GTA and Rating of Video Games 507
Gamer writes "There is an interesting debate on Grand Theft Auto and rating of computer games going on. It started with Lawmeme's Paul Szynol wants 'distribution control so that minors don't get access to inappropriate material'.
Greplaw's Mikael Pawlo has a reply saying 'Computer games are art and should be dealt with accordingly, without any references to the prohibition tactics of the 1980:ies.'
Would the world not be a better place without the violence in GTA? I don't understand Pawlo's art argument, although I love gaming. I agree with Paul Szynol. Kids should not get violent games." I really don't have a problem with regulating violent games- its when the government tries to outlaw them that I have a problem.
GOURANGA (Score:5, Funny)
I would agree, the splattering of 6 Hare Krishna's on the pavement certainly is an art form
Re:GOURANGA (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely. I think GTA3 is a modern artwork more effective than any sculpture, painting, or interpretive dance I've ever seen. It shares an experience with people - MANY people - and spawns thought and discussion about moral and ethical issues. That's the highest form of art, as far as I am concerned.
You can draw all kinds of meaning from it: It's a brutal depiction of reality, maybe it's a warning. At more of a meta-level maybe it's making a point about how humans have the ability to seperate fantasy and reality, almost at a level of protest. Maybe they had no idea what they were saying, but that doesn't mean it doesn't say something, and that doesn't mean it isn't art.
-If
Games don't kill people... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Games don't kill people... (Score:2)
Bowling for Columbine is a great movie (incidently, I just watched it half an hour ago), but it doesn't point out any one reason either - quite to the contrary actually. Oh, and likely this thread is doomed to go the way of the re-iterated gun-debate. Shame.
Re:Games don't kill people... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Games don't kill people... (Score:2, Insightful)
Etheir way, restricting these games wont stop kids from buying the games, they will simply turn to warez and hurt the gaming industry that way. In the digital age, cencorship is pointless.
Re:Games don't kill people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Until I babysat some kids and showed them Terminator II, I didn't see a connection between a violent movie and violent behavior, but now I am certain there is one.
It may be insulting to you that people think something as simple as movies could affect the way you behave, but this happens. Obviously, people are not all going to respond the same way to the same stimuli and obviously, there is an infinite number of other factor that could affect ones behavior and obviously, most people who talk about the violence of popular culture usually have insidious plans and impractical plans to control popular culture, but my main point remains: violent culture does affect the way we behave to some extent.
Re:Games don't kill people... (Score:4, Informative)
Numerous studies have shown that in children there is a short term behavoral change when exposed to violent media. That's pretty clear. Children like acting out what they see, be it good or bad. (In fact, while children behave in more violent ways after seeing violent media, there are some very credible arguments that this violent play helps them work through and understand the situations presented, that real violence is almost never their intent and the majority is just play violence that may go slightly out of control.)
Less clear is the long term results in children. Studies found evidence both ways. For adults, there is clearly no significant connection. "Violent movies, television, and games leads to increased violence in society" is too simplistic.
Re:Games don't kill people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I just found Greg Palast's site [gregpalast.com] and I'm disillusioned at how the world is actually run: Bush a just middle manager working for the big corporations of the world, where the CEOs try to extract profit from, not only single customers, but whole countries and governments at the same time. And the media companies, news sources? They're just the PR department of this "corporation", all working together lying to us. Read especially his take on Globalization [gregpalast.com].
The sad thing is, it looks like the corporations are winning. Or is that what their PR department wants us to believe?
Fact Checking Michael Moore (Score:2, Informative)
For more details, consider Fact Checking a Polemicist [andrewsullivan.com] which reviews many of the factual lapses in the movie.
Re:Games don't kill people... (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's worth pointing out that the movie is by Michael Moore -- second only to Chomsky when it comes to biased, selective viewing of facts. I don't waste my time giving that clown any money, and recommend that others should bypass it also. Moore is an idiot, and yes, the messenger does make a difference even if the blind squirrel finds a few nuts. It's what he leaves out that's often important."
Provide examples of Chomsky or Moore being selective in their facts. By American standards I'm fairly far to the right of both of them (I'm pro-gun, for example) but my differences with them are in their interpretation of the facts. To their credit I've found both of them to be quite reliable and unselective when it comes to the actual reporting.
Provide something more than your say-so.
Re:Games don't kill people... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the most ignorant thing I've seen on /. today. Of course, this is only the third story I've read into...
Making drugs illegal has created new classes of criminal. First are those who are guilty of victimless drug crimes, those who are not hurting anyone. These are people who have been busted for posession (misdemeanor) or erroneously arrested for posession with intent to sell just because they had a couple ounces on them. I mean, if you can't smoke two ounces in a week, you're not trying...
So given that the drugs we're talking about here are illegal and therefore expensive (drugs have only become more and more illegal and expensive over time, given that more drugs are always being invented, and eventually made illegal) they create a certain amount of monetary desire to be able to buy them. For most people desire isn't enough to drive them to steal. For those who are, you're right, they will still be criminals if you legalize all drugs. They'll want something else they can't afford honestly, and they'll still be of a mind to take it from you. Or whoever.
But for those who do have scruples, there are two further types. Those who have become addicted, and those who have not -- ignoring the reasons why they have or have not, which are outside the scope of this comment. Those who have become addicted really need these drugs to think "straight", or in other words, to feel any way other than wrong. People experiencing even slight withdrawal will have serious problems thinking, making judgement calls, et cetera. It's hard enough to think with a hangover, imagine drying out from a week-long heroin binge.
This is not to say that you should feel sorry for these people but let's face it, if you just legalized marijuana then drug crime would drop off so significantly it would amaze you. Lots of people really just like to smoke weed and have no real interest in other drugs. It might have an adverse affect on productivity but I guarantee you if you increase the amount of weed people are smoking, the country will become a more peaceful place. There will always be those who aren't interested in it, or are allergic to it as well.
Face it, responsible use and posession of most drugs will hurt no one but yourself, if that. I don't think anyone has tied marijuana to anything other than some of the same problems as cigarettes when smoked, and basically no long-term problems whatsoever when eaten (for example.) So it's stupid to make it illegal unless you have something to gain from doing so.
Zealots. (Score:5, Insightful)
Great, so they're already rated. Every game these groups are worried about has a big Mature rating on it. Tell stores to stop selling to minors or tell parents to stop buying them for their kids.
The creators of the games have already done their job.
I don't even think outlawing them is a worthy conversation.. that's just ridiculous.
Its Just a Game... (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, games don't kill people. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
If the problem is that kids are becoming too violent, the solution isn't to sanitize the world, it is to teach kids that violence is bad.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of people looking for excuses for bad parenting.
Re:Its Just a Game... (Score:2)
So, did you actually not know that, or do you say that the reasons commonly given are faulty?
Re:Its Just a Game... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a pretty broad statement to make. I played Wolf 3D when I was 9, 10 years old, Doom after that, Quake after that, so on. I knew full well it was a game. It was fun dammit! What makes you presume you know the maturity level of any given kid?
Like many things in a childrens upbringing, this is a matter of BEING A PARENT. You would let your kids see Star Wars, wouldn't you? They know it is JUST A MOVIE don't they? Why shouldn't the same apply to video games?
A voluntary rating system was a great idea. It allows parents a quick and easy way to determine if a game is appropriate for their kids. If reading a box is too much, they have worse problems than video games!
Re:Its Just a Game... (Score:2)
On a sidenote, I also played Wolf 3D when I was 9, 10 years old. I'm pretty sure the violence didn't hurt me in any way, but then, self-observation is a difficult thing.
Show me the numbers... (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming that is a true statement, define children. How old does a child have to be before they can cope? Do we suddenly get granted this magical ability at 18?
Children growing up in an environment where such media violence is taken for granted often take real violence for granted in their life.
Really? Could you show me the scientifically valid survey that prooves this? Because everything I've read has show that the research on the subject is, at best, inconclusive.
The big problem I have with ratings systems and regulation of games, etc, is that it doesn't take into account the fact that children mature at different rates. This is less of an issue with video games because, regardless of rating, the parent can always buy the video game for their child. That's what's important here is the parents right to choose what's okay for their child to see.
I remember parents who wouldn't let their kids listen to Madonna thinking it would corrupt them. That's ridiculous in my opinion, but I fully support that parent's right to make that choice for their kids. As long as video game ratings remain a voluntary advisory system they are all okay in my book.
What I've loathed for a very long time is the movie ratings system. When I was 15, I was mature enough to deal with anything I've ever seen in an R rated movie but I still couldn't go see them in the theater unless my mom really wanted to come sit through it (which did happen on occasion thankfully). She couldn't write me a note of approval, or even just show up to buy me the tickets, she had to sit through the whole damn movie. If she had no desire to see it, I had to wait for video or HBO. The greatest irony was that the strict enforcement in the theaters did nothing to stop me from seeing the movies, it just delayed it.
Re:Its Just a Game... (Score:2)
There are sociologic studies which dicuss the topic in-depth, and neither I nor, assumedly, you are competent to discuss the problem in its entirity. Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on the topic, so I'm careful to argue strongly either way. I also try to keep my personal interest as an avid gamer apart from the fact that those games I enjoy, might, in fact, be harmful to children.
Re:Zealots. (Score:2)
Re:Zealots. (Score:2)
Re:Zealots. (Score:2)
Com,puter games are not art... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rubbish.
By that argument, all films are also art and should be unclassified...
I see nothing wrong with a classification system for games so that they are played by appropriate audiences, and so that parents can make informed desicions when buyiong games.
Sounds pretty responsible to me.
Re:Com,puter games are not art... (Score:2)
One argument against classification perhaps is that it will only make the bad games even more attractive to children. You know how kids are: if you tell them they can't have something, they'll want it all the more.
Re:Com,puter games are not art... (Score:2)
hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't believe it makes people more violent, if anything it may actually satisfy some of the violent tendencies people have.
I also don't believe that playing violent video games are the cause, but a symptom of a more subtle problem.
Just my opinion which is definitely not qualified
Gaming standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Distribution control however might be a bit much. Only allowing sales in certain stores? Better that the stores enforce their own sale-to-minor policies, although it was proven over the christmas season they do not. (A figure in the high 80% range of how often underage kids were stopped when buying ESRB 18+ games)
Re:Gaming standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a thought...
Porn Shops (Score:2)
Some of the Vice City missions are evil (like the "wipe the wife" one), and this game probably shouldn't be at Walmart or Fred Meyer. There are, however, many good distribution channels for adult materials. My wife and I have puchased non-porn-but-adult items at the local porn shops; they have DVDs now... is the placement of video games there really such a far stretch? I think most of the resistence will come from Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft though; who wouldn't want to be the first system to offend soccer moms' sensibilities. On the other hand, the system that does open this door will have an advantage in the market in the future (methinks).
Smart, Real smart. (Score:2, Interesting)
These games are costing ~$45+, do you really think little timmy is buying this himself? Of course not, His parents buy it for him. So who really cares if they'll sell it to minors?
Personaly, I used to play plenty of M-rated games when I was 7+. Never tried to perform a fatalaty on anyone. No mental scaring, either. Shielding children from content is just going 1)Make them want it more 2)Increse effect when they finally do get it (they will).
Re:Smart, Real smart. (Score:3, Funny)
My father took me to see Alies when I was pretty young (8 IIRC). It was rated R. I specifically remember the ticket booth guy w/wide eyes when I was going in there. My mother was undescribable.
I played plenty of video games when I was a kid. Never thought twice if they were violent or not.
As I got older I was not interested in getting games for their "gore". If I enjoyed a game, then I played it. It wasn't b/c it was gory.
I have GTA3. I was 22 when I got it. It was a good game overall but I wasn't thrilled w/it either. I much preferred Gran Turismo and Madden...
So, exposed at an early age left me w/killing tendencies and horrid mental scaring.
Really, it did.
I will fight my S.O. to the death if she argues this w/our children...
Just my worthless
it starts with the parents... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it starts with the parents... (Score:2)
Yeah, one violent video game isn't going to cause a problem. However, if all the kid does is play FPS games, and that's all his friends do, and then those friends play paintball every weekend, and one of these friends has an obsession with real life guns.... this is a chain where the parents have to step in SOMEWHERE or else a Columbine-style situation develops. Finding out that little Johnny's mal-adjusted is something that should happen long before violence actually happens.
Gaming as Art (Score:2)
Parents are there for what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently the kids involved were known to play FPS game, mainly Quake comes to my mind.
So several victims parents sued the makers of the games.
What amazes me is that one of the parents of the kids who were shooting everyone admitted they had not been in their kids room EVER!
Personaly I think most of what we see still comes back to the parents doing the job of a parent! If you want kids then have them and raise them right, if you dont have time for them then get fixed and do not pollute the world with your gene pool!
Not saying that anything wrong with regulating games, but shit we can not even regulate cigarettes and keep them out of kids hands so what good will it do!
Re:Parents are there for what? (Score:2)
Re:Parents are there for what? (Score:2)
Japan has the most kids shooting computer sprites and has one of the lowest rates of gun relating killing. Almost everyone in Switzerland has a gun but they have an even lower rate of gun related killings. The issue is far too deep for some dumb law to deal with.
I've said it before (Score:2, Interesting)
The answer is not regulation, the answer is parents getting off their lazy butts and paying attention to what their kids are doing. I grew up with violent video games, just like most of the rest of you. For the most part, we turned out alright. Granted, they're getting more violent, more realistic, more graphic, etc... But you know what, so is everything else. Video games should be like the movies. Kids cant get into Rated R movies without their parents, and they shouldnt be able to but Rated M games without their parents. That's the only acceptible way I can think of to "regulate". Really though, I think it should just be done the way it's always be done, and try expecting parents to be responsible for a change.
Politicians are the issue. (Score:2)
The issue of mandating ratings and the like has nothing to do with either. The main reason the government is getting involved in this industry, is that politicians can't help but notice the money it's making. If politicians can wedge themselves into an industry by threatening legislation for this, that, or what have you, then it opens up a brand new channel for payola from the companies to the politicians.
The videogame industry could stop putting out games with guns in them yesterday, and if the market stayed as large as it currently is, the politicians would be holding congressional investigations on the effect videogames have on teenagers, and reckless driving.
Anyone ever heard of ESRB? (Score:2, Insightful)
GTA is rated M for mature.
Content may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. May contain mature sexual themes or more intense violence or language.
Why isn't this enough?
Re:Anyone ever heard of ESRB? (Score:2)
Big chain stores appear to be taking the "M for Mature" rating seriously, but that just goes to say to a 16 year old that they should buy the game someplace else. There are enough software retailers who don't take the ERSB rating seriously so that it just functions as a label on the box... one that to the kids indicates "The good stuff is in this one!"
In order for the ratings to do what they're supposed to do, there has to be a solid wall that says if you're not 18, you need your parent's approval to get your hands on this game. So far, that part of the system is lacking.
Here's my stand (Score:5, Insightful)
Smoking tobacco causes lung disease. Every single person who smokes tobacco, no matter how much, will damage their lungs to some degree. The more you smoke the more you damage your lungs. This is a fact.
Playing violent video games does NOT cause violence. In fact, most people who play violent video games do not commit violent acts. The same goes for violent movies and tv shows.
Now, there are some people in this world who should not play violent video games. These people are really disturbed people and really immature people. Really disturbed people were probably going to commit a violent act anyway. The violent video games they play do not cause them to be violent, but it gives them the idea of HOW to be violent. Some disturbed person who is going to kill someone might decide that instead of just shooting someone that they will take out their heart and hold it aloft after playing mortal kombat. Because they are disturbed. Then the video game gets blamed because some guy happened to be a nut.
Really immature people will act out anything they see. They have a difficult time telling the difference between fantasy and reality. Not being able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality is actually part of the definition of insanity. Some children CAN play violent games. I played violent games when I was little, yet I am very adamant against violence. But I still play counter-strike, because I realize I'm not actually killing anyone.
Legislation against violent video games is just a continuation of an ongoing american trend of the government forcing stupid americans to do things that they should. Social Security forces people to save for retirement (even though its not working so well). Curfews force parents to not let their kids out at night. Violent media laws force parents to not let their 5 year olds play GTA. This is ok because all the stupid parents who have immature kids are now forced into being slightly better parents. The problem is that some parents who teach their kids right lose the freedom to allow their children to do things that they are mature enough to do, but not old enough. Just like someone who is smart enough to save for their own retirement shouldn't have to pay social security.
Tobacco causes lung cancer. Violent video games dont' cause violence. They give violent people new ideas. They were going to be violent anyway. If anythign it draws these loonies out so we can lock them up. All anti-violent video game legislation infringes on the rights of parents to let their 8 year old play GTA if that parent is a good parent and the 8 year old is indeed mature enough. Instead we should fund schools on "how not to suck at being a parent". Parents these days all go to work, leave kids home alone, and let the television and the video game console, and not the internet, be the parent. This is where the problem lies. It should be a crime not to bring up your children properly. It shouldn't be a crime to play counter-strike.
Re:Here's my stand (Score:2)
Actually it's not. It's excessive smoking that causes damage to your lungs. Your body rebuilds whenever it inccurrs any level of damage and it can purify many foreign substance in certain quantities. It's when people smoke regularly that the body, over time, can't keep up with the pollution and poison and therefore starts to deteriorate.
Tobacco (espcially natural tabacco without the Phillip Morros additives) used occasionally will have no adverse affects on your lungs. The same goes for sitting by a camp fire. If you sat by a camp fire every night for 30+ years, inhaling all that smoke, I guaruntee that you'd get cancer and/or have reduced lung capacity as well.
I'm personally not a smoker but I just had to critique your analogy as it really doesn't work.
Re:Here's my stand (Score:2)
I'm getting very OT here, but which cigarette brands come without additives? I smoke (don't inhale) cigars every now and then, most of which are additive free AFAIK, but which cigarette (or hand rolling tobacco) brands come without these extra chemicals?
I agree with what you say about tobacco, btw - in mild quantities it will do you no long term damage. The problem, of course, is that it is a very addictive substance.
Censorship doesn't work anyway... (Score:2)
If something exists then it is available. If an attempt to ban it is made it becomes even more widely available.
Look at alcohol. When it was banned it was available to anyone. Since the demand was great enough to create a large supply irrespective of any penalties, then there was no reason to worry about whether it was available to kids. There was no greater penalty attached to giving kids booze.
Once it was legalized - and controlled - then several things happened. The quality improved because suddenly you could be put out of what was a lucrative business if it made people sick. And just as suddenly you could go to jail for sellling it to minors (which, coincidentally, also put you out of business.)
Whether or not this game is "art" seems to me to not be an issue. There are some well-known artists whose works depict nude children and no one is advocating that his shows be open to elementary school field trips. There are clearly some things that affect immature minds in adverse ways.
The only really pertinent question is: "If we choose to control who gets it, how do we go about it?" Computer games aren't like bottles of whiskey in that they can be made available to anyone via a download. Just how does a society "control" this? By assuming that anyone with a credit card is an adult (like the on-line porn industry)?
If these are available in stores then how would we ensure that the store personnel keep them away from children? Lock the CDs up with the cigarettes?
And what sorts of penalties would be attached to not following whatever rules society thinks up?
It does seem clear to me that the gaming industry has gone too far with this particular game. There is an outcry now and even if it's unjustified it will result in "something being done". They had better hope that it's the right "something."
Re:Censorship doesn't work anyway... (Score:2)
There are far worse things on the 'Net that violent games. It's the responsibility of the parents to keep an eye on what their children are doing online. If a kid is downloading and installing games that he really shouldn't be playing and the parents know nothing about it, then they're not doing their job. There is very little chance of effectively controlling distribution of anything over the Internet; for every porn site that requires credit cards, there are a hundred that offer "free samples" or outright free content. For every "official" game demo that might be controlled (GameSpot, File Planet, etc.), there are a hundred mirrors without any controls (and likely a hundred warez sites with the full game, anyway).
If these are available in stores then how would we ensure that the store personnel keep them away from children? Lock the CDs up with the cigarettes?
Actually, I would guess that locking up cigarettes has more to do with preventing people (children and adults) from stealing them (an expensive product in a small package is an easy target for shoplifting), as opposed to preventing them from being *sold* to minors. (It's just as easy to ID little Johnny when he brings a carton to the cash register as it is when he walks up and asks for one...) That said, most stores I've seen do keep their games under lock and key, to prevent people from shoplifting them. The real key is not so much where the games are kept as it is to make sure the purchaser is "old enough" (by whatever standards the law or society decides on) to buy a particular game.
DennyK
Just say No (to the Kids) (Score:2)
We've since lightened up a bit on the gaming violence (example: Star Wars Bounty Hunter), but my wife and I always make sure we know what's going on, and keep the game playing in balance with other activities - sports, music, etc.
The art argument and responsible parenting (Score:2)
Art is perhaps the most carefully protected speech, so if it's possible to successfully argue that video games are a form of art, this represents a powerful protection for the games themselves.
As for preventing children from playing such games, this responsibility should most definately lie with parents, much as the choice not to take a child to an art gallery exhibiting nude photography, or the choice not to place marble statue of a nude female (or male) in the bedroom of a small child.While these art forms are not inherently objectionable, and are in many cases quite beautiful, it would be bad parenting to expose a young child to some of these works, until he/she has developed an understanding of the artwork and it's place in society.
--CTH
Ratings are great, just don't enforce them. (Score:2)
Re:Ratings are great, just don't enforce them. (Score:2)
Re:Ratings are great, just don't enforce them. (Score:2)
I am against, however, using the force of government regulation to enforce any kind of rating system (movies included). It is not the business of government to decide how old someone must be to buy/see something.
Re:Ratings are great, just don't enforce them. (Score:2)
you think the kids are going to plainly show their parents everything?
No, but when I see my kid playing GTA3 I'll, *gasp*, know that my kid bought it. It's just like drugs. Of course my kid isn't going to tell me that he has weed in his pocket. As a parent you have to be involved enough to know these things. It's not easy, but that's the job you signed up for, and enforced ratings isn't going to make that job any easier, because just like illegal drugs, the kid will easily get GTA if he wants to.
I got carded for the latest MK (Score:4, Insightful)
psxndc
Why not educate instead? (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I got in to the most trouble when my and friends and I were bored.
Why does the government always insist on censoring things, when educating the kids to know the difference between a game and real life is the real, long term answer? It's the parents responsibility not the governments! Not to mention you would have to be pretty naive to think that little Johnny isn't going over to his friends house to play the violent games that a older brother bought.
oh, boredom is eeevil (Score:2)
amen...8 counts of criminal mischief's worth of trouble. and then the DA had the balls to say "i grew up in West Virginia and i NEVER heard of 'mailbox baseball' until i moved up here"...scumsucker.
Here's a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry to yell. But a warning like "Mature: sexual acts, graphic human-like violence, profanity. Age 18+" on the back of a game should be clear enough to anyone but your common moron.
Whoops! If the parents are too burnt out on valium to flip over the game box and read it before buying it for junior, a video game is the least of their worries.
I have no problem with warning labels and ID checking as long as consenting adults are not prohibited as well.
Remember the children... (Score:4, Insightful)
They aren't stupid. No more stupid as a class than adults are. As a class, their brain chemsitry is a bit different from adults and is still more flexible. But this doesn't mean that any old idea that comes along is going to inexorably pervade their thought processes until they dedicate their lives to slavishly carrying out some twisted schizophrenic directive.
Kids are perfectly capable of dealing with violence and sex in movies, games and books without becoming permanently drain-bamaged. Please, don't bother with the anecdotes about Columbine and the Menedez brothres and the like. If the adult population were so lucky as to have as few aberrant members as the anecdotal freaks are to the kid population our prisons system would be the size of just one hotel and the murder rate for the whole country would be less than that of just Los Angeles.
You said it! (Score:2)
As always, anecdotal != evidence, but come on now: most of us who grew up in the 70's and 80's watched one hell of a lot of violent movies as children (Friday the 13th, anyone?) and yet managed to somehow deal with it. Most children are exposed to insanely graphic literature (Shakespeare, anyone?). Hell, read the Christian Bible sometime (insert most any other religion here I'm sure, but it's the one I'm most familiar with). Death, revenge, glorified violence, sexual deviancy, you name it. Yet somehow children manage to absorb all this without society turning into one massive kill-fest every 20 years.
Every single new media or art form that comes out is inevitably looked upon as something we should somehow keep away from children (let's see, so far we have books, television, movies, comics, music, video games). When will people figure out that by and large, children are perfectly capable of dealing with this, at LEAST as well as adults are?
Hurrah! I just turned eighteen! (Score:2)
Now I can boot up my computer, install GTA, and... control a bunch of pixels driving over other bunches of pixels. Wow.
The phrase 'yeah, right' comes to mind.
OTOH, parents should be aware of what their kids are playing... but that's hardly a lot to ask, now, is it?
Re:Hurrah! I just turned eighteen! (Score:2)
This would mean another xxAA (Score:2)
The linked article calls for a third party to rise up and implement distribution controls similar to those used for movies.
In the US, the government has no role to play in the movie ratings system. For it to do so would be unconstitutional. There's nothing illegal about making a film that would be rated R and not controlling it's distribution.
So how does the system work? It's controlled by the MPAA. The studios are affiliated with the MPAA, and so are the cinemas. To show those movies offered by MPAA studios, cinemas must agree to enforce the MPAA rules about not letting minors into certain films. Likewise, studios must obtain a rating from the MPAA before distributing the films to cinemas. Some "art-house" cinemas that don't play MPAA movies don't use or enforce the MPAA's ratings system, and they're under no legal obligation to do so.
The movie ratings system only works because the vast, vast majority of the industry is under MPAA control. What the article's calling for would require, say, a Computer Games Association of America (CGAA). The industry already generates more revenue than Hollywood, so it's not like they couldn't afford to form it.
Given the effects of the centralisation of the record and movie industries, do you really want another xxAA?
It's not the games... (Score:2)
Greplaw down, here is my comment (Score:5, Informative)
Over at Yale's Lawmeme, editor Paul Szynol gives his opinion on violence in computer games. Szynol wants an effective ranking mechanism but conclude that computer games may exert a negative influence on kids. Excuse me, but who used the time machine? Computer games are art and should be dealt with accordingly, without any references to the prohibition tactics of the 1980:ies.
The contents of games like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City should serve well as starting point in any discussion on the ethics of computer games. It appears Lawmeme's Paul Szynol is not alone in his views on violence in computer games. Washington Post columnist Mike Wilbon put it even more clearly than Szynol in the ESPN TV show "Pardon The Interruption" stating in respect of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City:
"The people who put it together should be stoned in the street."
I think Wilbon is on thin ice when he wants to punish the artist. Computer games are the result of a creative process not different than other objects of arts, such as paintings or music.
In the 1980:ies in Sweden we had a very intense debate on violence in computer games. The most outspoken opponent to violence in computer games was Margaretha Persson, then representative of the precedent to the Children's Ombudsman (Barnmiljoradet / Barnombudsmannen). Any Swede with good memory can recount the events when Persson made the game distributors remove a plastic shuriken (ninja star) from the game box before selling the Commodore 64 game Last Ninja 2. Persson also wanted a ban on other games. The debate looks very silly in the light of today, especially since Last Ninja 2 then was considered to be a photo-realistic game with animated movie qualities. The graphics were worse than the graphics provided in latest Ericsson cell phones. The individuals beating people up in the streets of Stockholm in the 1980:ies most likely had others and more severe personal issues to deal with than playing Last Ninja 2.
I do agree with Paul Szynol that computer games should be rated. That is already done, as observed by Szynol. Rockstar's game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was rated by Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and there is no active marketing for the game targeting players that are less than 17 years old.
Personally, as a constantly immoral and bad person, I would probably play games with three skulls rating, but that does not imply that I think kids should do it. Parents must have a chance to understand and grasp the difference between BMX Kidz and BMX XXX. Yes, the latter is a game for Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube sold today where you can run a BMX bike with a topless female biker. The former is a old Commodore 64 game that would hardly be detected on the rating radar.
I believe society and the individual are affected by culture. That does not mean that I believe that anyone would place his wife in the trunk after listening to Eminem's song Stan. In accordance with most modern psychologists I think the individual is affected both by his heritage and his environment. The importance of the environment, of which the culture is a vital part, is most probably more significant during the early years of an individual's upbringing. If the individual is exposed only to extremely violent games and movies the individual may maintain a different approach to life than an individual that gets a more varied cultural diet. In either way, the parents must have the possibility to choose whether the kid should be exposed to a varied or strict video game diet. in practice, that is not the case today. Most parents can not efficiently exercise their guardianship because they lack knowledge of the contents of the computer games. In respect of movies, parents rather easily can decide whether the kid shall be allowed to watch a certain movie or not. There are effective rating mechanisms and it is easy to actually control the content by watching the movie. When it comes to computer games it is hard and time-consuming for the parents to learn that you may actually have intercourse with prostitutes in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and subsequently kill your sex partner. This particular part of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was removed in Australia following a ban of the game in the land of the kangaroo.
To be fair, Paul Szynol did not crave a direct ban on certain computer games, but distribution control so that minors don't get access to inappropriate material. In my opinion, the computer game vendors should treat sensitive material in the same way video stores do - comedy in one corner, violence in another corner. A sticker on the box with an independent rating of the content would further add to improve the situation. Then it is up to the market - that is you and me - to decide whether we want to have the violent games or not. Voting with the wallet is often extremely efficient and would supersede any attempts of regulation.
There are opponents to rating as such. In my opinion there are good and bad ratings and good and bad computer games. How ratings as such would be bad I find hard to understand. The market would benefit from getting more information.
Would it not be great if a certain association of parents make a list over computer games it considers dangerous to kids? I am sure there are several such lists in the loop. Any parent or grown-up may choose whether to consider the recommendations made on such a list or just ignore it.
Someone may want to buy only computer games that are rated by the Church of Scientology, someone may settle for ratings from Nation of Islam and a third for ratings conducted by the Catholic church. I have no problem with that as long as we all, individually, are able to choose our own filters and prejudices. But the debate run a risk of returning to the prohibition propaganda of the 1980:ies where we tilt towards apprehending the Swedish Last Ninja 2 uproar and the recent experiences from Australia. It is indeed hard to defend certain parts of the contents of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Paul Szynol's call for distribution control and review of the rating system are less tasty dishes on the smorgasbord of the computer rating debate. Some of the arguments should be placed in the time machine and sent back to the appropriate decade.
Computer games are art and should be treated with the equal respect we treat Rembrandt's painting The Conspiracy of the Batavians under Claudius Civilis [nationalmuseum.se]. The painting may bear witness of a coming extreme violence in the uprising lead by Julius Civilis, but I gather few today would demand on moral grounds that the painting should be removed from the National Museum in Stockholm. Why should we treat computer games any differently?
Mikael Pawlo
Re:Greplaw down, here is my comment (Score:2)
This is true but the issue is kids, not adults. A doctor was on the TV today complaining that he's seeing lots of kids (under 18's, I think from the context) that really don't understand what a gun does; in particular he had to treat a 9-year-old who allowed his friend to shoot him because he didn't know it would hurt! Many, very young, kids play games where people get shot multiple times and all that happens is that their "energy level" drops or the have to re-start the level.
It's not just a game issue, of course, but a lot of the "it doesn't effect kids" people forget how easy it is for really young kids to be exposed to high levels of violence, and also how naive they were when they were 9, or even 13.
TWW
Flawed logic? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's bull. I, for one, have seen the ESRB's influence first hand. They've done a GREAT job of keeping me from renting games. I can drive to the rental place, but i can't rent Resident Evil once i'm there, because i'm not 17. I can't rent ANY of the "mature" games there. The various incarnations of Silent Hill, Resident Evil, certain FPSes, etc., are all off-limits for me, even though i personally own many of them, and have played them millions of times. I can turn on Fox and see more questionable content than i would playing Resident Evil (Silent Hill is another story, heh). I can see the logic in the system, of course... but this guy's argument is bullshit.
* Based on the ranking mechanism, I'd like to see distribution control so that minors don't get access to inappropriate material.
For the most part, already in place. All the big chains bar minors from buying/renting games below their "age group". Wal-Mart, Target, Blockbuster, and most of the regional chains i've been to, won't allow me to rent or buy "mature" games unless i have a parent with me. There are, of course, small and/or independent shops where i can walk in and they'll pretty much sell me anything, regardless of my age or the content of the game.
* I do believe exposure to some of the content of some video games is prima facie problematic. This seems to be the point where I part ways with most of the people who responded, but so it goes. I don't think video games are inherently "bad", but I do think some of them can exert a negative influence on some kids some of the time.
And of course, who can criticise video games without playing the "games influence kids" argument? I'm sure everyone on Slashdot already has their minds made up about whether or not games influence kids. I'm sure anyone that has ever heard the argument does. However, he says himself that they exert a negative influence on SOME kids SOME of the time. Why stop with video games? Let's regulate TV shows (because no, they are not regulated to any great degree). Let's regulate driver's licences. Let's have everyone participate in a psychological evaluation before we allow them to legally have access to a car, because hey, cars contribute to road rage. I can walk into Target and buy a giant fucking knife, or a box of kitchen matches. Why don't we regulate those things? Why don't we regulate baseball bats? Lumber? Nails? Screwdrivers? Boots?
I'm being facetious, of course. The fact is, games are already regulated as much as they need to be. There is no need to get any more anal about it. Once again, everyone thinks it should be up to somebody else to take care of their kids. Let's see THE PARENTS take some responsibility, instead of blaming video games, movies, and music for their poor child-raising skills.
Excluding very small children (i.e. ~8 and younger), games don't influence people that aren't already fucked up in the head. Small children like that aren't going to be able to rent/buy games anyway. One, where will they get the money? Two, how will they get to the store/rental place? Three, what moron would sell a violent game to a little kid like that if they did happen to get past the first two hurdles? Those are the kids we needed to be worrying about with the game ratings, and we don't have to anymore. They're covered. The only problem now is the psychologically demented people that play Quake and then go out and shoot people. Mainstream society shouldn't have to suffer because there are screwed-up people in the world.
PS: I think Grand Theft Auto (all four versions of it) is a retarded and extremely overrated game.
Re:Flawed logic? (Score:2)
That is PRECISELY what needs to happen. America, and indeed, the world, would be a MUCH better place if people would just take responsibilty, instead of always looking for someone/thing else to blame their mistakes on.
Same tired bullshit argument (Score:2, Insightful)
As one poster on FreeRepublic about the overwhelming tendency of people like this and the media cartels to resort to extremist tactics, the only solution is to keep the ammo dry and the guns oiled.
good times (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good times (Score:3, Insightful)
The irresponsible minority (Score:2)
There are psychopaths out there who will get ideas from violent games, but they are more likely to get violent ideas by coming into contact with street gangs, caught up in drug trafficking, or by being abused by their lousy parents.
At the moment we have a legal system which, perhaps rightly, insists that people cannot be locked up until they commit crimes, or parents and institutions cannot have children removed from their care until the child has actually been abused. Because of this, we are constantly being asked to regulate access to things that could do harm. Society is being designed on the basis that it contains a hard core of psychopaths and so no-one must be issued with sharp objects.
Past attempts to remove dangerous people from circulation have usually been carried out by governments in which the psychopaths are in control - liberal governments do not like to infringe civil liberties. Meanwhile, the percentage of dangerous people seems to be going up, if the prison population is any guide.
I don't have any solutions, liberal or otherwise. Our choice seems to be somewhere between the Roman Empire solution (which might well be to kill every teenager and adult male in violent inner city areas, and spread the women and small children around into culturally alien areas)and the Japanese Imperial solution (completely disarm the entire non-military population and control tightly their access to unwanted ideas.) The debate is, where on that spectrum should we be?
Totally moronic (Score:2)
Real vs. Implied Violence (Score:4, Insightful)
The government that brought us arms sales to Iran's Ayatollah [subliminable.com], supported al Queda [redwoodpeace.org] et al when it was Russia they were fighting, funded CIA-trained death squads in South America [washingtonpost.com], that has killed a million-plus Iraqi children [peopledaily.com.cn] with their embargo (and noted "we think the price is worth it [reason.com]"), who have so far provded Turkey with $15B (yes, billions) worth of weapons [thebulletin.org] and training to fight the Northern Kurds (who the U.S. claims to be protecting from Saddam)
If I want to keep my daughter away from violence, I think my best bet is to turn off the nightly news and give her permission to skip history class.
PMRC (Score:2)
The comment I'm referring to is when he asked the PMRC "All I want to know is who's going to pay for it?".
All too often this is a very overlooked factor. My personal opinion is because the people pushing for the changes realize that if they say "oh, and everybody who is allowed to buy this product gets to pay extra for the labeling that does a shoddy job of making sure little johnny doesn't see 'bad stuff' on the shiny screen in his room" that all of a sudden the folk who at first react emotionally with "you know, maybe little johnny shouldn't be seeing this stuff" would all of a sudden react rationally with "why don't I just keep my money and let little johnny's parents worry about his emotional adjustments".
Video games *are* art! (Score:2)
But they are 'art' in the same way that cinema is 'art'. In other words they are 'collaborationist' art, requiring the efforts of many people to create. Because of this fact it requires a great deal of money to complete a decent video game, and no-one will put up that money without expecting a return. So video games must be commercial. You must make, or at least attempt to make, video games (and films) that will return a profit.
This results in many comprimises. One of these is the fact that sex and violence sell. Don't believe me? Count the number of R and PG-13 rated films and compare them to those PG and below. Or just go see 'Adaptation' (in theaters now) and try to catch what Charlie Kaufman was really trying to say with that script...
The danger is that the governement will find excuses like this [netscape.com] to use in an attempt to control the video game market -- and will be able to get such controls past the courts because of public opinion. For this reason one of two things must happen; either the video game market implements its own system akin to the movie rating system, (which it has done) and puts out an equivalent effort to enforce it (which it is not doing). Or, my preference, someone produces tools that allow people to create video games on their own quite easily.
This last is coming to pass, we have all seen the recent
I suspect the game vendors will prefer the first scenario. But I think the second will result in things that few people would argue are 'art'. They may not be games as we now know them though...
Shouldn't I be in Prison Already? (Score:2)
Today I am 25, I have a job, degree, girlfriend, etc. I'm not violent, I'm not a pervert, etc. According to many advocacy groups, I should have snapped by now. Why didn't I crack up? Good Parenting, it is all about how a child is raised. Great parents can even raise children in terrible surroundings and wind up with fantastic well adjusted children. Unfortunately, there are no advocacy/lobbying groups for ensuring good parenting and probably the biggest problems is the people who are least qualified to be parents are having the most children! My grandmother use to call it, Devolution.
Decide for yourselves! No to gov't regulations. (Score:2)
If children are free to purchase such games, so be it. If the parents don't want their children to play them, they will stop them. Confiscate them, whatever. Any parent knows what's going on in their living room. If their 14-year-old is hiring a prostitute and then killing her for her money in a gem like GTA3, odds are the parent will hear this and catch wind of it. If the parent is rational and realises it's just a game, then so be it. If the parent makes the decision that this is not acceptable for their child, then that's ok too - I guess. Who am I to judge?
People: be your own regulator. Those who are in favour of a government deciding what you can or cannot do are sheep.
I'm sure probably someone's said this... (Score:3, Insightful)
YES, kids should probably not usually have access to violent video games.
YES, parents need to have access to information about the games their kids want to play.
NO, it's not the government's job to deny access to the kids. It's up to the parents to look into a game and decide if it's right for their kids. Same as movies, books, television shows, and everything else in this world.
But parents are throwing up their hands. We've got a Fundamentalist Christian ethic taking over that's letting people get stuck with kids, and we've got people putting off becoming parents until they're older than 40, and we end up with a whole lot of kids whose parents have no clue how to raise them. Then we reinforce that with more and more regulation of schools and children's entertainment, letting parents know "It's ok, you don't have to worry about it, we'll control what your children get."
But it's not about absolute denial or permission. It's about putting art and entertainment in context. It's about explaining the difference between realistic violence and fantasy violence. It's about letting kids talk about how a movie or game or whatever makes them feel.
Heck, if we don't allow children any fantasy outlet for violence, we'll cause just as much as if we treat violence as normal recreation. That's why we have these images in popular media, for crying out loud. When we get angry, we can't go out and shoot a whole McDonald's full of people... but we can watch Arnie do it for us.
Kids, or the easily influenced. (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, ratings aren't a bad idea. Parents should be aware of hte game content when making purchases for their children, and should make an educated decision based on how easily influenced the child is. Just because somebody is between the ages of (for example) 12-18 doesn't mean that giving them GTA means they're going to immediately feel the urge to go jack cars and blow away real people with a rocket launched.
There are a lot of adults who are probably more unduely influeced by such things than the 16-yr-olds. Personally, I've always found that a good deathmatch is a way to get together with friends and just have fun or even vent frustrations without physical violence.
My opinion (Score:4, Funny)
Then they took my GTA III -- I did nothing
Now all I have left to play is Super Mario's bible challenge and Tetris....Damn them
Should mirrors be rated NC-17? (Score:3, Insightful)
Truth is, kids don't learn profanity from TV or movies, they learn it at school. And it's simply impossible for a movie with casual nudity to be aimed at kids.
At least there are movies that make the MPAA look stupid. Too bad video games aren't there yet.
Games != Violence (Score:3, Insightful)
Games don't make kids violent.
LIFE makes people and kids violent!
How many of you remember your own teenage years? Remember all those hormones? Remember the peer pressure? Things are just as bad today, if not worse... and guess what? THIS generation has far more parents who don't do the job of parenting.
It's up to the parents to protect their kids and teach them right from wrong, not by passing laws to water down violent games or movies, not by whining about how terrible things are... by talking to their kids and helping them with their problems instead of ignoring them and then crying when they turn to hours of violent games to try and escape the lives they can't figure out yet.
IMHO, anyone who says we need more laws to "protect" our kids is saying the government can do a better job of raising them than they can. Maybe they're right... but they should have thought of that before becoming parents.
Re:no law enforcement for violence? ok (Score:3, Insightful)
Punishment better than prevention? (Score:2)
On the other hand, banning violent games isn't going to stop the violence. I've got the sneaky feeling that if the German vets of World War I had access to combat and strategy games, their taste for violence and warfare would have been sated, denying the National Socialists their basic appeal to the masses "Violence and the Volk".
Re:Punishment better than prevention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Prevention with the restrictions I have mentioned is neither easy nor cheap.
Also, I believe there are effects where violent games both sate the hunger for real-life violence, and those that fuel it further. Which is the dominant effect I wouldn't want to try guessing....
Re:no law enforcement for violence? ok (Score:2, Funny)
Re:EU eclipses US in games market - what next ? (Score:5, Informative)
Boy, that list is just bursting with violent games.
Re:EU eclipses US in games market - what next ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Games were directly responsible for the Columbine Massacre? I consider myself a very ethical person (it is my beleif that killing a person is one of the worst things you could ever do) and I cringe at the thought of hurting another person, but I play all those games you listed about (as well as some others) The reason I play those games is because they're fun, and I can tell the difference between something on a TV screen or computer monitor and something in real life. Playing Grand Theft Auto for an hour everyday is not going to make you become some insane car jacker. The people who do horrible things like what happened in Columbine have problems, problems that have nothing to do with games. What sickens ME is that in this day and age people never want to take responsibility for their own actions, and blame it on things like video games, and movies. God willing, they will never discover books, or they'll have ratings too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's stupidity, not location (Score:5, Informative)
Like this [bbc.co.uk] shooting, you mean?
Criminals and nutters will get their hands on guns regardless of whether guns are legal or not. And the number of muggings over here in Britain is significantly higher than it is in the US, partly because it is effectively illegal to defend yourself here.
Finally, here's a little know fact about the Columbine high-school shootings: About a year before they took place, a law was passed in the state making it completely illegal to take a gun onto school premises. Before said law was passed, the deputy principal of the school would take a loaded pistol onto the premises every day, and take it home again every night. After the law was passed, he left it in his car a quarter of a mile away. Interestingly enough, it was he who eventually disarmed the boys - except that he had spent several minutes running to his car and driving back with his gun, by which time the boys had managed to kill quite a few of their fellow pupils.
I wonder what would have happened if the state had trusted him enough to let him keep the gun on the premises?
Re:It's stupidity, not location (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's stupidity, not location (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about that for a second - that's 20 years of gaming, starting from an impresionable age, and I'm still not a violent person. That's ignoring the films I watch, too.
Violent games and films aren't the problem, they're just a convenient scapegoat, something that can be controlled with little or no effort on the part of parents. The problem is a lack of discipline, self control and moral awareness. These are things that kids mostly get from their peers and their parents.
Too many parents let the TV babysit their kids all day, don't spend enough time with them, go far too easy on discipline, then wonder why they turn into tearaways and start looking for something to blame.
Re:This is logical (Score:2)
Re:Government regulation?Why is it always regulati (Score:2)
What the hell??? Have you looked at the list of Nintendo games recently? There are hundreds, if not thousands of "alternatives" for kids to buy and play with, and not just Nintendo. There's plenty of educational and kid-friendly software and games out there to act as competition to the likes of GTA.
The fact of the matter is that kids like violence and they don't want to play those kid-friendly games as much as they want to beat up hookers. Is it appropriate for them to do that? I don't think so and that's why our democratically elected government is trying to do things to help parents have more control over what their kids play with. If the parent wants to buy an "R" rated game, let them, but don't let the 8 year-old buy it him/herself if it's labelled as a "mature" game.
I am against the government outlawing these types of games outright, but I am for them regulating them. It's completely appropriate and draws a good balance between "child protection" and the freedoms of adults. And yes, "protecting the children" is a valid reason at times like this, even it it's become a cliche.
Re:Government regulation?Why is it always regulati (Score:2)
I'm not opposed to the idea of restricting access to violent content to minors on pure principle. I 'm opposed to it because it's a band-aid on a bullet wound. It simply doesn't work. A fascination with violence can exist quite well with or without video games, and the government would be a better servant of the people (its true role, IMHO) by working to facilitate parents, teachers, etc. to develop people of character who do not desire to beat on hookers, rather than focusing on controlling people's actions. Enforcement of laws restricting things people want doesn't work (prohibition, drug war). If you want that behavior to change, you have to change what people want.
I would much prefer to live in a society where sick, violent, awful things are readily available and people choose not to partake of them rather than one in which access is restricted by the government. Look what happened the day the Taliban fell in Kabul. Everyone went crazy, shaving off their beards, music, dancing, etc. Not that those were necessarily bad things, but the iron hand of the Ministry of Preventing Vice and Promoting Virtue was only able to push those things to just beneath the surface. They didn't promote anything but superficial conformity.
Re:Only one problem, CmdrTaco (Score:3, Insightful)
?
Guns: YES, enforcing the ban on felons having guns is a good thing! If it takes you an extra two weeks to get your hunting rifile, that's a good thing--a weapon of deadly force is something that needs to be taken up with the utmost reverence and respect.
Cars: Yeah, seatbelts and airbags and saftey minimums and efficincy laws and recalls for blatant life-endagering defects sure do hurt.
Prohibition: Er, that's a ban, not regulation. It's the classic example of how regulation (over 21 only, don't drink when you use it) is far far better than banning.
Railroads: Ok, you've lost me there. I'm missing the states of the railroad between "greedy corporate tool of opression" and "nonprofitable federal government public transit."
On the other hand, the replacement of the railroads--that is, the interstate system--was made by the government, and there isn't anyone else in America who could have organized or paid for it.
Video games should be just like movies. The industry should set the rules and determine what labels mean what and what games get what labels--but the government should be able to enforce this system.
Think about it--would YOU want RIAA or MPAA (or a hypothetical "VGAA") having the government's job of enforcement?
Re:Only one problem, CmdrTaco (Score:2)
Re:Only one problem, CmdrTaco (Score:2, Insightful)
Listen, dumbcluck, those government controls - the system of law, basically - are what make civilisation. You think life is great in countries without government controls? I suggest you actually visit, in no particular order, the following countries where government controls are weak or nonexistent, without the State Department to dig you out:
- Somalia
- Belarus
- Chechnya
- Afghanistan
- Algeria
- Nigeria
Now it's true that where you get hopeless corrupt tribal governments life can be pretty hellish if you're on the wrong side, such as-
Zimbabwe
- Iraq
But what about countries where democratically elected governments are in charge but have a lot of state intervention, places like:- France
- Germany
- Switzerland
- New Zealand
- Sweden
Not exactly the hellholes of the planet, are they?Now try and justify your absurd statement with some concrete examples. Hint: the CIA Wolrd factbook isn't very helpful to you.
My conclusion: the key is democracy and the rule of law. Provided regulation has democratic oversight and can be fairly legally challenged, there isn't much to worry about.
Re:Only one problem, CmdrTaco (Score:2)
There are plenty of examples (guns, cars, prohibition, railroads) that show that government involvement in the trade of goods and services tends to hurt everyone.
Huh? Are you on crack?
Do you think it should be legal to sell guns to anyone, including criminals?
Do you think it should be legal to drive without any training? Do you think it should be legal to choose which side of the road you drive on? Do you think we shoul allow cars without brakes out into traffic?
Ok, prohibition (if you are talking about the ancient alcohol one) was a bad idea. I'll give you that. But even then, there is quite a few advantages in restricting alchohol availability somewhat (especially if you are concerned about the health budget)
As for railroads, I have no idea what you are talking about, as I'm not a US citizen. But like roads, railroads (or any kind of infrastructure) needs planning. The idea is to find a balance between fair competition, and government regulation. Here in europe, most railroads are (semi-)state-owned, and it doesn't seem to have given us much problems so far.
If it was true that government involvement in anything related to trade would hurt everyone, then explain to me how patients would benefit from no legislation in health-care? How would air-passengers benefit from no legislation in air-traffic? How would consumers benefit from no legislation in food-products?
To give you a different perspective, let's look at my home-country: Norway. Norway has always been a social-democratic country. The state is huge. It pretty much owns half of the country. The last 10-20 years, there has been huge cries for privatization of various government (and district) services.
Now, guess who cries loudest? The few parts of the government that actually makes a profit! The result is that whereas we earlier had government income from the phone-service, the electric-service, etc..., the government now gets that from taxes, or cutting budgets. Does that help the public much?
But, in most cases, the companies privatized has become better at dealing with customers. And in some ways they have become worse (preferring to deal with customers giving them lots of money, instead of doing stuff that is good when you look at it from a socio-economical perspective).
In any case, regulation/free-market can be both positive and negative. But in no case can it be said that government involvement in trade of good or services automatically is negative. As with all things, it depends, and it is a matter of finding the right balance.
Re:GTA is worse for adults... (Score:2, Interesting)
When GTA3 appeared in our music studio, there was some pretty serious gaming that went on for a while (an unusual circumstance; usually, the toys we play with are exclusively musical, but the appearance of the PS2 caused a weeks-long hiatus). Now, I rarely drive cars at all, as PDX is an extremely bike-friendly town. However, I noticed that on those occasions when I remained sober to drive those alkie bandmembers home, I noticed that some part of my brain had associated the act of driving a Real(TM) Car with playing GTA3.
At no point did I seriously consider flattening pedestrians or ramming cops off the road. Keep this in mind - my ability to distinguish fact from fiction remains intact, despite a world-class suspension-of-disbelief-generator mounted on a microscopic rack bolted to the inside of my skull.
However, when I looked to the left or right of the vehicle, I sure did use my index fingers on the steering wheel as if I were holding a PS2 controller - L2 for looking left out the window. I would spend a microscopic instant considering flight everytime I saw a guy in a black European Audi-lookin' car - those are Mafia, they have serious ordinance, they'll fsck joo up!
Most disturbing, every time I heard a chopper overhead, even when on foot or bicycle, the most proper and immediate response in my mind (for an instant, mind you) was to whip out the bazooka and take it out.
This state of affairs lasted for about a week and a half, during which time my daily consumption of GTA3 could be reckoned to hover somewhere around 2-3 hours a day, every day. I haven't played any game that much since ultima 6. As soon as I stopped playing daily, these sensations went away.
BUT WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
1) I wasn't kidding about my world-class suspension-of-disbelief generator.
2) Even though I can cause myself to temporarily believe almost anything for a while, these GTA3-inspired beliefs never caused me to take any untoward actions. Every time I felt a desire to ram that guy in the Patriot off the road, I was able to recognize same as a game-generated impulse and squash it without effort.
3) Lots of folks are better at separating the rules and regs of the mundane world from their digital fantasy worlds better than myself.
4) We're going to have to assume that some folks do NOT perform this separation as competently as we might hope - certainly less competently than myself.
5) Perhaps some of the people in #4 also play more games than do I.
6) Perhaps some of the remaining people found in #5 are quite young.
7) I know I'm not alone in having GTA3 leak into my brain when I'm not actually playing. Many of my friends have reported the same sort of sensations that I described above, similar to that which the AC poster described (perhaps humorously). None of us, of course, have gone and DONE any GTA3-inspired crimes, but we have carefully reinforced grips-on-reality.
See, what we want to make in our music studios and game-design thinktanks and writer's groups is art that moves people - that comes back to haunt them long after they've put the book down or pressed STOP on their (insert media-reproduction device here). That's why I make media, anyways - because my life has been permanently altered by the stuff I put in my head, and some of that stuff haunts me forever after, and I have basically unlimited respect for the folks what make it. Right now, I'm particularly haunted by the works of Neal Stephenson, Scott Herren, and Arvo Part - they've made stuff that follows me around everywhere.
However, for a few brief days, I was consistently haunted by a piece of media made by the guys at Rockstar Games. That GTA3 is some pretty potent mind-altering stuff. Just like the booze, just like the prescription drugs, I say: keep out of reach of children.