Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Supreme Court on Violent Video Games

Thats what the ESRB rating it for, just like with movies. Movies are rated E to R and stores don't sale R rated movies or M rated games to kids. So if they what to complain about violent games they should be looking at the moms and dads because they have to buy it for them. Yeah every kid wants the nexts coolest game but if the parents wouldn't buy it for them then tuff luck. This has happened before and aftre everything was said and done the state had to pay the game industry for trying to put a ban on their freedom of speech. So I thank that is just wrong, if they want to stop kids getting violent game they have to have the parents put a foot down on what the kids can and can't play.
 
I think it is a great idea, letting a 14 year old buy a 'Grand Theft Auto' game by himself is ridiculous.
 
But..... The parents make the decision on what games the kids buy so isn't it mostly the parents' fault? I think that a good idea would be to sell most M rated games in adult stores, where kids can't get them.
Unless, of course, their parents buy it for them.:nonono::nonono::nonono:
 
Elite_4_Allen said:
But..... The parents make the decision on what games the kids buy so isn't it mostly the parents' fault?
Click to expand...

Nope.

As a hopeful game designer I feel I better be able to put forth my opinion on this coherently, even though I don't like debate that much, so here goes.

Everyone is responsible for the behavior of children and the effect media has on them; if I design a violent video game, it is to some degree
- My responsibility to make the video game decent for kids OR to limit the target audience to one that will handle it with maturite
- The players' responsibility to be mature enough to play without letting it affect them much
- When applicable, the parent's responsibility for having a clue


Parents should have at least a vague idea what their children are doing in every aspect of their lives. The only way to control one's upbringing is through intel. I don't mean parents should strictly dominate everything the kids do (I'm a kid too!) but I think it's reasonable that parents know what kinds of TV shows you watch, what kinds of web sites you go to, and what kind of video games you play.

That's both a kid and parent responsibility.

Then, it's the PARENT'S responsibility to do research, I will agree with this - but a lot of kids don't give the parents the chance. They'll lie their way through the game because they know their parents won't let them buy it. Is there anything we can do about that? Not really - which is why I hate taking stances on political debate; because there's really not much you can do about it.

If I had my way, you would have to present ID to buy M-rated games, just like you have to present ID to buy cigarettes or beer, or tickets to an NC-17 movie. A certain maturity level is expected of smokers or drinkers, and is enforced by law. I don't see why it would be unreasonable to do the same of video games.


Besides. Restrictions make for good marketing. *shot*
 
Varna said:
It's called "parenting". America could really use a lesson on that one.
Click to expand...
This.


Personally, I don't know what to think. This is rather complicated subject.

Ultimately, it's the parents' fault for not knowing what's up with their kids and raising them properly. It's up to the parents to block media if they don't like what message it's sending.


But on the other hand, allowing the stores to sell them the games in the first place, you lose one of your biggest forms of control. What can you really do about it if you aren't there with the kid when he's buying the game? What if you never catch him playing it?

Pretty much all you can do is take it away if you bust him, but then he's already been exposed for who knows how long. So what good will that really do?



As much as I'm surprised of myself for taking this position, I think it's best to reinstate the law. Don't allow the sale of M+ rated games to minors. Parents that don't have a problem with their kids playing M+ rated games can just go buy it with them/for them. This also works good for the parents that don't have a problem with their child playing certain M+ rated games, but aren't too fond of other games.

The only thing lifting the ban will do is take control away from concerned parents.
 
Last edited:
Kayle said:
Nope.

As a hopeful game designer I feel I better be able to put forth my opinion on this coherently, even though I don't like debate that much, so here goes.

Everyone is responsible for the behavior of children and the effect media has on them; if I design a violent video game, it is to some degree
- My responsibility to make the video game decent for kids OR to limit the target audience to one that will handle it with maturite
- The players' responsibility to be mature enough to play without letting it affect them much
- When applicable, the parent's responsibility for having a clue


Parents should have at least a vague idea what their children are doing in every aspect of their lives. The only way to control one's upbringing is through intel. I don't mean parents should strictly dominate everything the kids do (I'm a kid too!) but I think it's reasonable that parents know what kinds of TV shows you watch, what kinds of web sites you go to, and what kind of video games you play.

That's both a kid and parent responsibility.

Then, it's the PARENT'S responsibility to do research, I will agree with this - but a lot of kids don't give the parents the chance. They'll lie their way through the game because they know their parents won't let them buy it. Is there anything we can do about that? Not really - which is why I hate taking stances on political debate; because there's really not much you can do about it.

If I had my way, you would have to present ID to buy M-rated games, just like you have to present ID to buy cigarettes or beer, or tickets to an NC-17 movie. A certain maturity level is expected of smokers or drinkers, and is enforced by law. I don't see why it would be unreasonable to do the same of video games.


Besides. Restrictions make for good marketing. *shot*
Click to expand...

You make a good point. I just realized its everybody's fault.:lol: Just kiddinng.
 
Meh, it isn't so much about freedom of speech as it is about ability to sell certain items to certain ages.
A good number of states already have that for things like fuel injector cleaner or cold medicine anyways.

Nobody is trying to ban people from making violent video games (in this case anyways).
Sounds like a law that would just make it harder for kids to sneak games they aren't supposed to have past their parents.

For all of the huge assaults on freedom of speech and other constitutional rights that I've seen, I honestly don't see how this is a big issue.
 
Elite_4_Allen said:
You make a good point. I just realized its everybody's fault.:lol: Just kiddinng.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your extremely respectful and constructive contribution to this argument. I feel so empowered as a video game designer to help provide quality entertainment for such intelligent, helpful people.

ITT I wonder why I bother.


On topic: I think it's fair to say that violent video games are free speech just as much as violent or sexual movies are free speech... and therefore can and should be regulated in the same way.
 
I'm with Kayle on that. I'm going to school right now for game production and I had to do a paper on this sort of thing. Yes the parents should know what the rating stamps mean and they should be able to say no that game isn't for you as a kid. I know that's how it was for me. I didn't even get a chance to play a GTA game until I was 15 and that was because my yunger borther wasn't able to play it and I just got my own room. I know here in Indiana we have to show ID to buy R rated movies but games I haven't ever been carded for that and the bad thing is you can just what to watch the R and X rated movies on HBO and when they come on most parents are asleep but they have the V-chip thing for that. I thank that if they make it harder to buy the more violent game would be good but as long as it don't put to big of a dent in the gaming industery. Plus I know there needs to be better parenting when it comes to things like this in the first place because most of the kids in my town have no real parenting at all. Some of the kids start smoking and other thing like that at the age of 8. So I don't know how well a law that makes it harded to buy the games would work.

So if they make buying games like movies and other froms of media that should work but still the parents are the maen facture in the kids getting the games as well as the movies.
 
Kayle said:
On topic: I think it's fair to say that violent video games are free speech just as much as violent or sexual movies are free speech... and therefore can and should be regulated in the same way.
Click to expand...
I think you may be misunderstanding me.
I agree that the making of the game should be protected, but if the law is simply making it where a store can't sell something to a kid that shouldn't be sold to a kid, I'm just seeing the issue.

The moment they try to make a law blocking stores from carrying certain items or a law preventing companies from making certain games, I'll definitely be against it.
I think it's stupid how politicians love to use, "think of the children" as their reasoning for everything.

Let me ask a few questions about this (as I could very well be missing something important here).

1. Would the law prevent stores from carrying certain products or would it just prevent selling it to kids?
2. Would the law prevent parents from buying those games for their kids if they approve of them?
3. Would the law prevent game companies from making certain games and/or selling them to retailers in the state of California?
4. Would the law create a dangerous precedent that imposes on freedom of speech or would it simply follow precedents already established for a number of other products that can't be sold to kids?

I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic on this.
I'm starting to think that all of the uproar could easily mean that I'm missing something here so I thought I'd go ahead and ask.

I'm currently of the understanding that the law would only prevent stores from selling games directly to kids when those games are rated as being too violent for kids.
I was figuring that maybe little Jimmy doesn't need to be going for the curbstomping achievement in Gears of War 2 if he needs to sneak it behind his parent's backs.
I love playing video games and I personally think that the people who blame every problem on video games are morons, but forcing the parents to physically give the thumbs up on their kid playing a graphically violent game seems like a law that puts the responsibility back on the parents.
 
Jeremy Badeaux said:
I think you may be misunderstanding me.
I agree that the making of the game should be protected, but if the law is simply making it where a store can't sell something to a kid that shouldn't be sold to a kid, I'm just seeing the issue.

The moment they try to make a law blocking stores from carrying certain items or a law preventing companies from making certain games, I'll definitely be against it.
I think it's stupid how politicians love to use, "think of the children" as their reasoning for everything.

Let me ask a few questions about this (as I could very well be missing something important here).

1. Would the law prevent stores from carrying certain products or would it just prevent selling it to kids?
2. Would the law prevent parents from buying those games for their kids if they approve of them?
3. Would the law prevent game companies from making certain games and/or selling them to retailers in the state of California?
4. Would the law create a dangerous precedent that imposes on freedom of speech or would it simply follow precedents already established for a number of other products that can't be sold to kids?

I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic on this.
I'm starting to think that all of the uproar could easily mean that I'm missing something here so I thought I'd go ahead and ask.

I'm currently of the understanding that the law would only prevent stores from selling games directly to kids when those games are rated as being too violent for kids.
I was figuring that maybe little Jimmy doesn't need to be going for the curbstomping achievement in Gears of War 2 if he needs to sneak it behind his parent's backs.
I love playing video games and I personally think that the people who blame every problem on video games are morons, but forcing the parents to physically give the thumbs up on their kid playing a graphically violent game seems like a law that puts the responsibility back on the parents.
Click to expand...
Isn't that were it should be?



Anyway, to answer your questions. As far as I understand, if the law was reinstated it would only prevent the sale/rental of M+ rated video games to minors in the state of California (other states have similar laws, I'm sure). If a parent doesn't mind, they can just go and get it with/for their child. Kinda like minors aren't allowed into R rated movies without a responsible adult, but if they have an adult to accompany them, they're allowed in.
 
Last edited:
Kayle said:
Nope.

As a hopeful game designer I feel I better be able to put forth my opinion on this coherently, even though I don't like debate that much, so here goes.

Everyone is responsible for the behavior of children and the effect media has on them; if I design a violent video game, it is to some degree
- My responsibility to make the video game decent for kids OR to limit the target audience to one that will handle it with maturite
- The players' responsibility to be mature enough to play without letting it affect them much
- When applicable, the parent's responsibility for having a clue


Parents should have at least a vague idea what their children are doing in every aspect of their lives. The only way to control one's upbringing is through intel. I don't mean parents should strictly dominate everything the kids do (I'm a kid too!) but I think it's reasonable that parents know what kinds of TV shows you watch, what kinds of web sites you go to, and what kind of video games you play.

That's both a kid and parent responsibility.

Then, it's the PARENT'S responsibility to do research, I will agree with this - but a lot of kids don't give the parents the chance. They'll lie their way through the game because they know their parents won't let them buy it. Is there anything we can do about that? Not really - which is why I hate taking stances on political debate; because there's really not much you can do about it.

If I had my way, you would have to present ID to buy M-rated games, just like you have to present ID to buy cigarettes or beer, or tickets to an NC-17 movie. A certain maturity level is expected of smokers or drinkers, and is enforced by law. I don't see why it would be unreasonable to do the same of video games.


Besides. Restrictions make for good marketing. *shot*
Click to expand...


I like the ID thing. In fact, seconds before I read your post I was thinking the exact same thing. Like ID's should have to be entered into a computer and if it's valid the sale will go through. I was bought a violent video game when I was 16 by my grandmother and I turned out fine, but I was mature for my age so I was able to handle it. Anyway if the parents are too stupid to look at the rating on the game then that's their fault. IIRC the Japanese have different colored boxes for mature rated Wii games, why the heck can't parents just read the rating on the box? Do we need to change the color to some blinding colors that no one can possibly ignore?
 
toxictaipan said:
Isn't that were it should be?



Anyway, to answer your questions. As far as I understand, if the law was reinstated it would only only prevents the sale/rental of M+ rated video games to minors in the state of California (other states have similar laws, I'm sure). If a parent doesn't mind, they can just go and get it with/for their child. Kinda like minors aren't allowed into R rated movies without a responsible adult, but if they have an adult to accompany them, they're allowed in.
Click to expand...
So it's exactly what I thought it was?
Why is there any outcry over this at all?
Are the people complaining about this just the kids who don't want their parents to know the kinds of games that they are playing?

It's a law that puts the responsibility exactly where it should be and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Lord only knows what kind of quack judge thought restricting sales of an adult product to minors = violating freedom of speech.

I'm guessing restricting sales of cough syrup to minors is violating freedom of speech?
How about alcohol?
. . . .
Tobacco products?
Ummm. . . . . .
R rated movies?

Oh, that's right, those don't have online play for those little kids to shout obscenities at people. :lol:

If more states made laws like this, I might consider using Xbox live again. lol
 
In my opinion it shouldn't be up to the parent whether their underage kid can play an M rated game or not, it should just be a law. This is what I would like to happen (though I doubt it ever would). Just make a law that if a person under 17 is caught playing an M rated game then the parent or guardian is forced to pay a fine. And if the kid is playing the game at a friends house then charge the person who owns/leases that house. This would do two things. 1: It would stop all of the underage kids playing games that they shouldn't have access to. And 2: It would make the parents actually have to know what their kids are doing. Having to pay a fine every time your kid does something wrong just makes sence to me.
 
Skitty said:
Just make a law that if a person under 17 is caught playing an M rated game then the parent or guardian is forced to pay a fine. And if the kid is playing the game at a friends house then charge the person who owns/leases that house. .
Click to expand...

That would kill sales of most games rated higher then E+10, plus that is far from being free and I know that they are kids but kids have rights to some point was well. I just went a read the links and I like the law. The law states that if a store or rentel store sales or rents a M rated game to anyone under 18 would be fined $1000 for every violation of the law. That should be in place plus 95% of people that are over 16 have an ID of some sort so that shouldn't be to hard to do. I know I have to show my ID if I want to buy a pack of smokes or anything to drink and I also have to show my ID when I'm buying a R rated movie so why can't it be the same for games. Games in away are more violent becuase it is you playing and the game isn't scripted to do everything you do in it. So if the law stays the way it is writen then that could be a good thing but if they change it because they feel like having more controll over the manor then the law should be stopped.
 
Skitty said:
In my opinion it shouldn't be up to the parent whether their underage kid can play an M rated game or not, it should just be a law. This is what I would like to happen (though I doubt it ever would). Just make a law that if a person under 17 is caught playing an M rated game then the parent or guardian is forced to pay a fine. And if the kid is playing the game at a friends house then charge the person who owns/leases that house. This would do two things. 1: It would stop all of the underage kids playing games that they shouldn't have access to. And 2: It would make the parents actually have to know what their kids are doing. Having to pay a fine every time your kid does something wrong just makes sence to me.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is simply that it would be turning the U.S. into a nanny state.
If a kid can watch an R rated movie with his/her parents, why shouldn't they be able to play an M rated game that their parents approve of?

I like that the law just makes it an issue of forcing the parents to be aware of what the kids are playing.
Your plan would be a law that would either be completely ineffective or insanely intrusive.
How much sense does it make to either have the government spend money on an unenforceable law or make a law that violates your 4th amendment rights to make sure kids don't play anything the government doesn't approve of.

He doesn't know how to use the three seashells.
Click to expand...
lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top