The most sanity I've heard on this most political of days:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...029095,00.html

Seems the justices are for the most part on our side here, cant wait for the final decision.

i can understand why they would want to censor it but i dont think its really neccesery, it is the perants job. and theres alot more violent things on tv.

i hope they dont cencor it, i think that would majorly effect the industry.

besides iv been playing violent games since i was a kid and i havnt killed anyone yet

Originally Posted by dansher

besides iv been playing violent games since i was a kid and i havnt killed anyone yet

Yet... ticking time bomb...

i've actually killed several people, the first with a portal gun and boxes, and the other with a gravity gun.
Then after that, I used my shrink ray to shrink an entire village and stomp them to death, followed by freezing the president of a small foreign nation before slowly thawing him by breathing on him after eating some rather spicy curry.

I don't really understand this whole thing, as I try to pay the least amount of attention to American politics.

Why would it be a bad thing to stop selling violent games to minors?

arshlevon: I think this is a good time to rehash the violent games BULLSHIT episode

i'm with glynnsmith on this. Here, it's illegal to sell BBFC-certificated games (12, 15, 18 ) to people under that age, just as it is with films (both copies sold in shops and in the cinemas) and cigarettes, alcohol etc. Note it's not illegal for the kid to get hold and use any of any of these things, just for them to be supplied.

I can't name a single product (including our own GTA game on the DS) that's been adversely affected by an age rating in terms of sales. 18-rated games smash sales records routinely, Modern Warfare/2, GTA etc etc. Can someone with a grasp of the US economy fill in why this doesn't/wouldn't happen over there?

im not sure about america but i think here in australia ma15+ is the highest rating for a video game, im pretty sure when GTA came out they had to cut some parts out or something so that it would meet an ma15+ rating. that said it didnt effect sales or anything

Originally Posted by danr

i'm with glynnsmith on this. Here, it's illegal to sell BBFC-certificated games (12, 15, 18 ) to people under that age, just as it is with films (both copies sold in shops and in the cinemas) and cigarettes, alcohol etc. Note it's not illegal for the kid to get hold and use any of any of these things, just for them to be supplied.

I can't name a single product (including our own GTA game on the DS) that's been adversely affected by an age rating in terms of sales. 18-rated games smash sales records routinely, Modern Warfare/2, GTA etc etc. Can someone with a grasp of the US economy fill in why this doesn't/wouldn't happen over there?

We're worried about the puritanical views of politicians interfering with the industry: see Australia.

It is illegal to sell violent games to minors here too, and if you've bought games at gamestop etc, they will card you for violent games. We have a rating system just like everyone else.

This whole thing is about censoring *every* violent game because parent's are far too stupid to look at the ratings, and will buy little billy gears or war or GTA because he asked for it.

Or giving them the "AO"(generally reserved for porn) rating that would make it impossible to even release the game on certain consoles.

I'm completely against the idea that video games are a direct cause of violence, but I guess I can understand the reasoning behind the proposed law. However, if they were to pass it, then they'd have to regulate every other form of media out there, including television. Half the shows on air are CSI rip-offs where some poor soul is slaughtered within the first 5 minutes of the episode.

its not illegal to sell specific games to minors, the ESRB is a voluntary rating system similar to the rating system put out by the Motion Picture Association for films. It is not enforced at a level that substances are, like cigarettes and alcohol - where an employee of a Liquor store or Gas station could be fined heavily for selling cigarettes or alcohol to minors, and or get jail time.

the purpose of all this hubub would be to make "violent games" a controlled substance [in California, and potentially Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia], and in effect controlling media - ie censorship and first amendment violations.

Reading the transcripts of the hearing makes me happy the judges are really backing free speech & artist rights & freedoms.

Originally Posted by EarthQuake

It is illegal to sell violent games to minors here too, and if you've bought games at gamestop etc, they will card you for violent games. We have a rating system just like everyone else.

This whole thing is about censoring *every* violent game because parent's are far too stupid to look at the ratings, and will buy little billy gears or war or GTA because he asked for it.

Or giving them the "AO"(generally reserved for porn) rating that would make it impossible to even release the game on certain consoles.

AFAIK, Gamestop carding kids for violent games is completely voluntary on their part, no laws involved.

What I've heard from others is that the sale of violent video games would get a treatment along the lines of pornography: heavily restricted. Not on general display. Think of z-rated games in Japan -- you won't stumble onto one by just browsing around the store. They get kept behind the counter so the store doesn't have to worry so much about liability.

dansher: Technically, yes. But if the rating boards refuses to give a game that rating for being too offensive it basically won't show up on store shelves, right? Hence the Australian version of Left 4 Dead 2 being heavily censored.

Originally Posted by Zack Fowler

What I've heard from others is that the sale of violent video games would get a treatment along the lines of pornography: heavily restricted. Not on general display. Think of z-rated games in Japan -- you won't stumble onto one by just browsing around the store. They get kept behind the counter so the store doesn't have to worry so much about liability.

dansher: Technically, yes. But if the rating boards refuses to give a game that rating for being too offensive it basically won't show up on store shelves, right? Hence the Australian version of Left 4 Dead 2 being heavily censored.

im not really sure, i know there was a game a few years back that got banned. not sure what it was called but you were a mental patiant or something and you could go round cutting peoples heads off and stuff. im pretty sure that game actually came out and was on shelves for a little while before it got banned

im not sure about left for dead iv never played it. they were on about bringing an R rating so that ones like gta wouldnt be censored or anything, but they never did it i dont think, atleast iv never seen a game with an R rating

but really if there was a scene that was really grafic or something then they could just do like what they did in modern warfare 2 with the airport scene and put in a skip option

You Tube

I think we should be cautiously optimistic at this point. It sounds like there were some hard questions directed at both sides of the issue. It just seems that the representatives of the video game industry had better responses than the state of California at this point.

No actual ruling has been made yet, so there is no way to know for certain what side the Supreme Court is going to come down on. It could still go either way at this point.

Something a little more trouble some to me is - if say the us does adopt a system similar to Australia? Censor games to fit within a rating determined by them (the government) - what does that mean to the development of technology in respect to the game play, art, and design?

It's a slippery slope here, and this is all just speculation - but if you were making a game that you knew would be above the rating of whatever the 'limit' was - to a large part of your targeted regional market - why would you even bother making it (above that rating)?! if its just going to be censored - your wasting a lot of man hours, time and money to produce something a lot of people will never see/experience. especially if thats a main feature of the game.

Look at MGS 5 trailers. Raiden slicing through shit looks pretty sweet! I can only (obviously) say that I'm pretty sure that feature isn't made to only slice some watermelons [then pull out the tea set and have some tea and mellons with all raidens little friends].

I consider that a pretty neat new feature of its game play. And the things that could possibly span off of that and take it further (other games made by other developers in the future), only to evolve to an even better new feature (maybe in some other way) are potentiating what drives the technological evolution of games.

what I'm trying to say is those possibilities wouldn't have existed - and that 'adult only' feature could have been a large stepping stone to something even greater that would have otherwise never existed.

Violent kids play violent games.
because bad parenting/environment made them violent in the first place.
It's just another excuse for parents to feel like its not there fault there kids are bad behaved and out of control.


...anyways.... umm yah .... I think I'm done ranting....

After reading the Kotaku highlights of the court hearing I am surprised how well versed and unbiased the judges were. Sure I know its there job to be so but I have a feeling on this topic things would have favored California more. They seemed to support and contest both sides equally and fairly raising great points to support and defend both attorneys arguments.

Smith did a great job arguing his case I felt, cant say the same for the California attorney as he tried to skip around answering questions a few times and his answers seems weak enough as is.



It seemed though that the judges were slightly favoring Smith (aka the video game industry) as I think even they could see the slippery slope this could be and where it could lead. Hopefully in the end they support our industry instead of censoring it but we will have to see.

I never shot anyone, but I did jump on a person's head once fully expecting a gold coin to pop out of his ass. I was disappointed.

Originally Posted by dansher

it is the perants job.

Not every child has a parent. And for those who have parents or guardians...not all of them are necessarily responsible or think about the welfare of their kids.

(This comment not siding with either opinions re: censorship. Just stating a fact in society.)

I'm confused. When I tried to buy a mature game several years ago when I was ~16 they wouldn't let me buy it without an ID stating I was at least 17.

Hasn't it always been like that?

I don't think we can rely on parents anymore, i just saw an american mom feed her baby coca-cola through a bottle...

That was voluntary ratings enforcement from the store. Passing it as law means when you do sell games to minors (and let's face it, store clerks will let some slip through here and there accidentally or otherwise), rather than being fined or otherwise economically punished by a ratings organization, you could face very serious legal repercussions. And the effect that can have on consumers is that stores get very paranoid about breaking that law and either don't take the risk of stocking the controlled games in the first place or they keep them behind the counter.

Worth reading:
ESRB enforcement
The impact of the "Z" rating on Japanese retail games