Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News

Illinois Videogame Law Moves Forward 192

Posted by Zonk
from the what-game-industry-are-they-talking-about? dept.
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..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Illinois Videogame Law Moves Forward

Comments Filter:
  • by takeya (825259) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:45PM (#11971956) Journal
    do games have people "defecating on eachother"? are they playing porno games or something? Japanese H-games?

    can anyone tell me if there are really any american games with this sort of thing, or if it's just FUD.
    • Well, I do remember the cutscene from the end of the first episode of Duke Nukem 3D, after Duke kills the boss, he punches a hole in the monster and (probably---we don't see the nasty bits, thank God) defecates in it.
      • we don't see the nasty bits, thank God

        Nah, he's just sitting there with his pants down looking at the newspaper.

        Now, if you check out the ending for Duke Nukem: Land Of The Babes (Playstation), there's a line of babes lining up at the White House to get into the Lincoln Bedroom with him since he was the only guy left alive to keep the human race going. It was a Bill Clinton moment to be sure. :)
    • Re:since when... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cgenman (325138) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:51PM (#11972341) Homepage
      You can get japanese H games in the US legally, though not at any retailers that I know of. There are cute little animal games where your cute little animal takes cute little turds, but not on anybody. There is a webgame version of Puyo Puyo where your special attack is throwing up on your opponent. There were a few games in the 80's where birds would poo on you, though those weren't very good games. There's the 7 sins [3dgamers.com], where the point is to try to have sex with as many people as possible. There is, of course a PS2 version.

      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:since when... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ayaress (662020)
        H games are very rarely available retail in the US. Very few companies import them because they're just not that popular here. Where they are sold (I worked at a book store in my area that has a few of them. Even then, not even enough to get their own shelf, and in the eighteen months I worked there, I only remember seeing one customer actually buy one), they're behind the beaded curtain next to the brown-wrapper magazines, and they usually have brown wrappers themselves. Anybody under 18 isn't even allowed
  • Here's my suggestion (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:46PM (#11971963) Homepage Journal
    Let's make every game 18+ by default. Then let's set up a classification board, staffed by people who actually know how to play a game, that you have to go to if you want a game which is rated for younger audiences. Then let's change this mantra of the protectorate which I hear all the time: games are for kids. Games are not for kids. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of gamers are over 18 years of age. The fact that games contain elements which are distasteful in ordinary society is no big surprise when you stop thinking about games as entertainment for kids and start thinking about them as an escape from reality for adults.
    • by Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:27PM (#11972193)
      That'll be about as effective as banning drinking and smoking for kids...except games, being software, can't be as easily controlled as physical objects like booze or cigarettes.

      And there are a lot more "underage" gamers than underage smokers or drinkers.

      Games are not for kids.

      Games, like most things, are for people mature enough to handle it. I can play Halo and enjoy the strategy without going trigger-happy and without looking for a game with more gore. (In fact, much as I enjoy Halo, I find games with gratuitous gore very distasteful.)

      Surveys have shown that the vast majority of gamers are over 18 years of age.

      Ehheh. Right. Surveys show that the vast majority of people are over 18 years of age. I mean, you're comparing what, a group from roughly 10 or 12 to 18 with a group from 19 to who-knows-where? Of course you'll get more in the latter.

      Is there a survey that shows that there is a vastly greater percentage of gaming adults compared to the percentage of gaming teenagers? I'm pretty sure that a randomly-selected teenager is far more likely to play video games than a randomly-selected adult.

      The fact that games contain elements which are distasteful in ordinary society is no big surprise when you stop thinking about games as entertainment for kids and start thinking about them as an escape from reality for adults.

      Except for one thing: lots of developers treat games as entertainment for kids. And lots of teenagers like this kind of escape from reality, and are mature enough to handle tasteful games....
    • The problem here is that the complainers want Wal-Mart to carry the games. Why? Because that's where mom and dad shop.

      This is an issue of tail wagging. The only people who will be bothered by this are the ones who shouldn't be playing these games to begin with.
    • by Eivind (15695) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Friday March 18, 2005 @03:02AM (#11973316) Homepage
      There's a problem with this, and this problem is obvious in countries that have such a law, for example Germany.

      The problem is that in practice, any certification costs money. This means that any game developed by nonprofits in general will not be certified. It would be a lot of work, and quite likely costly, for a OSS developer to ensure that his game was certified according to each of dozens of different classification-boards.

      And if you think large groups of countries will agree on one common standard, one common certification board, you're dreaming. That's not the case for movies and wouldn't be the case for games.

      Practical upshot ? You can't legally sell a Linux-distro to a minor in Germany. In practice it's done all the time, because the law gets ignored for things which aren't mainly games, and which are obviously not very objectionable anyway.

      But in principle, you'll have to strip ALL games (including solitaire, mahjong, minesweeper and tuxracer) from a Linux-distro, or jump trough expensive and time-consuming hoops if you want to legally sell your linux-distro to minors in Germany.

      17 year-old linux-users aren't exactly *that* rare.

      • Wow. Let the children get their parent's permission to buy a linux distribution. Who cares.
        • Okaaaay.... and lets IMPRISON anyone with a website with Linux or any other software for download.

          Any you know what? This shouldn't just apply to games. We need to protect kids from pornographic images and text as well. Anyone who publishes a magazine or newspaper must restrict it to 18 and over unless they first get it approved by the ratings board. In fact lets imprison you for publishing your post on here without first getting it approved by a ratings board.

          And don't think there's some real fundamental
  • Errrrr (Score:5, Interesting)

    by schild (713993) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:46PM (#11971966) Homepage Journal
    Defecation on people?

    I play a _lot_ of games, and I'm pretty sure there's no game out there where you can squat and take a cleveland steamer on someone.

    Sure, you can pee on people in Postal 2, but that's surely what they aren't implying, or they would have used the word urinate.

    No matter how you slice it, the government's (local and national) obsession with controlling what media our children see is unhealthy. Hell, I don't even know how any lawmakers got it into their head that this is somehow important.
    • Re:Errrrr (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bios_Hakr (68586) <xptical.gmail@com> on Friday March 18, 2005 @12:37AM (#11972614) Homepage
      The "Bubblegum" crew on CounterStrike (mostly on the Tokyo servers) will spraypaint their balls (an actual, hi-rez, digital picture of each player's manberries) on your corpse. I've seen these guys actually sacrifice themselves to jump across a level and spray balls on me.

      Another crew has a pic of poop in a urinal (WTF people) as their spray.

      So, yes, people do deficate on each other.
      • Spraypainting (I assume you are talking about bottled paint in spraycans... right?) is not defecating, though. And even if the crews actually *did* defecate on you, that wouldn't be the fault of the game, much like it isn't the fault of the game (or, for that matter, the game manufacturer) when you *say* things to other people in a multiplayer game that might be considered offensive.
        • by lgw (121541)
          A "spray" in CounterStrike is indeed much like paint in a spraycan - the player hit a key and the wall or other surface is marked with an abitrary image. It's up to the individual server to police this, based on the community they want. There is no "ball spray" feature of the game, so your point is quite valid.

          If there were a game where the game designers actually put the ability to defecate on someone into the game *as sold*, I could see the point of the objectors, but I've never heard of one.
      • Another crew has a pic of poop in a urinal (WTF people) as their spray.

        That's probably in reference to one Counter-Strike level that has a toliet with a turd in it. Shoot the turd, the toliet explodes. Bathroom humor. Heh-heh...
    • Anyone who has played Black & White has seen their monster poop after it eats. Depending on how you trained it, it might do this on houses, people, fields, whatever. It's completely innocent in that game though - not like it's scat or anything offensive.
      • Anyone who has played Black & White has seen their monster poop after it eats. Depending on how you trained it, it might do this on houses, people, fields, whatever.

        It's worse: Your monster can be trained to throw poop and eat poop. Sometimes it learns it on its own without training.

    • In Duke Nukem there's a cutscene where you rip off some bad alien's head and do the proverbial down his throat. Strange but true. I imagine that was they're referring to.

      I wouldn't recommend Duke Nukem for kids, and I'm all for classification instead of outright censorship. If you're over 18 and you can buy any game you want to, where's the bad? If you're a kid and you want to play a game that has sex, graphic violence, nudity, whatever in it, perhaps that should be up to your parents to decide whether
    • I play a _lot_ of games, and I'm pretty sure there's no game out there where you can squat and take a cleveland steamer on someone.

      But it would make a fun sequel to Katamari Damacy (sp?). You start as a tiny beetle, who lays tiny little turds, which you try to dump on ants. And you transfer through different stages -- you become a mouse who dumps on beetles, a bird who soils statues, a rabbit who lets people slip on tiny marbles, etc. -- until you reach the final goal: you become a huge mammoth who comple

    • Re:Errrrr (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mausmalone (594185) on Friday March 18, 2005 @10:04AM (#11974701) Homepage Journal
      I think that if he's talking about stuff like that and graphic nudity, he's talking about games clearly labeled Adults Only. To see how much this plague of bad taste was corrupting the youth of America, I went to the ESRB site and compiled a list of all Adults Only games:
      All Nude Glamour
      All Nude Nikki
      All Nude Cyber
      Body Language
      Cyber Photographer
      Crystal Fantasy
      Critical Point
      Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude Uncut and Uncensored
      Playboy Screensaver: The Women of Playboy
      Peak Entertainment Casinos
      Riana Rouge
      Singles
      Snow Drop
      The Joy of Sex (CDI)
      Tokimeki Checkin!
      Wet - The Sexy Empire
      Water Closet: The Forbiidden Chamber
      X-Change
      Some of you may recognize some of those titles from various Something Awful hentai game reviews. I've noted also that the only AO title on a console is "The Joy of Sex" for the Philips CDI, which is a digital version of the classic 1979 book by the same title [amazon.com] which is considered to be both in good taste and respectable as a serious look at sex.

      Also worth noting for its oddity value, there are exactly 18 games intended only for people over 18. :P Also worth noting is that most video game stores won't touch these games and that the only way to get them is online directly from the publisher.

      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.
    • I play a _lot_ of games, and I'm pretty sure there's no game out there where you can squat and take a cleveland steamer on someone.

      You're just not playing these games with the right people. Oh, and BTW, it's not a videogame (unless someone's filming it)... :p
    • Hell, I don't even know how any lawmakers got it into their head that this is somehow important.

      Because it can get on the news and because they can say that their opponent SUPPORTS it because they aren't trying to pass a law against it.

      -
  • by vistic (556838) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:52PM (#11972000)
    ...after Custer's Revenge for the Atari 2600.
  • by gimpynerd (864361) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:53PM (#11972006) Homepage Journal
    Seems to me video games should not be regulated any more than movies or music. If children playing mature video games is a problem then it is their parents' problem not the government's.
    • Common sense need not apply in America. Everyone will blame someone else for their problems before they look in the mirror. That is why it is so easy to be successful in this world. The only leg up you need is drive to succeed, the desire to keep trying until the day you die, and the ability to see your faults and improve upon them.

      Lesson on how to succeed:
      If you fail, try again. Repeat.

      I've worked for 5-6 failed businesses before getting sick of it. I am on my 3rd company and it will succeed or fail. Eit
    • by Bios_Hakr (68586) <xptical.gmail@com> on Friday March 18, 2005 @12:32AM (#11972591) Homepage
      Movies and music are (somewhat) regulated. And it should be so. Basicly, nothing Il does will prevent you from playing a game you want. Wal-Mart may not carry it anymore, but you shouldn't shop there anyway. You can still buy Doom3 at EB or online with no problem.

      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.
      • 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.

        I used to not put a whole lot of weight into the ratin
        • The ages of your children are key here (younger than the 'teen' the games were rated for). This is why the existing rating system is pretty good. There's a *lot* of content in games that's not at all appropriate for a 7-year-old, but perfectly fine for a 14-year-old.

          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.
      • You have to understand that there's really only one fatal flaw in all game regulation legislation that we all rail against. The laws can be made good in theory, but in practice they're all legislative turds.

        Yes, movies and music are regulated.... but the movie ratings and the parental advisory labels are all generated from within the industry, not from the government. The act of peer review allows for a quality assessment of the product and a determination on the character by a group of people who are k
      • Just adding to my previous comment about how the industry regulates itself, and that we usually are against these bills not because of the concept but because they're poorly written legislation. From the article:

        Republican Chapin Rose voted against the proposal, arguing it was too broad and unconstitutional. "The problem with the bill as drafted was that it made no distinction between violent acts of extreme brutality and, say, a football game, hence the latest version of John Madden Football, would not

        • I agree completely. Kids should be shielded from violence as much as possible. Especially violence like professional football. It's basicly two hours of 22 guys getting paid extreme ammounts of money to kick the shit out of each other.

          Then these kids go play football and try the same tackles and say the same trash talk.

          Fighting games speak for themselves.

          Racing games generally do not emphasize violence to win. There may be some "rubbing" in racing, but most of the races you see on TV are clean. As l
      • Except there is no law stopping a kid from seeing or purchasing a violent movie. There is no law stopping a kid from buying a CD with explicit lyrics. There is a law for cigarettes but that is only because there is serious physical health affects. If anything, video games are easier to regulate by the parents than both movies and music. They are generally much more expensive, and they must be played at a house. No, we don't need a law for this. The rating is as clear as light and day on the package.
        • The ratings are clear, but retailers do not honor them. I've seen stores that wouldn't sell Marilon Manson CDs but carried Doom3. WTF, people?

          If the market would push for good internal controls, then lawmakers would keep out.
      • >This law should prevent kids from playing violent games in the same way that it prevents them from seeing a violent movie.
        No laws prohibit kids from viewing movies. Yes, I started from the end, but it looked like the main idea.

        >This will prevent 13yo boys from giggling each other to death while playing Vampire: Bloodlines.
        Yeah, that's right. Giggling is a no-no.

        >Remove cigiratte laws and kids will smoke.
        Of course, because with these laws kids don't smoke....

        >but how many will think of
      • "Remove CD warning labels and kids will listen to fiddicent singing about shooting 2pack and fucking his mom."

        I don't know about that - when I was kid and they introduced labeling it just made it easier to figure out what music would be good for pissing your parents off.
      • A good quote (badly paraphrased) is: Thoughts lead to actions. Actions lead to habits. Habits build your character.

        Well at least your honest. There are not many people will the balls to come right out and advocate government engage in thought control.

        By the way, you should be in prison for making your post available to those under 18. It was not first rated for under 18 approval. It could have contained explicit sexual text, or even a link to Goatse. It does not matter that your post did not contain any
  • by Neo-Rio-101 (700494) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:55PM (#11972021)
    Sure, they can ban the sale to minors in order to prevent children buying games with questionable content..... .....but they can't stop kids getting these games from P2P, and they can't stop their parents buying it for them.
    • Re:peer 2 peer (Score:2, Interesting)

      by keeleysam (792221)
      or buying online like I do :-D

      PS: Im under 18 and in IL
      • How do you pay for them online? Credit card? Don't you technically need to be 18 for that too? Or if you use your parents' isn't that basicly keeping you from buying something they wouldn't approve of anyway?

        Just curious.
  • It's about time... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by robw810 (819414) * <robby@r[ ]rkman.net ['lwo' in gap]> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:57PM (#11972033) Homepage

    Yeah, it's about time the government figured out that all of us citizens are too ignorant to make our own decisions. We don't know what's best for us, and we certainly don't want any personal accountability involved. It's easier if they make all of the important decisions for us...
    /sarcasm

    I for one am sick and tired of living in a nanny state. Government's only legitimate function is to secure individual rights; unless someone else's rights are being infringed upon, government has no legitimate interest.

    RW

    • by aztektum (170569) on Friday March 18, 2005 @12:12AM (#11972475)
      The funniest thing is they say "they make a lot of money selling to your kids." Immediately I picture parents totally unaware of what their kids are doing. And secondly, it wasn't until I got a job in high school that I could afford them. So who is REALLY buying these games, is it really the kids or ignorant, lazy parents?
      • It's the ignorant, lazy parents who give their kids gobs of money then drop them off at the mall alone for the day and don't really care what they get there, as long as they aren't complaining.

        I think the biggest problem in American education today is that kids expected to be handed everything, they don't want to work for anything. I paid my own way through college, and 30+ hour weeks of work while doing 18 credits of CS and engineering really blew, but I am glad that I did it. It REALLY imprinted on me
      • I work retail (in fact I head the game department at my stoe) and I can tell you it's the stupid lazy-ass parents buying them in the first place. 7 year old don't come up to me with cash in hand to buy GTA: San Andreas... No the parent comes up to me with cash in hand to buy GTA: San Andreas for their 7 year old kid.

        I've never had a kid under 15 try to buy a Mature rated title from me. Most no we wouldn't sell it to them anyways as part of our corporate policy to look 'family oriented'. Now above 15, well
    • It's more complicated than that. You can't have 8 year old kids going out and buying alcohol, cigarettes, Playboy magazine, whatever. Sure, 90% or better of the underage population wouldn't be interested anyway, but that isn't exactly the point. 8 year old kids shouldn't go out and buy Playboy:The Mansion, either, and not just because it's an awful game.

      Alcohol is a serious drug and it can cause serious problems. Likewise, some explicit material just isn't right for people under 18 to get involved in
  • by tsm_sf (545316) * on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:58PM (#11972039) Journal
    What would you call a hybrid scapegoat/bandwagon... I like GoatWagon. Senators with too much free time on their hands will jump on any goatwagon "for the children". (This stuff practically writes itself, folks.)
    • by robw810 (819414) * <robby@r[ ]rkman.net ['lwo' in gap]> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:07PM (#11972095) Homepage

      Wonderful point there...

      Any time I hear "it's for the children," "the elderly," "less fortunate," "disabled," or some other emotional plea for support of some legislation, I always think:
      This legislation must be pretty bad if it can't support itself without blind emotional pleas...

      RW

      • There are two ways to look at it.

        I won't support censorship "for the children".

        I will support classification "for the children".

        Censorship removes your right to choice.
        Classification doesn't, although you might have to wait a little while if you're underage.

        This topic is mostly about classification, not censorship. So what's the problem? RW - you're under 18, aren't ya?
      • It's sad that hearing these statements used in such contrived was has really killed the impact. The fact is that the groups you mentioned do need support, and legislation can help (though usually only when the budget is being drafted).

        "for the children" - It's assumed that children do not have enough experience or psychological development to be able to make well reasoned decisions. Therefore, the government sets up some safeguards so that children aren't allowed to make certain decisions legally (i.e.
        • I agree with you that there are valid times to justify a law as being "for the children" or any other group on that list. But lets see the justification and the proof backing it. The fact is, those emotional pleas are GROSSLY overused, usually by those who cannot justify their position logically.

          If someone can talk me through a restriction on media "for the children" logically, and with clear proof and valid arguments backing them, then I will support their position. But the Il legislators aren't doing
  • Whoa, whoa.. "defecation on people"? There's a Veronica Moser of video games? Someone is going around Mosering (or Tobias Beechering, maybe) people in video games?

    WHY DID NO ONE INFORM ME OF THIS EARLIER?
  • Nudity? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Leveler of Nations (853700) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:09PM (#11972100) Journal
    There's vivid pictures of nudity.
    Where's thier evidence? I've been looking for something to pirate recently.
    • yeah...there's maybe like 4 games with nudity in them, and time they all clearly state "Rated M - Age 17+"
    • Pretty much, um, nothing you can buy at Best Buy. There are some places online that sell Japanese hentai games, but they are all filled with disclaimers YOU MUST BE OF AGE and stuff...
  • This is just getting ridiculous. If the government spent half as much time getting guns off the street and making weapons unavailable to kids then half our problems would be solved right there. And I'd really like somone to point out this "defecation" game for me. If no one in this community has heard of it it's probably a terrible game anyway. Maybe game's like Grand Theft Auto wouldn't exist if they didn't have real world models to go off of. Maybe you should focus on that instead of blaming games for bri
    • You contradict yourself... On one hand, you don't want government punishing YOU for someone else's bad decisions, yet you DO want government to punish ME for someone else's bad decisions.

      Instead of making sure that all potential crime victims are unarmed and thus unable to resist, perhaps we should punish those who commit ACTUAL crimes (you know, things which violate the rights of another human being).

      A law abiding citizen carrying a concealed (or not) firearm violates nobody's rights.

      RW

  • by illuminatedwax (537131) <stdrange@ a l u m n i . u chicago.edu> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:17PM (#11972144) Journal
    When does "Defecator 3" come out?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:26PM (#11972186)
    I don't understand why people who's kids buy games they don't approve of don't just stop giving their kids $50 and letting them go to the video game store unsupervised.
  • No! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SoulMaster (717007)
    The industry does not need to be "policed". Parents need to be policed. Can't parents in Illinois control their kids?

    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.
  • Patheitc (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HeavyK (822279) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:45PM (#11972304)
    This law is so vague it would essenially ban minors from buying football games, World War 2 themed shooters or even RPGs because they contain realistic depictions of human on human violence.
    If this law was extended to cover movies, music and books also it would essenically (sp?) outlaw the sale of the Bible or Star Wars films to minors. Pretty pathetic.
    • I wouldn't recommend the bible to any child. Just look at what's been done in the world in the name of it.

      Likewise, there are some who believe that Star Wars is becoming less appropriate for not only children, but for people in genereal.
    • outlaw the sale of the Bible

      Damn, I was all fired up to fight this horrible stupid evil law, and then someone has to come along and point out such a tempting side effect. Yes, it's still a horrible evil stupid law, but man.... that would almost make it worth it.

      Oh, and no one go ranting about Christian bashing either. I'm sure the Koran and Torah and the rest contain comparable sexual and/or violent content. They'd all be available on the same rack, right next to Playboy and Hustler and all the other Mat
  • Three cheers for internet distribution. Hip hip hooray!!
  • by MemeSpitter (781288) on Friday March 18, 2005 @12:12AM (#11972473)
    I've seen em! Game-tapes awarding bonus scores for defecation! Soon children everywhere will be hurling clumps of fecal matter at each other with simian-like abandon! And this mindless violence modeled for our children... I see kids in my neighborhood jumping on their pet turtles in the street every day.

    These kids need to learn that if you want to commit acts of violence for no good reason whatsoever, you coerce Congress to declare war on a random middle-eastern country. That's just the way it's done, damnit!

    So I'm glad some legislature finally realizes the importance of applying state-sanctioned blanket age restrictions on videogames. Because it's well-known that everyone is magically at the exact same level of maturity when they reach some arbitrary age, and I sure as hell know that my state's laws kept me from getting any R-rated movies - or beer - before my time.
    • Exactly! This problem dates back to the Looney Tunes days when reckless children would stand on rooftops and drop anvils on innocent by-passers' heads, chop down trees to land on houses and roll boulders down cliffs to squash anyone in sight.
      Hospitals were all occupied by people who looked like accordions! It was a real mess.

      Fortunately, Illinois legislators passed the Scwewy Wabbit bill and all kids seen watching cartoons are shot on sight. They haven't had a problem since.
  • by lucky130 (267588) on Friday March 18, 2005 @12:27AM (#11972562)
    As someone who lives in Illinois and has had to deal with such things before, this is yet another example of people wanting the government to parent their children for them. People do crazy things, that's a given. And having played my fair share of violent games, I can say I'm pretty well desensitized to CARTOON-esque violence (actual blood still makes me squirm a bit). That isn't to say that is a bad thing and I'm sure my parents don't think so. Hell, my dad got me a copy of Wolfenstein way back in the day (and I only hope I can do the same, or at least similar, for my kids someday).
    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.
  • shock (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro&gmail,com> on Friday March 18, 2005 @01:50AM (#11973049) Journal
    Ive said it before and I'm sure i will be saying it again
    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 ,I am willing to place a hefty wager that it was not computer games that made them angry and violent
  • maybe this is good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by delirium of disorder (701392) on Friday March 18, 2005 @02:44AM (#11973246) Homepage Journal
    Kids aren't going to stop playing video games because they legaly need mommy to buy the game for them. Its like pornography; its illegal for minors to buy porn, so they aren't able to purchase much...but the age range with the most pron downloads is probably 13-17 year old boys. I think these kinds of restrictions are a good thing because they teach kids how to subvert fascist authority. If we are to live in a free society, we need creative people who can get around the confinements imposed by parents, churches, governments, and corporations. If you give kids too much freedom yearly on, they won't know what to do when that freedom is taken away.

    So...lets ban all violent video games, music with naughty words, and any images of the human body that show more skin then an Afghani wearing a burqua! For every prohibition, you create an underground. The more underground our economy is, they less the corporate glutons profit from it and the more average citizens learn to be rebels and freedom fighters.
    • 1. There's a deficit of incentive here. Why would POLITICIANS (let that word sink in a bit) make any effort to limit corporations' profits?

      2. A society like the one you speak of would produce people as ill-informed, immature, and reactionary as you are, judging from your comment. Keep believing that all authority is "fascist." See where that gets you. Parents, churches, and governments are imperfect, sometimes painfully so, but don't tell me that "Love thy neighbor," "All men are created equal," and the l
    • You couldn't be more wrong. What this would create is not a society that fights for freedom and an economy controlled by the people, but an economy controlled by gangs. Think prohibition, it wasn't even that long ago.

      • This is ordered bits of information, not mood altering drugs (be it alchohol, marjuana, or methamphetamine). Violent gangs will not be produced. The near industry ban on indipendent artests and resulting RIAA oilgopoly has produced an amazing free p2p culture that is quite illegal, but also a productive non-capitalist economy. A ban on violent video games for children would be the same. Go back to my pornography example....adults are allowed to watch all the porn they want, and they DO watch and pay for
  • Um... no. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 (410832) * on Friday March 18, 2005 @04:18AM (#11973547)
    "It's an industry that needs help being policed..."

    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.
  • What this industry needs are parents who are more responsible and don't give into every wail of their child, especially without thinking about the game content (or even reading the freaking warning label(s)).

    This is how the tempermental brats are born; not killers or rapists, but annoying, obnoxious, I-want-it-my-way tempermental brats who were never spanked in their life.

    Instead of making these stupid laws that will keep the status quo (parents buying the games for kids), let's have a new required night
  • by blueZhift (652272) on Friday March 18, 2005 @12:46PM (#11976541) Homepage Journal

    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]

  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Friday March 18, 2005 @02:58PM (#11978015) Journal
    If I'm 17, and want to play the next FPS, I'll download it off the internet instead. Warez 4 Pirates.
  • dangerous games (Score:2, Insightful)

    by manJerk (853898)
    I think there is a more imminent danger that is being marketed directly at our children than the intangible fantacy that is a video game. maybe we sould be spending our time stopping the tobacco companies from selling their very REAL death to our children. If you take away video games, our children are left with shitty TV, Cigarettes, internet porn and homework. governmental bodies need to stop waisting time chasing the boogey man and get after the serial killers.
  • How is the decision being made as to what is "for adults only" and what is "ok for everyone" and what is "violent" and what is "not violent" and etc.

    If they are following the ESRB ratings, I have no problems with that.
    But, when a government decides to regulate games in a way that is outside of and/or different (perhaps more strict than) the ESRB system, thats when I have a problem. If some politition who only knows about through what the idiot moral conservatives who are ruining the country have told him
  • O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
    O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.

Working...