. But does that mean a lack of regular pain can lead to bad behavior?
As if young kids didn't pirate enough (Score:3, Insightful)
dangerous games (Score:2, Insightful)