"Games are neither art nor media." - Censorship push

[GlassJaw]

What I don't get is that there already is a rating system on video games. The game industry supports it and put it there.

It seems to me that, politcal grandstanding aside, they want to penalize and fine retailers that sell these games to minors. The main problem with the rating system up to now is that it really can't be enforced since. The rating system is more for the consumer than it is for the retailer. It's there to show mom and dad that little Billy probably shouldn't be playing GTA.

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with a bill like this if it means that game developers could now make games without lawmakers on their backs all the time and being blame for the fall of society.

 

[Desdichado]

On the other hand, short of the Illinois legislature throwing check out clerks at Best Buy in jail, this isn't anything that movie theater employees haven't been asked to do for decades.

Exactly. And since video games generally already have ratings, I don't see how this is anything new at all.

 

[Umbran]

Politics, anyone?

 

[Mystery Man]

Let's not go there. -Henry

Oh, Henry! - Mystery Man.

 

[Henry]

Politics, anyone?

I saw it as more about gaming-related censorship than politics, but if people turn it into one, I'll have to shut it down.

 

[GlassJaw]

And since video games generally already have ratings, I don't see how this is anything new at all.

But the rating system was put in place by the game publishers themselves, not any government-policed organization. Technically, there is no penalty for a retailer to sell a MA-rated game to a minor. Like I said, the rating system is more for consumer knowledge. The way I read this bill, it would slap fines on said retailers.

 

[spider_minion]

I remember one time I was at Wal*Mart and there was some little kid there with his mom. The kid shouted "I want Grand Theft Auto!" and his mom was wondering around looking for it. I found this very surprising.

I sorta agree with the spirit of the bill, but it has some issues. The first is that parents are (generally) out of the loop when it comes to video games, so they will buy their kids the games anyhow. Nor do I like lawmakers making bills on things they clearly know nothing about. I agree with the other posters--video games are media and art. If nothing else, the graphics and music qualify games as art.

Implicit in the law is the belief that violent video games will harm children. But how many of us have seen violent movies when we were kids? Did we turn out alright? In one of my philosophy classes we had a similar debate on TV and children, and the statistical evidence on the topic is inconclusive. Conventional wisdom says that games are harmful, but the law should be based on more than just intuition.

 

[Hand of Evil]

And we have a rating system too!

 

[spider_minion]

I don't think that this is completely wrong. There are ratings and restrictions on movies, why should videogames be any different? Especially now that games are getting close to being photorealistic - check out any of the E3 Playstation 3 demos.

I'm amazed at the graphical power of the PS3, but its like games are getting too realistic. Immersive first-person shooters seem to be the trend for the next-gen systems--I counted 3 for the PS3. I think we'll here at lot more cries for censorship as gaming gets more mainstream and realistic. Most parents will probably remain oblivious.

(Not really related to the topic at hand, but all those next-gen games just looked so derivative and unorignal. I have this feeling that developers will be encouraged to push the envelop on graphics, but not innovate with the games themselves.)

 

[vulcan_idic]

As an Illinois resident, I am now ashamed for the first time in my memory to be associated with my state. On the other hand, if this thing does actually become law I'm fairly certain it will be swiftly brought up in court on 1st Amendment issues dispite what the honorable Senator said, and I doubt it will stand up in court of law.