July 18, 2007
Read the GamePolitics report New Mitt Romney Ad Decries Sex & Violence in Video Games; Opponent Brownback Calls Foul and then check out the Romney video:
Connect with us:
Shout box
Uncharted NES: Critics: 'Left Behind' game glorifies violence- http://tinyurl.com/wu64s02/12/2012 - 4:34pm
|
Zen: I felt Brutal Legends was a funny & beautiful look at the world of rock from Double Fines point of view. The only parts I wasn't hot for were the RTS bits as it felt forced. Otherwise fantastic.02/12/2012 - 1:34pm
|
DorthLous: Passed 1.5M$. And I'd also say that Brutal Legend is far from being a bad game. I just think it was a few levels under what people expected from the people working on the project.02/11/2012 - 8:25am
|
Technogeek: Brutal Legend wasn't bad so much as "marketing had no idea how the game actually played", causing it to suffer accordingly.02/10/2012 - 10:38pm
|
RedMage: It looks the CIA's website has been DDOS'ed. Anon?02/10/2012 - 7:52pm
|
RedMage: Brutal Legend.02/10/2012 - 7:52pm
|
ddrfr33k: Has anything Tim Schafer ever made been of crap caliber? I'm struggling to think of one...02/10/2012 - 7:37pm
|
Guamish: I think it is in good hands. Tim did a game for the GDC award show and that was fun for how short it was.02/10/2012 - 12:22pm
|
Andrew Eisen: It'll be tragic if the game ultimately sucks.02/10/2012 - 12:17pm
|
james_fudge: $1.3 million02/10/2012 - 11:32am
|
Uncharted NES: Germany Says It Won't Sign ACTA [Update: ... Yet]- http://tinyurl.com/7r2twrg02/10/2012 - 11:21am
|
Andrew Eisen: Damn. Double Fine's Kickstarter fund has already passed a million dollars.02/09/2012 - 8:16pm
|
Andrew Eisen: Audrey didn't quote the sassy parts. Here's IGN's article: http://wii.ign.com/articles/121/1218359p1.html And here's my original post: http://tinyurl.com/7y68a3902/09/2012 - 7:50pm
|
james_fudge: I hope you some said something sassy! Where's the link?02/09/2012 - 7:46pm
|
Andrew Eisen: Hey, neat. IGN quoted a blog I had writen only two hours earlier. I certainly timed that one pretty well.02/09/2012 - 7:38pm
|
Andrew Eisen: Toki Tori has been added to the Humble Bundle for Android.02/09/2012 - 5:11pm
|
james_fudge: Thanks for the heads-up DorthLous02/09/2012 - 4:33pm
|
DorthLous: Will do, my apologies.02/09/2012 - 4:14pm
|
Andrew Eisen: I appreciate the heads up but please keep typo alerts to the specific article's comments or PMs.02/09/2012 - 3:33pm
|
DorthLous: The title says 30, but in the article, the developer says it's like a 20% net tax http://www.gamepolitics.com/2012/02/09/developers-call-facebook-currency-transaction-fee-thirty-percent-tax02/09/2012 - 2:43pm
|
Comments
I just don't get it.
:P
You're right. Game fans are far too sensitive and it ain't helping anyone.
On a tangential note...I've never fully understood why gamers in America seem to think making it illegal to sell M-rated games to those under 17 is such a HUGE DEAL. Especially when they take every opportunity to jump down parents' throats for letting their children play said games. Maybe I'm missing something.
Well, it is a slightly complicated and probably hypocritical matter. Basically, games are protected speech and as long as they are not pornography, anyone can buy one. This is where the slippery slope argument comes in, that if a governmental body can regulated this sector, what is to stop them from regulating other sectors or from blocking even adults from whatever expression that they regulate.
The other half of the argument about parental responcibility is that the parents (the people who likely gave the kid $50 in the first place) should be involved in what games their kids play and give the yea or nay to each game brought up by their kids.
I hope my rambling has shed some light on the debate for you.
To clarify on CyberSkull's points: It's a big deal because people are afraid what might happen if some piece of gaming legislation sticks. But more to the point, a lot of people think it's just fruitless. It wastes taxpayer dollars, as they're usually overthrown right away. It's unecessary, because the gaming industry has already proven itself to be a (mostly) self-regulating entity.
But it's also monstrous. A recent law that they're trying to pass here in New York would make the sale of games to minos a FELONY. I am not sure how the legal system in your nation works, but let me make clear what this means: Felonies are generally reserved for assault, for murder. The class of felony they wanted for this law would make it a felony of the "25 to life" variety, in other words, minimum 25 years in prison (and no maximum sentance), all for selling a game to a child.
In comparison, selling beer or cigarettes to a minor is merely a misdameanor here, and generally carries only a fine. Jail time, while infrequent, is certainly not a quarter of a century. So, a games retailer will be held more accountable than an alchahol seller? As I said: Monstrous.
So, it's a big deal, because... It's a big deal. Politicans are ham-handledly poking at the industry, trying to fix a problem that, by and large, does not exist to be fixed.
This ad isn't about video games at all, rather against providing violent and pornagraphic material to minors through all types of media ... exactly what people on this site are always asking politicians to do, not single out only video games
Wants to keep violent games out of kids hands. The only way to do that would be to keep anyone from getting games. Let's compare any anti-game legislation to anti-alcohol/cigarettes legislation. Even if it says no one under 18 or 21 can buy them, "minors" still get them. I've known plenty of friends who were smoking at 16. Its been a conversation point that no one really drinks as much now that we're 21+. It's lost some of its appeal. Hell, drugs are completely illegal. Look how successful that's been.
@ Eli Mordino
Like Cyberskull and UTP said, it's a slippery slope. We are afraid how far it would go. Ever hear the phrase "give them an inch, and they take a mile"? Its as simple as it sounds. Give someone just a little and they'll take a whole lot. If we let them make selling M rated games to minors illegal, next it'll be illegal to buy M rated games for minors. Then it'll be illegal to have a store that sells M rated games located near where minors congregate. Then they'll hit music, movies, and television using the same arguments when that doesn't work. Sure, we may not see that in our lifetime, but maybe our children will. I want to protect my children (when I have them :P) from 1984.
Let's use a real world example. Back when I was in high school, we had a dress code and a few rules. Cards were simply forbidden. Any cards. They were considered tools for gambling. I had a few friends that played Magic, so that was annoying to them. If you were tardy to class 3 times, that was detention. Tardy was defined by the teacher and some were strict (not in your seat when the bell rings? Tardy!).
I went back recently to get some old records and found the front door was different, more sturdy. It had a notice posted on the window advertising how there are monthly locker checks using dogs. A student informed me that you were given detention on your second tardy now, and only given 5 minutes between classes. These are minor changes it may seem, but it caught me off guard. I've never really thought of my old high school as a bad place and crime in the area is not nearly as bad as other areas. Its a slippery slope though. One my old school is greased up for it seems.
One minor correction to UTP. New York is attempting to pass a law making selling a M rated game to a minor a Class E felony. From my understanding its up to five years in prison. Not 25 or better. Still bad. As he noted, selling alcohol or cigarettes to a minor (things that are actually harmful to your health) are mere fines.
Want a better picture of the world we fear? Here are a few books to try reading:
~ 1984
~ Brave New World
~ Fahrenheit 451
Sorry for the uber long post.
And even with this correction, it's still utterly monstrous, considering that New York has a "three strikes" law (three felony convictions = life imprisonment), and considering that, as I said above, sale of alchahol and cigarettes to minors is only a felony, and usually is enforced with fines. Both those are, by degrees, much more harmful to minors than M-rated games. Certainly there's no DAPGTA ("Driving After Playing Grand Theft Auto) violation on record, at any rate.
I should note that it's not an Orwellian dystopia I fear, though I do feel strongly about anything that might, in the long run, erode free speech. Certainly I feel strongly about things that help engender resistance to games being accepted as a form of speech.
I have to learn to proof better... ~_~
I look at it this way Mitt Romney is one of the first to comment on all types of media and not just video games. All forms of media should receive equal legislative controlling. It is not the argument of giving them an inch, its a mater of equal treatment of media sources.
I have to agree with him, there is an increasing amount of violence and sex on tv, and parents are not teaching their children how to deal with information they are receiving. So something needs to be done, the question remains however what should be done?
I would also like to point out that technically, as a minor, you have no such thing as free speech. Your rights are limited to protection from physical harm.
Yet none of that can possibly be taken into account. It must have been the dagum TV.
I guess his campaign slogan here is: "If you are a terrible parent and your kid commits a murder, you won't have to feel guilty. Just blame it on something else."
Grow a pair and do something worthwhile if you want my vote.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WCJG1TO5dRE
I actually saw that episode of Futurama last night and then I see this. It gets cut off early, but Hermes (the man you see at the end of the 2nd clip) says "but we just don't have the time" and then Bender (The robot) says "Well make time".
The whole point of that episode was that the 2 kids (Hermes and Dr. Farnsworth's kid) both wanted to be cool and to be cool they needed cool stuff, so they stole from the cool robot, Bender. They eventually spill the beans and blame Bender for giving them the idea.
I would support this one. Only because he's at all different angles of media. However, there are more important issues at hand. Besides, Porn doesn't go into gaming as much as he thinks. Theres only 1 game officially out there on a console and 1 that was a mistake and can't get anymore.
No problem. Hell, I could be wrong in my correction, but I doubt even the most up tight politician/soccer mom would condone sending a person to jail for 25 years for selling something to a minor. Then again, I would thought they wouldn't have condoned sending a person to jail for 5 years either.
Yes, I remember that New York has a three strikes law as well (it was a subject of discussion here a while back). And yes, the two laws combined can technically sentence a person to life in prison. Its sad, but I doubt those idiots even considered the implications.
Here's the story I mentioned:
http://gamepolitics.com/2007/06/01/attorney-ny-game-law-could-mean-a-lif...
OK, so using those books as examples may not be completely fair. I'll grant that. They represent a worst case scenario. I guarantee you that no one that is trying to pass these laws think they will lead to an Orwellian society, but that the danger. Who will be in power 10 years from now? They may not think we did enough today. They may decide that we need to "protect the children" and use a weak law as a springboard for stronger legislation. Which may in turn become even stronger 10 years later. That's the truest danger. These politicians are too short sighted.
@ Weatherlight
Yes he did mention ALL media. That doesn't make me any happier. Yes, many people here have condemned anti-game activists for being too narrow minded. We have argued that its more than the video games that CAN affect people. That doesn't mean we think anything really does.
The problem with the media hurts our children theory is that you have to seek the media out. Sure, some is easy to access (like the Internet), but that's also easy for the parent to curb. The bottom line is that media is not forced on you, no matter what some people may say. You can turn off the TV, computer, music or game.
No matter what happens, there will always be crazy people out there. I've mentioned the Son of Sam before. Show me what media he viewed that made him kill people. By all accounts, he was insane, and believed that a dog was telling him to murder people. A man I know told me that he has had conversations with Jesus. Satan, and Zeus... in the shower. What media has influenced him? A guy I knew believed he was possessed by two demons. He later committed a pretty big list of crimes including: theft by taking, rape, kid-napping, auto theft, and driving without a license (all in one day).
Once again. How did the media influence these people? Blaming the media is merely an excuse. People want a scapegoat when something happens they don't understand. People want to blame something else when they do something wrong. People. That's the problem.
Minors have no First Amendment rights? Bull SHIT! Do you also not permit children to speak at dinner? Do you rip up the crayon pictures they draw? Do you believe that a child should never ask questions? Do you believe that anyone younger than you has no right to speak? I was fine with everything else you said, but that sickens me. I'd like to point out that children are also not restricted from Freedom of Speech. Last I checked, the U.S. constitution doesn't say "this doesn't apply to those under 18".
Once more, sorry for the long post.
Umm! Minors do have First Amendment right. Otherwise why would all these anti-gaming laws be struck down as unconstitutional. You don't gain First Amendment rights once you reach some magical arbitrary age limit. Yes, it true minors do not have the exact same first amendment rights as adults but only when it comes to two exceptions. If the speech is obscene to minors (in that it follows the miller/ginsberg obscenity test) or if the government can prove the speech in question is actually harmful to minors in which the evidence claiming this is extremely weak, inconsistant, incredibly flawed and biased (not to mention all the studies claiming there is no harmful effect on minors caused by violent media). Beyond those two exceptions the government cannot ban Free Speech material to minors. Claiming that minors have no First Amendment rights or shouldn't have any First Amendment rights is incredibly ageist and anti-youth. It makes you sound like Jack Thompson.
Minor's also do not have First Amendment rights at schools.
There was the student who was suspended from a school for a banner he held at an off site event.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html
The sign was 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'.
People don't trust their government's stance on the "moral high-ground". We've learned just how depraved our governement is since the Nixon era.
It is correct blaming the media is a sad excuse for kids acting up because it like anything is a source of information that children need to be taught how to understand this information and in general how to act. However media does have an effect on children, no matter how you want to argue the subject, the true question is question is how and to what extent.
My argument is simply that all forms of media are to be treated equally when it comes to minors or "protecting the children", I then will argue where that line needs to be drawn on what is acceptable for children to view. This is the burden that truly should fall on the parents and not be dictated by the government, however, a large number of parents have grown lazy, and children are no longer taught how live in society and act responsibly.
We still do not know were gaming is going to end up as an issue in ‘08 so it would behoove the gaming community to keep any and all candidates open for possibly endorsements.
T5
This has nothing to do with the GOVERNMENT deciding through law what free speech materials minors can or cannot have or make. The First amendment applies only to the government, not parents or cooperations or independant websites such as gamepolitics if they wish to censor speech. If a parent doesn't want his or her child to own or read the Bible because they're jewish, muslin or atheist, then that's there choice, but the government can't pass a law barring the dissemination of the Holy Bible to all persons under 18 just because some parents don't want there child to read it. And violent video games are just as much Free Speech as the Holy Bible is. They have the ability to express ideas, information, messages and opinions as literature like Harry Potter, The Holy Bible, The Holy Quran, The Origin of the Species all books and pieces of literature that many parents out there don't want there children to have. The fact is it is the sole responsibility of the parents to keep speech materials that they find inappropriate or unsuitable away from their children.
The Supreme court itself said in Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville
"Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."
Well then shouldn't we be taking those kids out of the homes if their parents are to lazy and negligent to take care of them rather then restricting First Amendment rights and letting the government decide what minors and all those under some magical arbitrary age limit can or cannot read, watch, play or listen to. Because lets face it, the of the matter is if kids have lazy and negligent parents, then their chances of being fucked up are pretty much the same regardless of whether they've played Grand Theft Auto, watched Scarface or listened to Rap Music.
So if Nin,Sony,MS say no AO and 60-80% of retailers say no dose that not make it a presudo ban?
Devs should at the least be able to make AO games for the systems and the retailers can pick up the slack from there but with the console makers saying no theres no middle ground with that and the issues is stalled until a new rating is made or the console makers break.
As for laws…do you really want fed/states choosing what adults can buy because that is what it will come down to because that is the kind of country we are in, if we were not ,the “think of the children crowd” would not have so much power.
My comment has everything to do with the government, because they can make it against the law to sell some form of media to a minor, however they should not be able to tell parents what media they can or cannot expose their children to.
"Well then shouldn’t we be taking those kids out of the homes"
There are to many parents out there like this, so that isn't an option. Not to mention that then the government would be taking care of these kids again.
Even if I do buy your theory that kids are influenced, and there are too many lazy parents, I'm not ready to sacrifice constitutional rights to make us "safer." A few bad apples may slip through the cracks, and it may result in tragedy, but that's the price I'm willing to pay to live in a free society.
Still, one thing I may have missed above is that we hear a lot of things from politicians, and even if they do walk the walk of decrying violence, reducing taxes, and feeding the poor our government and politics makes it so that they cannot deliver. Do you remember just how liberal Arnold was? Now he's as Republican as the rest of them. Do you remember George Bush Sr. "No new taxes?" He probably meant it, until he got in and got pushed about like the figure-head a politician often time becomes.
What's my point? This is politics, what Mr. Romney says here may not stick worth a damn should he be voted into office. He wants to get your vote to do his best to get into that office.
Remember that politics is just a business...
All time favorite quote from this article: "Soooo… basically once more “I want to ban steak because babies can’t chew it?” is what this boils down to?" Thank you for the morning laugh Erik because it fits the bill perfectly. ;)
A politician mentions video games in some way.
GamePolitics reports on it.
Not necessarily blowing it out of proportion, but putting the spotlight on it, as specialized blogs should. Seems about right to me.
Haven't you just read my previous posts, the government cannot restrict minor's first Amendment rights. Minors especially older minors and teenagers have the ability to form their own viewpoints based on Free Speech media that express ideas, information, messages and opinions. Read all the court cases striking down anti-gaming laws as unconstitutional. None of the laws were struck down only because video games were being singled out BUT because minors have First Amendment rights to receive those video games and the evidence that the government claimed made violent video games cause violent behavior in youth was even close to showing that it did that.
There are to many parents out there like this, so that isn’t an option. Not to mention that then the government would be taking care of these kids again.
So essentially kids are fucked regardless as there are too many shitty parents out there. But please tell me how restricting minor's First Amendment rights is going to help kids with shitty parents because IMHO if the kids have shitty parents then their chances of being messed up because of that are no different regardless of whether the government passes a law barring them from playing GTA, Halo or watching, reading, or listening to any other violent media out there. The fact is, it's not going to solve any problem.
Also the government wouldn't be taking care of the kids if taken out of the home, the foster family who they are given to to take care of would be.
As regards the "slippery slope" argument...I think that's a cultural thing. Until recently in Ireland (we're talking up to the 1960s at least) there was very harsh censorship. Books banned, authors essentially blacklisted, and so on. We've got our shit in order since then, however...for instance, our equivalent of the conservative party currently holds 2 out of 166 seats in parliament, and even they've never shown signs of being remotely as conservative as the Republicans seem to be. In other words we've been sloping upwards for decades now. But with the political climate in America at the moment, and the fact that America has always been famous for its social freedoms, I suppose it's understandable that you're more sensitive about this kind of thing.
I agree with that, the rights of the majority of citizens should not be short-changed solely because of a minority of blooming idiots out there. Regardless of whether it's kids or adults. Most older kids and teenagers are fully capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong, reality and fantasy and what is or is not acceptable behavior in real-life situations and should not have their rights restricted because of a few morons around their age don't.
Ok let's face it, the media does endorse it, however, it's only for entertainment purposes.
The reason why those shootings happen, is not because their #1 on CS, it's because they are fed up with life, most of those kids that do that stuff are outcasts in their schools and that abuse provoked them, not a game or movie.