Violent video game law scotched by US judge

[astr0creep]

I think feeding your children diets of fat and sugar and the parents never being home because they have important careers are more harmful than playing a violent video game.  "

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was just about to write those exact same words.

[LoneWolf16]

I've been exposed to pornography and violence since I was 7, my parents never censored anything, I was allowed to watch whatever I wanted, play whatever I wanted, listen to whatever I wanted.

 

Look how well I turned out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That makes two of us. Sort of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Three of us.

 

I live in Michigan.  I walked into Walmart with my mom and tried to buy Gun one day.  They said they weren't allowed to sell it to me.  So my mom says: "I'm buying the game, not him."  then the lady says, "You're not allowed to buy that game for him."  my mom explained that she would be the one buying it, and she had to say the game wouldn't go to me.  I got the game, but only after getting in line at a different register and i wasn't allowed to be present.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... ...this actually diminishes any hopes I had for people.

[Dark_Raven]

The people in power need to let parents actually be parents and let them decide what their child can or can not buy, game wise, music or whatever. If mom and dad think a game is too violent, than they should not let their child play it. We do not need Big Brother telling us what we can or can not do. If violence is an issue, than they should moderate what is shown of tv news. I think seeing actual blood and guts on the news is more violent than letting a kid play a game like Bloodlines or FEAR.

 

[astr0creep]

The people in power need to let parents actually be parents and let them decide what their child can or cannot buy, game wise, music or whatever.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would add that any parent that gives the child 60-70$, for whatever reason, is very irresponsible and should let the other parent have a try at custody...

 

Kids don't buy anything. The parents do, wether they are present or not. The nuance is in the allowance, if the child is lucky enough to get such a thing. And I would hope it would never be 60-70$ a week.

 

If the parent is not sure if a particular game is ok for the child or not(because it does depend on the child's personality, her/his tolerance/awareness to violence/adultness), that parent should take a few hours and rent the bloddy thing, to GET INFORMED ABOUT THE CHILD'S INTERESTS.

 

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If the parent is not sure if a particular game is ok for the child or not(because it does depend on the child's personality, her/his tolerance/awareness to violence/adultness), that parent should take a few hours and rent the bloddy thing, to GET INFORMED ABOUT THE CHILD'S INTERESTS.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually being gamers I think we take that forgranted a bit. Would you really have the time to pre play every game your child wanted to play ? Most parents would not have that luxury (unless they neglected something else to do so).

 

Now that games are almost cinema realistic if watching a film for X ammount of time can be deemed harmful. Then it's not a stretch to believe that playing a game for X* ammount of time (since games are generally longer than movies) will be equally so. Thats before you start worrying about that you are a participant in whatever is going on in a game, rather than an observer.

 

Otherwise a parents way of becoming informed would not do the industry any favours (since it would be by reading about stuff like GTA in the papers).

Ratings are preferable to that sort of sensationalism.

[Judge Hades]

I've been exposed to pornography and violence since I was 7, my parents never censored anything, I was allowed to watch whatever I wanted, play whatever I wanted, listen to whatever I wanted.

 

Look how well I turned out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That makes two of us. Sort of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Three of us.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Four of us.

[astr0creep]

Actually being gamers I think we take that forgranted a bit. Would you really have the time to pre play every game your child wanted to play ? Most parents would not have that luxury (unless they neglected something else to do so).

 

Now that games are almost cinema realistic if watching a film for X ammount of time can be deemed harmful. Then it's not a stretch to believe that playing a game for X* ammount of time (since games are generally longer than movies) will be equally so. Thats before you start worrying about that you are a participant in whatever is going on in a game, rather than an observer.

 

Otherwise a parents way of becoming informed would not do the industry any favours (since it would be by reading about stuff like GTA in the papers).

Ratings are preferable to that sort of sensationalism.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry but I disagree.

 

If your child's interests are more akin to playing music, writing fantasy or even sports(God forbid!), you will take the time to get informed and support your child, spend the money necessary to support the material needs. The problem with video games, compared to the examples above, is that it's usually a complete waste of your child's time. No skills are learned, it will serve absolutely no purpose in life unless chosen much later as a career path. The purpose of gaming(in most cases) is to waste time, to fight boredom. Thats it, no matter what we as gamers want to believe(notice the "we" please).

But if it is a child's interest, a passion, a hobby, any parent should take the time to learn more about video games and how their child interacts with them. No newspaper, pharmaceutical company, or Jack Thompsons will ever be able to inform you on your specific child's needs, tastes and temperament.

 

The ratings are a warning. "This game MAY not be suitable for certain people".

The laws try to change that little sentence to something like :"This game IS NOT suitable for certain people"

 

That is a clear restriction of the basic freedom to choose.

[Dark_Raven]

I've been exposed to pornography and violence since I was 7, my parents never censored anything, I was allowed to watch whatever I wanted, play whatever I wanted, listen to whatever I wanted.

 

Look how well I turned out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That makes two of us. Sort of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Three of us.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Four of us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was exposed to violence as a child by father, so violence was never anything new to me. Neither was pornography since my older brothers left it (magazines) "hidden" in their room.

 

I had liberties on what I could buy, what I could listen to, what games I could play.

[Judge Hades]

My mother left me to make my own decisions and my own mistakes. Of course if I did do something majorly wrong I was punished but for the most part I kept to myself growing up playing games.

 

One time at a friend's place, I think I was 10 at the time, a friend got a hold of a porno tape and played it. I thought it was boring so I decided to go up stairs and took apart his stereo.

[Fenghuang]

Man, your friends must love you Hades.

 

"Yeah, I'm bored, I think I'll go take apart my friend's stuff."

 

"WTF HOW DID ALL MY STUFF GET TAKEN APART. HADES UR TEH WORST FRIEND EVAR!"

[Calax]

If your child's interests are more akin to playing music, writing fantasy or even sports(God forbid!), you will take the time to get informed and support your child, spend the money necessary to support the material needs. The problem with video games, compared to the examples above, is that it's usually a complete waste of your child's time. No skills are learned, it will serve absolutely no purpose in life unless chosen much later as a career path. The purpose of gaming(in most cases) is to waste time, to fight boredom. Thats it, no matter what we as gamers want to believe(notice the "we" please).

But if it is a child's interest, a passion, a hobby, any parent should take the time to learn more about video games and how their child interacts with them. No newspaper, pharmaceutical company, or Jack Thompsons will ever be able to inform you on your specific child's needs, tastes and temperament.

 

The ratings are a warning. "This game MAY not be suitable for certain people".

The laws try to change that little sentence to something like :"This game IS NOT suitable for certain people"

 

That is a clear restriction of the basic freedom to choose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Video games don't teach any good skills for later in life then why are surgons required to play at least 20 hours a week? Also if you play other games (mainly multiplayer) you can learn team dynamics and team management. you can also pick up strategy (without having luck factored into strategy so how good it is in the real world I don't know)

[metadigital]

Calax FTW!

I live in Michigan.  I walked into Walmart with my mom and tried to buy Gun one day.  They said they weren't allowed to sell it to me.  So my mom says: "I'm buying the game, not him."  then the lady says, "You're not allowed to buy that game for him."  my mom explained that she would be the one buying it, and she had to say the game wouldn't go to me.  I got the game, but only after getting in line at a different register and i wasn't allowed to be present.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am desperately trying to decipher your point ... and failing.

[Calax]

I live in Michigan.  I walked into Walmart with my mom and tried to buy Gun one day.  They said they weren't allowed to sell it to me.  So my mom says: "I'm buying the game, not him."  then the lady says, "You're not allowed to buy that game for him."  my mom explained that she would be the one buying it, and she had to say the game wouldn't go to me.  I got the game, but only after getting in line at a different register and i wasn't allowed to be present.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am desperately trying to decipher your point ... and failing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

he's saying becasue he was PRESENT when they tried to buy Gun the cashier wouldn't let either of them get it.

[astr0creep]

If your child's interests are more akin to playing music, writing fantasy or even sports(God forbid!), you will take the time to get informed and support your child, spend the money necessary to support the material needs. The problem with video games, compared to the examples above, is that it's usually a complete waste of your child's time. No skills are learned, it will serve absolutely no purpose in life unless chosen much later as a career path. The purpose of gaming(in most cases) is to waste time, to fight boredom. Thats it, no matter what we as gamers want to believe(notice the "we" please).

But if it is a child's interest, a passion, a hobby, any parent should take the time to learn more about video games and how their child interacts with them. No newspaper, pharmaceutical company, or Jack Thompsons will ever be able to inform you on your specific child's needs, tastes and temperament.

 

The ratings are a warning. "This game MAY not be suitable for certain people".

The laws try to change that little sentence to something like :"This game IS NOT suitable for certain people"

 

That is a clear restriction of the basic freedom to choose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Video games don't teach any good skills for later in life then why are surgons required to play at least 20 hours a week? Also if you play other games (mainly multiplayer) you can learn team dynamics and team management. you can also pick up strategy (without having luck factored into strategy so how good it is in the real world I don't know)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1- So they can relax their brain. I don't want to be operated on by a doctor who just played 20 minutes of Devil May Cry 3. I'd rather his/her hands be calm and relaxed. Don't you? Oh and today's surgeons weren't playing video games when they were 10 years old!

 

2- MMORPGs are glorified chat rooms. Period. Team dynamics, strategy, everything you mentionned can be learned outside playing with your friends, which are another loss if you play TOO MUCH video games.

 

3- I did use words like "most" and "usually", which implies exceptions...

 

:D

Edited April 12, 2006 by astr0creep

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Sorry but I disagree.

 

If your child's interests are more akin to playing music, writing fantasy or even sports(God forbid!), you will take the time to get informed and support your child, spend the money necessary to support the material needs. The problem with video games, compared to the examples above, is that it's usually a complete waste of your child's time. No skills are learned, it will serve absolutely no purpose in life unless chosen much later as a career path. The purpose of gaming(in most cases) is to waste time, to fight boredom. Thats it, no matter what we as gamers want to believe(notice the "we" please).

But if it is a child's interest, a passion, a hobby, any parent should take the time to learn more about video games and how their child interacts with them. No newspaper, pharmaceutical company, or Jack Thompsons will ever be able to inform you on your specific child's needs, tastes and temperament.

 

The ratings are a warning. "This game MAY not be suitable for certain people".

The laws try to change that little sentence to something like :"This game IS NOT suitable for certain people"

 

That is a clear restriction of the basic freedom to choose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well lets take sports. Your looking at maybe a couple of hours on the weekend plus whatever time to practice you can fit in.

Thats nothing like having to pre-veiw a 20 hour game, assuming you even have the skills to do that.

 

What you can learn ,well that depends entirely on the game. Thats another thing that makes it different. Games are not one thing. Each one is an entirely different entity.

 

Like saying Alcohol isnt suitable for anyone under 18 you mean ?

[astr0creep]

Well lets take sports. Your looking at maybe a couple of hours on the weekend plus whatever time to practice you can fit in.

Thats nothing like having to pre-veiw a 20 hour game, assuming you even have the skills to do that.

 

What you can learn ,well that depends entirely on the game. Thats another thing that makes it different. Games are not one thing. Each one is an entirely different entity.

 

Like saying Alcohol isnt suitable for anyone under 18 you mean ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First of all, it doesn't take 20 hours to preview a 20 hour game. <_<

 

Second, all I'm saying is that parents should take a more active role in their children's lives and finding out things about what interests them, no matter if it is video games, sports or books, can only be a good thing.

 

Politicians and other anti-video games activists are misinformed. I seriously doubt ANY of them have ever actually sat down and played video games, both violent ones and others.

 

Also, everyone is different and only a very small minority of children/adults will actually turn violent enough to kill someone and that will have to do more with other aspects of their lives than JUST videogames.

 

This entire debate is like Rock n Roll in the fifties and movies in the 1900s.

 

Oh and any alcohol intoxication isn't suitable for anyone.

[Judge Hades]

It is quite simple for parents to figure out if a game is suitable for their kids. They determine how old the child is. They look at the ESRB rating. Not much to it than that. That is the purpose of the ESRB, is it not?

Edited April 12, 2006 by Judge Hades

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

First of all, it doesn't take 20 hours to preview a 20 hour game.  <_<

 

Second, all I'm saying is that parents should take a more active role in their children's lives and finding out things about what interests them, no matter if it is video games, sports or books, can only be a good thing.

 

Politicians and other anti-video games activists are misinformed. I seriously doubt ANY of them have ever actually sat down and played video games, both violent ones and others.

 

Also, everyone is different and only a very small minority of children/adults will actually turn violent enough to kill someone and that will have to do more with other aspects of their lives than JUST videogames.

 

This entire debate is like Rock n Roll in the fifties and movies in the 1900s.

 

Oh and any alcohol intoxication isn't suitable for anyone. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's not like you can fast forward through a game.

 

Yes it is. But it's also perfectly understandable why it's very difficult for some parents to find the sort of time video game policing would require.

 

I'm sure most of them have at some point. Something that always struck me as ironic about anti porn protesters was they would have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of porn.

 

Like any restrictive activity if people complain the government tends to get involved. Again you can say the same thing about anything. Drinking, smoking, driving ,take your pick.

 

So unless you take as more than it is. It's really rather trivial since it dosnt even apply to adults and it's about rating and not censoring.

[astr0creep]

It is quite simple for parents to figure out if a game is suitable for their kids.  They determine how old the child is.  They look at the ESRB rating.  Not much to it than that.  That is the purpose of the ESRB, is it not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that is all there is to it, I would be very sad indeed and it would not be very good for the future of the human race.

 

I think that first, parents should KNOW their child. After that, based on what they know, they can make a decision on what game to buy or movie to see.

 

Some highly violent game could be suitable for some kids and not for others. It depends on the person. Their maturity, intelligence, emotional responses, etc.

I saw my 3 year old nefew(sp?) being disturbed by the first Aladin movie from Disney. He was terrified during most of the first Scooby Doo as well and yet both those movies are rated E for Everyone. He will obviously won't be playing God of War anytime soon.

 

The ratings must stay only a warning to parents, who must be the ones deciding what is played and what stays on storeshelves, based on the knowledge and confidence they have in their children.

[Judge Hades]

Oh, come on now. Parents never know their children. Children go through random phases and fits that no one can really keep up with. Especially how the world is now.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The ratings must stay only a warning to parents, who must be the ones deciding what is played and what stays on storeshelves, based on the knowledge and confidence they have in their children.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are parents universaly qualified to do that ?

[Krookie]

No, but the ones who aren't are crack addicts and can't afford to buy a PS2 anyway.

[Judge Hades]

No they aren't. Can't say about other countries but here in the US it is my observations that parents are clueless and think that the media, government, and schools, should raise their kids and they only supply the necessary food and roof over their heads.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

No they aren't.  Can't say about other countries but here in the US it is my observations that parents are clueless and think that the media, government, and schools, should raise their kids and they only supply the necessary food and roof over their heads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah well i'm not excusing cluelessness only lack of qualification.

[astr0creep]

No they aren't.  Can't say about other countries but here in the US it is my observations that parents are clueless and think that the media, government, and schools, should raise their kids and they only supply the necessary food and roof over their heads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah well i'm not excusing cluelessness only lack of qualification.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are right. It is all about the lack of qualification to be a parent.

 

Because the only qualification you need to be a parent is to want to conceive AND raise a child. Most people only want another toy to play with and can't be bothered to quit their job to take proper care of a living, breathing person.