@ BlackIce, Leftie

Fine, letting your kids play GTA is like letting them watch Scarface or Reservoir Dogs.

Count down to 1.3 billion gamer f-bombs... Man, people must be getting tired of studying games without playing the damn things. And every test where they say theres proof of a link, the link is in a person with a mental illness where they cant differentiate scooby-doo on tv from the stuffed animal.

@Soldalouis

But will the positive voices be heard and actually used?

The people of Britain should be asking HIM for answers. Like how much of their tax money this is gonna waste. It'd be an interesting number to see in pounds sterling.

Actually I just had a flick through the link, the 'call for evidence' seems to be very fair and open minded. Take a look before damning it!

@Nightwing

Not to be mean spirited but since when have "Fair and unbiased" ever been important to anyone on the Antigame front. Even the most moderate of them is still clearly and distinctly biased, let alone this bitch. Hell, jack thompson doesn't even know what the terms "fair" and "Unbiased" mean.

Hate to say it, but every time I see this, I keep thinking my old "SUE BACK" approach is sounding better and better every day

How could ANY government get away with using a TELEVISION personality to conduct an "important" study? That's akin to using Rachel Ray to evaluate food for the FDA...

@Zerodash,

Tanya Byron has a Masters Degree as well as a PsychD before she ever appeared on TV.

Sadly enough, in most Western countries, people are more inclined to believe what is said on the TV than what is said at the end of a long exhaustive report by a University, there's enough evidence of that from some of the stories on here, so personally, I'd rather have someone who I know will try to take a balanced view of this while conducting it, which Ms Byron will do, TV star or not.

Never forget Ronnie Reagan ;)

@ RJ :

I don't know if it will be used, but at least this time, it's open to us too. I remember too many "studies" and "reviews" and "reports" that completely negated contrary opinions.

Does Dennis have any pictures of Keith Vaz not looking like a complete d-bag or does he just use this one for the humor value. I'm guessing the latter and I have no problem with that, lol.

Lol. Good point.

I don't see why anyone is concerned about this review. It really won't change a thing.

All it might highlight is that parents do not pay attention to ratings. Thats it.

Yuki and EvilJez,

Had an ongoing argument/debate with "Graddy" in one of the Kotaku articles about psychological studies:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/thompson-watch/dissecting-jacks-latest-tv-spin-...

As you can see (and I've mentioned in GP many times before), I'm not a big fan of psychological studies in general. But, as in the conversation I was having with Graddy, I REALLY hate the taking out of the individual when these studies are done. Now, this "doctor" in this article is claiming to want to get to know the opinions of individuals. But she's also expressed her opinion, which she is entitled to, don't get me wrong, but I'm concerned how that opinion will play into this review of hers.

EvilJez,
Yes, she says "potential" on her website. But the quote in GP's article doesn't include "potential".

Also, my answer to whether ANYTHING is appropriate or not for a child remains the same and quite consistant from media to media:
It isn't my job, or the job of any other individual, organization, or government entity to decide what is, or is not, appropriate for someone else's child. Individuals are free to offer opinions as to any particular product or belief, but they don't have the right to force their views (through legislation or other form of dictate) upon other individuals.

Certainly, you can probably argue something that many of us would agree should be limited, but for the most part, the argument remains. Even something such as exposing their child to bigotry and hate through various religious beliefs. As dishonorable and unethical as such an act is in my personal opinion, I can't dictate what one Parent teaches their child.

I, as the Parent of my own child, know my own child better than anyone else. What I find appropriate or inappropriate for my child may be different than another individual or Parent. And the same goes for what they decide is or is not appropriate for their own child.

And that's my stance on that specific issue.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Also, as it is a given that children should not be playing violent video games, wouldn't it be more obvious to spend the money that was wasted on that hack to educate parents that buying your child a game like GTA is effectively the same as letting your infant watch a film like Hostel or Saw.

And the problem IS the parents. I've been IDed in games stores across the UK when I was younger when I was buying restricted media, and have at times been turned away (tried to buy a 15-rated games, when I was actually 15 but I didn't have any ID on me), so obviously the games stores are doing their part. If a parent buys their kid a violent game then blames the game for their kid's bad behaviour, then surely there needs to be education.

@las, attorney

No, buying a kid a game like Manhunt is like letting them watch Saw or Hostel.

"The review… will consider the evidence on the risks to children and young people from inappropriate or harmful content in video games and the internet and assess the effectiveness and adequacy of existing measures to protect them and support parents."

Full stop. They've already decided that content is "harmful" to "children" and "young people".

They're not trying to decide if content is harmful, they've already decided that, and they're going to show how harmful it is to "children" and "young people".

- What is this content they've already decided is harmful?
- What is the age of the "young people" they're looking at? Technically speaking a "child" is under 18. If you're going to differentiate then the question must be begged as to the age limit of "young people".
- The assumption is that the measures in place are there as a pro-active position to "protect" as opposed to being an informational resource to parents.

So much for "even-handed".

@ Gameclucks

Heart sureon. :)

Why is Keith Vaz so impatient, he already knows what this woman is going to say: that video games are hereby the greatest threat to civilization since that horrible "rock music".

las, attorney Says:

October 18th, 2007 at 11:20 am
@ BlackIce, Leftie

Fine, letting your kids play GTA is like letting them watch Scarface or Reservoir Dogs.


Which is kinda funny since BOTH movies have games made based on the movies.

:D

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

I see the inherent problem with this study. Correct me if I am wrong but they are only looking at the after effects. That is a pretty standard way of looking at things in the psycology field but I am sure that this study will be manipulated by the government.

I would also like to note that there can never be a study where the studiers play the games and see what happens to them. On one hand it does not follow the scientific process, and on the other there is something called the "3rd Person Effect".

The "3rd Person Effect" is when you catch yourself saying "It may effect someone else, but it dosent effect me." All media effect people, all the time, with no exceptions. It has it's influence on you, me and even children. The problem is that the type of effect is never fully explained. Every study that has come out show that all violent videogames effect the people who play them. This study will be no diffrent. The question is, how does it effect and what actions, if any, are taken after the fact. This will be the classic example of looking in the wrong place for the evidece and comming to a wrong conclution. And if squirly boy is barking then you know that no matter what the results are it is going to be used against videogames.

Keith Vaz: Another old fogey who has no idea what he's talking about.

@ Sol Morande

Well it would be the logical thing to do. If it doesn't help him why wouldn't he demand a re-do?

^ - That's right! Just as when our intelligence said that Saddam had WMDs! We sure were right about them!

Sorry, I probably formatted the @s and saids wrong. fogive me for my broken typing.

@las, attorney

Yes, and that BBC reporter..

So if Byron's report absolves games as an influence in violent crime, will Vaz actually drop the subject. I doubt it. It means he'll have to pay attention to real issues and that's hard .

shouldnt they choose a neutral party to do this, not one that already shows a biased opinion.

@Andrew

Someone has to get a Youtube of that debate for us all to laugh at.

@HandofCrom
Yes, but they'll start with non-politically correct boks first, not things that people actually care about.

Then they'll go after religion, and before we know it, we'll be the USSA.

@ las, Attorney

Intel did NOT say that Iraq had WMDs. Sheesh. The general facts are out there, not hard to find now. There was only one source of that unconfirmed information, and it was't anyone in our Intel community. In fact, we doubted said source, other governments told us the source had no credibility, but the Pres went with the false data that supported what he wanted.

Sort of like the anti-gaming crowds, who find it more convenient to commission an identical study to the last one in the hope that this one won't completely destroy any foundation to stand upon in their efforts at legislating games as a "nuisance" or "danger".

I had thought this was going to be in part a meta-analysis of studies already done, but mostly a new study; however it looks like it's the other way around. If they're going to pump new money into a study, couldn't they make it a scientific study, with controls and viable measures of what they're looking for, instead of basically asking people how they feel like they did before? Hopefully, whatever need is driving this study gets met by its results, so they don't do the same thing next year and continue throwing good money after bad, but I doubt it.

Maybe the person in charge of the study really means to find honest answers, but I'll bet that no matter what she actually finds and how she says it, people like Vaz will twist it--and they'll have to, because reality doesn't support their views--to somehow lend credence to their convictions that video game violence is the sole reason for any youth crime or mental aberrations.

Oh noes, another so-called 'expert' is going to be discussing their fascist views on live Tv! Better set the TiVo!

Also, Coravin, if that was the case, I guess Dr Kelly wandered into the woods for some fresh air and just accidently tripped, cut his wrists, and bled to death, thus there was no point for an inquiry and the September Dossier was really just a piece of paper, not the whole damn basis of UK's involvement in the magnificent cock-up that is the Iraq War. Sheesh, the facts are right there.

Being American, I have no familiarity with the psychologist in question. What are her qualifications?

@Pandralisk

Yet again, you bring Religion into this. Labour is not Conservative. I say again, NOT CONSERVATIVE.

Fuck off and die you stupid wanker.

Man Holding In Fart.. You could sell that to Family Guy.

@BlackIce, Leftie,

Conservative in the UK is nothing like Conservative in the US. UK Conservatives would be considered deeply liberal in US politics, far more so than your Democratic party. As for religion, its prety much an irrelevance over here anyway, but Tony Blair was the most religious Uk Prime Minister in many years and was of course Labour.

Although Vaz's wiki page states his religion as Catholic, it also notes..

""In March 1989, he led a protest in Leicester against Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses. [1] At this event, Vaz addressed 3000 Muslim demonstrators, stating "today we celebrate one of the great days in the history of Islam and Great Britain" and attacked the Labour Party as a "godless party"""

Perhaps more importantly for gamers, it also states that..

""In February 1990, he wrote in The Guardian newspaper urging Salman Rushdie not to publish the book in paperback because "there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech".""

This is of course the same Keith Vaz those reputation was sullied by the Hinduja passports scandal. He has very little political weight over here and is considered little more than a joke by most.

@BlackIce, Leftie,

If you feel like that then you DEFINATELY dont want to move to the US any time soon. ;)