This is why why should keep Kyle's mom away from government officials @silverside30 Haven't you heard of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapelay]RapeLay[/url]? It's a Japanese porno game, it's not in the US, therefor it's not an issue here, so why did they bring it up?
Commonwealth Club-hosted event sees Activision executive, Stanford law director, Common Sense Media founder reaching conditional consensus over Supreme Court case.
Who was there: San Francisco's debate forum The Commonwealth Club on Thursday hosted a panel titled "Should Sales of Violent Video Games Be Restricted?" Common Sense Media founder and CEO James Steyer and Activision Blizzard executive vice president and chief public policy officer George Rose took opposing positions on the topic, and Stanford Constitutional Law Center director Michael McConnell also lent his legal expertise to the conversation.
Senator Leland Yee, who penned the controversial legislation at question, was initially scheduled to appear on the panel. However, due to unexpected events involving California legislature, the senator backed out of the debate shortly before it began.
What they talked about: The topic of the night's debate centered upon California Assembly Bill 1179, which was argued before the US Supreme Court in November 2010. The bill sought to ban the sale or rental of "violent video games" to children and was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 but was challenged in court before it could take effect. A "violent" game was defined as a "game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
Under the law, retailers that sold such games would be subject to a $1,000 fine. The bill would also have required "violent" video games to bear a two-inch-by-two-inch sticker with a "solid white '18' outlined in black" on their front covers. That's more than twice the size of the labels that currently adorn game-box covers and display the familiar Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rating.
Steyer opened the session by saying that the situation is a very straightforward issue from a kids' standpoint. The issue at stake, he said, is that over the past decade, a small segment of game makers have created sexually explicit and hyperviolent games. Common Sense, his family advocacy organization, doesn't take issue with the creation of these games. However, they do have an issue with the sale of these games, potentially, to minors.
According to Steyer, there's no question that there is scientific evidence that these products can have a negative impact on children. Specifically, he cited the reputable Journal of Pediatrics as a scientific source that has correlated game playing with real-life violence and aggression. He also stated that games can have an extraordinary impact on children's psychological development.
"We believe developers have a total right to develop their games," Steyer said. "Our only issue is sale. This is a sanity, not censorship approach."
He went on to say that very few of these games that fit into his definition are made by Activision, but the publisher has felt compelled to defend this very narrow segment. However, just like the sale of alcohol and cigarettes to minors is regulated, Steyer said the same should be done for hyperviolent games.
Steyer then addressed the point of industry self-regulation, in this case led by the Entertainment Software Rating Board. He acknowledged that this board has become more careful, but at the end of the day, further regulation is needed. Further, he said, this regulation will not create a slippery-slope environment that will impact other forms of entertainment. For him, the offending segment is very narrow. The purpose of the law is to make sure the people who are buying this content are adults. It balances the best interests of kids against the desire of the gaming industry to sell these products to kids, he said.
Rose, who has held various positions at Activision, including chief legal officer and general counsel, then picked up the conversation. He began by noting that retailers prevent underage alcohol sales about 82 percent of the time, and that this figure is very nearly the same as kids' ability to buy Mature-rated games. He then stated that the gaming industry should not be punished for something it hasn't done--flagrantly violating underage sales policies--and that self-regulation has proven that it can work.
Making an allusion to the maxim "The road to hell is paved by good intentions," Rose said that the bill before the Supreme Court is a perfect example of legislation going out of control. The law, he said, is based upon "junk science." The people who provide these studies are the most quoted on the Internet, he said, and this is telling. Further, these studies have no foundation, and he pointed to the 82 scientists who signed the amicus brief in opposition to the law as a good example of dissenting opinions.
Rose also noted that the bill is "probably one of the most convoluted constitutional statutes ever assembled." It has so many holes, he said, that it's "not even Swiss cheese; it's a donut." Calling out some of these flaws, he said that the bill does not pass muster with the Equal Protection Act, nor does it lay out how to apply or enforce the components that deal with obscenity.
Thirdly, even if all of this is true, and "even if there were hordes of crazy teenagers running around," the statute is unnecessary. He said that it's good business to follow self-regulation. "We don't want to piss off the parents," he noted, saying that it is in Activision's interest to ensure games are rated appropriately and pressure retailers into enforcing age-appropriate sales.
"We spend countless hours trying to improve the rating system. The system has been described by the Federal Trade Commission as the example for everyone," he said.
Rose also took issue with Steyer's statement that the law would affect only a tiny sector of the industry, before wrapping up by saying that the very definition of what constitutes a "virtual human being," as described by the bill, is vague, asking whether a zombie that metamorphoses into a monster counts.
McConnell was then given a chance to offer his opening remarks, and he led by saying that the justices will be thinking about this case in a different way than the other two speakers. After mentioning the 1968 case Ginsberg v. New York, which found that material not classified as obscene to adults can still be regulated with minors, McConnell laid out the three areas that the Supreme Court will focus its attention on: content, audience, and medium.
For content, he said, the court will ask whether there is some significant difference between the violence in games and the sexuality depicted in the "girlie magazines" at the heart of the Ginsberg case. However, he said that it won't be simple, because the bill has been framed so broadly. The framing has been further exacerbated, he said, by the "poor" way in which the state has defended the bill, which has been on an equally broad basis.
Namely, McConnell said that the way the state's arguments have been presented, it looks like the bill could easily extend to comics, cartoons, and other mediums. Mentioning Saturday-morning cartoons, he said, "If you think about what happens to Road Runner, there is a lot of violent material in our culture. They will be thinking about how big of a hit this will make on our culture."
Moving to the question of audience, McConnell said that there is a big difference between a 17-year-old and an 11-year-old, and this statute treats all of these age groups the same. He also noted that the Constitution is spotty as to the rights of children, considering that they can't drink, get married, be executed, or enter into contracts. "They, unlike adults, can be forced for eight hours a day to be exposed to information that we think they should learn," he mused.
McConnell said that the most interesting question for him lies in the question of the medium. The state did not present this situation very well by situating games in the same category as speech like books, newspapers, and so on, he said. What interests him, he said, is that this is an interactive medium. It's not a medium in which a message is presented and then received. Players are engaging in simulated activity where they are acting out the story.
"They are actually slicing people's heads off or beating them, or raping young girls on a simulated basis," he said. "It is not obvious to me, at least, that this is the same problem as a comic book. In a comic, you can see violent stuff, but in a game, they are the ones actually acting it out." He thinks that the court is going to be wary in saying that the same standards apply.
Because the statute is framed so broadly, he believes the court will be very concerned with how they decide. "The central feature is to not hurt the 'image of a person.' Is a zombie a human image? Is Road Runner a human image? There will be enormous difficulty here."
McConnell thinks the court is not likely to say that this kind of statute is constitutional. However, he also said that the court isn't likely to go as far as the entertainment industry has asked it to, which is to rule that all of these types of statutes are unconstitutional. They will strike this particular statute down, he said, and wait to find out if that "junk science" becomes real, so as to leave open the possibility that a different statute could be brought. They will keep their options open for the future, he said.
Opening remarks thus concluded, the session then turned into a discussion, with the moderator first asking Rose how, exactly, Activision has applied pressure to stores to enforce age ratings.
"We have had store clerks fired, and we have had particular stores improved. To be blunt about it, we had people fired," he said.
Steyer was then asked by the moderator what he viewed as being legal and not legal under the law. He began his response by first attacking Rose's argument that "junk science" is at play here, calling it insulting to say that the American Academy of Pediatrics is practicing junk science.
The other point to make, he said, is that it's absurd to let the gaming industry regulate itself, drawing comparisons to bankers and financial institutions and the Great Recession. "The idea that industry self-regulation will keep the interests of kids in mind is not a credible argument. The goal is to find a way to respect free speech, but to also protect the interest of kids," he said.
As to the moderator's original question, Steyer said that this category of games is very narrow and that it would be very limited. And the challenge, he said, will be to define that category. He believes that while it would be easy to construe this bill in broad terms, the court won't interpret it that way. In this sense, only about 1 to 2 percent of games would fall into this category, he believes.
Rose then asked Steyer whether Activision's top-selling Call of Duty franchise would fall into this category. Steyer said that the most recent release--Call of Duty: Black Ops, which has earned more than $1 billion for the publisher--would likely fall into the offending category. He also notes that debating Call of Duty is far more legitimate than "looking at something like Road Runner."
If Black Ops were given a restricted label under this statute, Rose said, then beyond the "scarlet letter" on the game's box, retailers would not carry it in their stores, and the game wouldn't have been made. The moderator asked Rose why this would be the case, and he responded by saying that there were about 5 million units of the game sold in California. With that much money on the line, it would not make sense, from a retailer's perspective, to risk having someone out there making mistakes, if each violation is a $1,000 fine.
He also brought up the NC-17 rating that is applied to movies. Upon conception, the rating would have allowed film makers to sell slightly more scandalous movies from, say, Europe, that had an art-house bent. However, in practice, these types of films don't show up in mainstream stores. As to Steyer's interjected point of industry self-regulation, Rose, who speaks with an Eastern European accent, said that letting the government regulate everything is "the country of Vlad. That's the Soviet Union. That is not the way America does business."
Rose was then asked whether America has a culture of violence and whether games are contributing to it. He believes that the US is "somewhat schizophrenic," in that it's permissible to engage in casual sex, but it's not OK to watch sexual images on TV. Rose said that he is far more concerned with the real-life violence depicted on the nightly news or in the Middle East. He thinks his kid is able to tell the difference between a real human and a virtual human, and it will ultimately make his kid a better human being.
The Activision executive also said that he took issue with the statement that games are somehow separate or different from other mediums. He said that all worthwhile works of art are interactive, from a mental perspective, calling the Bible one of the most interactive works in history. "How many wars were fought over it? If that's not interactive, what is? No video game can yet compare to works of art, literature, music."
As a non sequitur, the moderator asked each of the panelists whether they considered themselves gamers. In a somewhat abashed way, McConnell said that the only game he's ever played is Sid Meier's Civilization, noting that it was very addictive. Rose said that he'll play absolutely anything, ranging from Tetris to Grand Theft Auto. Steyer's game of choice is EA Sports' FIFA, he said.
Switching back to the statute, McConnell was asked what the implications of this law are, should it survive. One possibly theory is that all violence could be treated the same as obscenity or pornography, which it never has been, he said. Another theory is that minors are subject to less constitutional protection. Another theory is that this medium will be regarded as less than pure speech.
Steyer said that he believes the case will be limited to point of sale and that it will not be elevated to an argument over freedom of speech. Again, he conceded that McConnell's analysis is pretty spot-on. He also said that this case has had an unbelievably positive impact on the industry, in terms of regulating itself. However, he argued that if a person goes to Blockbuster, these places will follow the rules. However, if that person goes to a liquor store in Hunters Point (a notoriously dangerous area in San Francisco), that's where the problem sales will be.
Rose quickly interjected to that argument, saying that Activision sells games to Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, and GameStop, not liquor stores. Any game found in a liquor store, he said, is probably pirated, and if that establishment is going to sell a minor a violent game, then it is likely to defy alcohol and cigarette regulations as well.
The moderator then got back to Rose's assertion concerning junk science. Rose responded by bringing up the recent study published in Pediatrics by an Iowa State University professor. The study asked participants a series of "yes," "no," or "maybe" questions related to their game-playing habits and concluded that there was a link between pathological gaming and depression and anxiety in kids.
McConnell went on to note that the challengers of the law all concede to correlation in these studies, but not causation. "With human subjects, it's virtually impossible to conduct the kind of study that would show causation, because it would require control groups and subjecting people to potentially harmful material, and this is unethical," he said.
McConnell went on to say that the point is moot as it pertains to the Supreme Court decision, because they will likely operate from the assumption that these games can or might cause harm. He also said that the argument over industry self-regulation is immaterial, because the court will assume that "there are good apples and bad apples." What they will be looking at, he said, are questions of who the law applies to, what it actually means, and what the implications of it are.
Quotes: "Our only issue is sale."--Common Sense Media founder James Steyer
"If you had to be a betting person, my guess is that George's side is very likely to prevail."--Stanford constitutional law director Michael McConnell
"Is a zombie that turns into a monster the image of a human being?"--Activision chief public policy officer George Rose
Takeaway: All three panelists seemed to agree that CA 1179 will be struck down by the Supreme Court. However, what remains at question is how reaching the court's ruling will be and whether it will leave open the possibility of another, more narrowly crafted bill being brought that could regulate the sale of games.
Why don't they bother the adult entertaintment industry? In adult movies you see some nasty **** like 9 guys banging 1 broad, and you don't see fox news ranting about it. Now, you see 1 sideboob or a guy killing zombies in a video game and that is the equivalent of a nuclear crisis. is that fair?
Yee is a p*ssy for backing out. That shows he can't even back his own bill and knows this whole thing is a failure and a waste of tax dollars. Why not focus on your deficit you f***ing idiots?
@Mordraneth I am indeed Australian. And don't even get me started on Germany. It's terrifying to think they have laws even stricter than ours. Also, Canadian huh. Apologies for the whole metered internet thing; your ISPs seem to have stolen that terrible idea directly from us, considering the pricing and numbers seem to be identical.
I was suffering through this when I came upon the part that I knew would reveal the real motivation here - notoriety. When the question about Call of Duty came up, Slayer focused his answer on Black Ops - why? Because it's new(ish) and it makes headlines. If he were in it to "save the children" he would have said it applies to all war simulation games - because they ALL have ultra-violent action. Since his focus is on getting attention, he wanted to be quoted as dropping the term "Black Ops" - as if it's the only war game in which you kill people. What about the other Call of Duty games in the series? I guess those are ok? These politicians are so full of it, and so brazen with their BS that its like watching comedy - dark comedy...
ok i admit i didnt read this all, just browsed, but zombies, junk science and store clerks getting fired is confusing the hell outa me
I think it is funny that people find more of a problem with nudity in a game, not saying necessarily players or designers, but regulators. After all nudity is more natural than killing. That being said games are just that games and if people have a problem seperating the two then, maybe they have more underlying issues. At the end of the day Hollywood has images of real people being murdered (sometimes quite brutally and far worse than any video game) all the time, not animated ones, which is worse? Kids will always find a way to play the game or watch the movie they want to see. Basically I just see more tax dollars wasted in a State that has a huge economy that some how is on the verge of bankruptcy..
@cjf187x I agree to an extent, but lets be realistic here; children will always find ways to circumvent protections to get access to restricted materials despite parental controls. This applies to anything really. I remember reading my first Playboy Magazine at 9 years old. My best friend as a kid used to steal liquor from his parent's cabinet and swap it with water. My cousin sneaked his way into a theater at 12 years old to watch Basic Instinct. These things happen, they have always happened since Humans had things they forbade kids to do. It's in our nature. Parents can regulate till they are blue in the face, but if there is a will, there is a way. Children will always rebel and will always be drawn to something taboo or illicit. Discussion after they take that risk or plunge is what matters and how a parent reacts to it. There is a reason most of us after the legal drinking age stopped drinking alcohol like fish; it wasn't taboo/illegal anymore and lost it's appeal. However, that said, I am still against censorship. I should decide what restrictions my children have, not the Government; especially for the reasons above. Make something too taboo and kids flock to it like bees to honey. At least that's my take on it.
@Shinkada I would assume you are Australian, judging by the tidbits I have read here? If not, I apologize. I agree, and I am sorry that your country feels the need to over-regulate something that doesn't need to be any more controlled then any other form of media Sadly, that is a prime example of what happens when people, as a nation, let all the small laws pass that limit freedoms. They seem small, innocuous and good individually; eventually however, they all pile up and the door is wide open for inane, constrictive laws to be put into effect. However, that is not the only issue in Australia Legislature; don't get me started on the old wacko geezers that run that show. =P Germany is another example of over-constrictive censorship. Despite what they might think, trying to bury the past by banning Nazi imagery and gore is not the way to go. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Instead of attempting to bury their shame and hide the past, they should accept that it was a different age and is a dark stain on the proud people of Germany and ultimately is something they need to accept and, learn from. I would also like to point out that I am not American; I am Canadian. This does however worry me for a few reasons, mainly I disagree with censorship in all it's forms and, Canada seems to like to use US laws as a basis for our own in cases like this. This kind of bill worries me greatly.
Really how many times do we have to go thru this stupid debate. Leave it up to the Parents. Stupid Repub's always trying to get a ban or restrict video games.When I say Repub's I'm including that fascist Joe Lieberman whom really is one of them just trying to sneek by everyone as a democrate.
@galduke Don't even get me started on Germany. I feel for you/those guys so much, that situation is just moronic. I guess the upside is that moving to a less moronically-governed country isn't nearly as difficult as remote prison of a rock.
@Mordraneth You'll have to excuse me if I sound bitter, it's just sort of aggrovating to hear a bunch of spoilt Americans complaining about some stickers when over here we're dealing with the government banning some games to the point of fining anyone who tries to import them. I can see your point, I really can, nip censorship in the bud and all that, but I wish the bull**** over here would stir up half as much outrage as some harmless stickers seem to be doing over there.
@Mordraneth I completely agree. What amazes me most is that the government is already spending tons of money, most state governments are in debt (esp. Cali), yet they want to pass a bill that would cost taxpayers money to mainly be a babysitter for video games? If this is the case, the government should be issuing fines to all those movie theater that allow tweens in to a R rated movie. This bill would cost us money; game developers in turn will make more Teen rated games to get a majority of the market, and like the movie industry, and everyone else suffers. In reality it comes down to parents, who most of the time give children money to go out and buy these games and I believe they need to take a more proactive role. All parents have to do is place a password on the console not allowing their children to play certain games. What's next, all M-rated games have to be sold in an Adult Store (granted if that's the case, idc, bc I'm old enough to go into an Adult Store)?
I think the protection of kids is a smoke screen for some other agenda. I think it's fairly obvious that kids are able to acquire prohibited things, be it smokes, booze, drugs or games. Laws don't prevent anything, they just punish those unfortunate enough to get caught.
@MagicLinks95 To be fair, you don't hear kid's names on the news when they are suspects or victims because they are protected under child protection and privacy laws regarding that sorta thing in most UN nations. @Shinkada The issue is not pointless. This all comes down to a Government deciding it needs to further regulate something that is already highly regulated by the industry itself. Imagine being unable to purchase any game that depicts violence against "human-like" images. Note, that is human-like. it is vague and can apply to any anthropomorphized image. That would include games like the Final Fantasy series, God of War series, GTA series, Dragon Age series, Resident Evil series, Dead Rising series, Call of Duty series, Battlefront series, any Mario game, Pokemon games..and on and on. If the games are restricted, they won't be stocked by retailers (look at AO games as an example). Lower sales will translate into lost revenue by developers, ultimately leading to no violent games, measured against this laws boundaries, being made as it won't be financially viable. This type of law needs to be shut down. Period.
@Shinkada Liberals hate games too, bipartisanship exists in the weirdest of places... Meanwhile in Germany...
Don't sell games to children, fine. I don't see that is any different than laws are now. Can the government finally get back to real issues?
That's a whole lot of text for a pretty pointless issue. So what, the two choices are: keep things the way they are, or have a bigger sticker and a bigger fine for people who break the law? How is that a big debate? I don't know why the conservatives would lobby so hard for it and I don't know why everyone else would fight so hard against it. Meanwhile in Australia...
@MagicLink95: i love you right now. i have been making the same argument to some of my teachers. I'm 16 and i have not once tried to beat up somebody. i'm actually a good kid, even with all the exposure of the violence of GTA and God of War. i love those games. they do no damage to me or my friends. its ridiculous. probably CSI. @Timmy_Gwar: the rape thing is stupid. ur right about the tv shows. i've seen it on LOST and other shows and they never say anything about that. its ridiculous.
I don't see why this is necessary. I'm 22 and I have to show ID sometimes to get an M rated game anywhere. I have a beard, I'm not fifteen! Also, can someone please tell which game allows you to rape women? I don't recall ever seeing that in a game, but you can see the same thing on TV before 10pm almost every day so I guess it doesn't matter.
Your argument is not valid, this pony has a condo. But anyways, this argument is not good. Just make all game developers make their games have the ability to turn humans into teddy bears and remove blood, and the ability to lock it with a password, so little Jimmy doesn't get exposed to violence. Actually though, that isn't needed, but I'm sure they thing it is. Parents just need to teach their children the difference between real and fake and what is acceptable. Besides, there's worse stuff in many movies than in Black Ops and better examples for violent games, like GTA and God of War. @Andy9Beans: There are many mature children that are more responsible than adults. For proof, how much do you see stuff about children killing or breaking the law on the news. Now think about adults.
I think this debate misses the point, the majority of cases where children have access to games classified by the ESRB as unsuitable are not caused by retailers selling directly to the child but by parents buying the game for their children. These idiot parents are the very ones who are backing the drive for this legislation, looking to cover their own ineptitude and to punish the entire industry for their own hypocrisy. I think it would be fairer to fine parents by default and it might actually scare them into taking some responsibility for their children's welfare instead of leaving it to the games industry and the government. I'm pro-gaming AND pro-legislation, but in my view it's parents who should be punished, not retailers, not developers/publishers and definitely not the rest of us responsible gamers!
@anthonycg well, I imagine they could start implementing censorship laws on movies too if they felt so inclined, though they most likely wouldn't I agree.
@Spacerac Hollywood will not allow them to touch the movie business. Not only does the RIAA not have the funds (they would need more than the wealth of a small country) but they'd also be attacked by every entity that has anything to do with the movie business. The only way to stop Hollywood would be to buy it out and no one's going to do that.
@dubel_07 " If they censor games, what is going to stop them from censoring movies, music , and all forms of media ?" And that point there is exactly why the RIAA, the MPAA, and the Book... er, Association... filed amicus briefs in support of the game industry in this case.
If they censor games, what is going to stop them from censoring movies, music, and all forms of media? Where do we draw the line? And to what level of detail would they consider a human being? Would an abstract art style like No More Heroes be able to get away with a higher level of violence than, say, Battlefield?
This is lame it really should be on the parents to teach their children the difference between fantasy violence and real life violence. I grew up back when Mortal Kombat was "controversial" and my mom didn't care if we played because she knew we understood it was a videogame. My dad let me and my brother watch rated R movies which I thought was much more realistic then any videogame.
@UWantFryzWitDat My point was not that there's proof they do cause violence, in fact I said quite the opposite. My point was that you shouldn't be calling something foolish that you have absolutely no proof to proove it wrong. And how do you know that those studies were "bad"? were you there studying each person before and after they played the games?
You wanna know the best way of stopping this? Threaten whoever BUYS (not SELLS) a rated game for minors with hefty fines/community service/jail sentences, if they are found to allow a minor to play the game they bought. Just the threat alone would stop a high percentage of adults buying 18 rate games for kids even if it would be hard to prove (not so hard if xbl/psn/pc networks had a complaints system were we could record a game and send the "evidence" in for it to be used against the parents if authorities needed it)
Like most people have been saying, its up to the parents if they want their kids to be playing those games, not the government. I like how they make stuff up, I don't remember any game I've played(and I have played ALOT of games) where you "rape young girls"
Lets be honest I was young once, and played violent video games on the Megadrive, and I came out ok I think :) If they want to see violence what happens if they watch the News they broadcast they cm out fked up anyway? Or learn history its all violent, and therefore a natural way of life in which we may live a healthy existence by learning this. I mean the Romans used to feed people to lions for there games, things are not as violent now to conclude that qestion.
We wouldn't be having these problems if parents took out a little time to see what their kids r indulging in. I m not sure the 'bigger' tag will be of any use but the 1000$ fine for just selling the game kind of outlaws it. Not fair and not constitutional!!
Although I was playing GTA 3 when i was 8 (almost 18 now), I can safely say i've never murdered anyone or taken drugs etc. In fact i'm a major geek. The only argument here is the parents, if a parent buys a 9 year old kid an 18 rated game, surely it is their fault if the kid then has adverse effects from it?
I'm personally against minors playing such games, but the government is the last group I'd ask for help with any such issue, especially the Californian one.
a 2" x 2" sticker/label? That's a silly way of marking such a law. A PSP or DS game box is much smaller than a PC, 360, or PS3 game box, and will thus be far more prominent on those games. Just another point to prove how shoddy this bill appears to be. It's up to parents if they want their kids playing M games, not the government. Until there's evidence that actual harm is being done to citizens of California (as this is a Californian court and bill), Government has no reason to be interfering with business.
Well i say that not all children are in danger due to Mature rated games. I mean i played M rated games since i was 12, and i haven't raped, murdered or drugged myself. Those come mostly from you're "so called" friends who which gang bang, group smoke and so on
I think our governments should look closer to home.. why are kids violent? Lack of fatherly figure, discipline, relaxed laws, and many more are all possible factors. Movies and Games? not so much
God it's always something be it movies or music now video games so I guess Roman's feed the Christians 2 the the lions cuz of plays they saw or poems they read WTF ever
I agree to the point that playing an online game like Call of Duty is annoying when you hear the high-pitched shrieking of a 12 year old being a douchebag down the mic and disrupting the game. Although it does vary from person to person - some 15/16 year olds are very mature and some still look and sound 12. I think that any "offending" games should be nothing more than 16+, and the parents are at fault for getting the little buggers the game and more sacrilegiously: the headset :L
everything that makes alot of money you can bet there will be a law for it... mature games sell alot so they fat belly boys want to cash on it. so let it be law!
So what stops the parents from buying the games, saying it's for themselves, then just give it to their kid that wanted it?
Here's a warning label for you "WARNING: this game will cause your daughter to be a prostitute, your son to be a drug addicted gang banger, and your husband to be a pedophile... or at least that's what the dickheads in congress believe." :P
@MW2ismygame Yeah that's pretty much what I said... It's up to the parents, not the retailers. So the retailers shouldn't be able to sell to children, since it's up to the parents. Gives parents more reason to take an interest in their children's gaming. I do believe you didn't actually read my comment through before replying, but at least that's cleared up. :)
Avalanche Studios co-founder says developer's ambition is for action, not moments that make players cry; steampunk-style game on hold. Full Story
- Posted May 15, 2013 2:33 pm GMT
4A Games creative director Andrew Prokhorov thanks Jason Rubin for telling the studio's story, but says, "We deserve the ratings we get." Full Story
- Posted May 16, 2013 8:44 pm GMT