The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
But they would be infringing on who can access that expression, which is just as bad.
No, they would not. A 12-year-old could still access the expression provided that their parent ok'd it and bought the game for them. All it would affect that the 12-year-old cannot personally purchase the game, and as far as I am aware buying things isn't a form of artistic expression.
Well noone is censoring games in this situation of gta4 in australia.
Restricting the age by which you need to be to play those games isnt censorship in the usual sense right?
You can still make a game where you murder children. Just dont expect anyone to buy it or any retailer to stock it.
It's not like the government is saying 'GTA4 gunrape must be removed' because they would have still allowed the game to go on sale, just with a different rating. An accurate rating of the content of the game. meaning in effect the consumer is censoring the product themselves by only buying stuff that is suitable.
which is why r* removed it, to get a different rating to sell more copies. noone is impeding their artistic freedom other than their own greed.
The problem with Europeans is that they assume all Americans are gun-toting Bushites. Funnily enough, all broad-spectrum stereotypes of cultures are wrong, isn't that interesting?
Yeah, I guess I'm just getting pissed off at all the: "why should the Government have anything to do with parenting?" comments.
I mean, the obvious answer is that by creating this sort of legislation, it assists parents. Hell, it can be implemented by industry groups too if they want to avoid the Government being involved.
We already have this legislation in Australia, in the UK, and elsewhere, and it works. So I don't really see why I'm arguing, other than to refute the blanket-statements that enforcing ratings is a bad idea. To me, it seems it is the best way of ensuring that parents can do their job effectively in this regard.
Right but the first amendment to our constitution stops the government from making any law that restricts or infringes upon the freedom of expression, within certain reasonable limits. So not only for us to we have the legal thing of it being totally against the constitution, but the way our nation functions in our morality it is just plain wrong to restrict the freedom of expression. The government certainly can help. Hell, I would support a government program requiring explanations and education of the ESRB ratings at stores or anywhere else. I would support governmental programs that seek to help the parents decide which games are appropriate for their children, I would support the government stepping in in any number of ways that do not involve restricting or infringing upon the distribution of artistic expression.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
No, they wouldn't. Do you not understand that consumption and distribution is an important part of expression? Here's an idea, we'll let games do whatever they want including copious amounts of sex and violence to explore whatever themes they want, but no one ever is allowed to play it or what scenes from it. Hey, they still made it, so they were expressing themselves completely freely right?
Right? That's how censorship works, as long as you only restrict the sale then really the art is not affected at all, right?
The problem with Europeans is that they assume all Americans are gun-toting Bushites. Funnily enough, all broad-spectrum stereotypes of cultures are wrong, isn't that interesting?
Yeah, I guess I'm just getting pissed off at all the: "why should the Government have anything to do with parenting?" comments.
I mean, the obvious answer is that by creating this sort of legislation, it assists parents. Hell, it can be implemented by industry groups too if they want to avoid the Government being involved.
We already have this legislation in Australia, in the UK, and elsewhere, and it works. So I don't really see why I'm arguing, other than to refute the blanket-statements that enforcing ratings is a bad idea. To me, it seems it is the best way of ensuring that parents can do their job effectively in this regard.
I guess I am getting pissed off at you calling your opinion "obvious" and using words like "surely" and calling me "crazy." Funny how smug words tend to turn conversations like this to shit. Or not funny. Sad, actually.
So instead of being full of yourself, why don't you leap off your horse and converse with a bit more of an open mind. Or if you can't do that, at least debate close mindedly with a civiler tongue.
As far as your points are concerned, I think I've thoroughly expressed my opinion on why the government should not interfere with a parent's job to the extent you apparently believe they should. I have also thoroughly expressed that I do not believe a retailer should act as parent. If cigarettes and alcohol were non-destructive artistic things I would be making the same argument about them too.
Sellers should have as much freedom as possible. Buyers should have as much freedom as possible. Parents should be encouraged to parent as responsibly as possible. Retailers should not have the right or the responsibility to determine what content is appropriate for any specific child or any group of children. Only the parent should and the parent can go ahead and police their children or impart whatever wisdom on their children to their heart's content. It is the parent's job to keep an eye on what his or her children are doing. That includes where they are going, what they are buying, and what they are doing. Frankly I think ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY here in America, that allows parents ANY leeway is a VERY BAD THING. I actually do think the government should force parents to do their job...by not providing any safety nets for failure. If a kid is playing Grand Theft Auto IV at age 8 because you give him $100 a week in allowance and dump him at the mall while you go off to Brookstones with your buddies, well then you just failed as a parent and whatever harm comes of it (if any) is your own fault.
Forcing parents to rely on their parenting is a good thing.
The other problem with your opinion is that you immediately agree that games rated 17+ are inappropriate for children under 17+. And I don't. At all. Do you understand now? I think these ratings provide information for a parent. And a child, for that matter. But I don't think they communicate anything relevant to a government.
Why should the government prevent a 15 year old from purchasing and playing Grand Theft Auto IV? Do you actually have a good reason other than that it is rated 17+? "It is very violent" is not a reason I honestly give a flying fuck about and so legally enforcing it is not something I am willing to accept. Thank God our constitution has blocked any attempts to do so and will likely continue to do so in the future.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
But they would be infringing on who can access that expression, which is just as bad.
No, they would not. A 12-year-old could still access the expression provided that their parent ok'd it and bought the game for them. All it would affect that the 12-year-old cannot personally purchase the game, and as far as I am aware buying things isn't a form of artistic expression.
Restricting the ease at which someone can obtain something is a restriction of one's freedom. Or so anti-Gun Control lobbyists would say. A person who can walk into Walmart and walk out that day with a shotgun and forty boxes of buckshot is freer than someone who can still buy the shotgun and buckshot but has to get a permit and wait a month...no?
Normally such a comparison would be absurd, except in this particular situation I think it fits.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
But they would be infringing on who can access that expression, which is just as bad.
No, they would not. A 12-year-old could still access the expression provided that their parent ok'd it and bought the game for them. All it would affect that the 12-year-old cannot personally purchase the game, and as far as I am aware buying things isn't a form of artistic expression.
Are we now confused about what "restricting" means?
"It's not restricted at all. Under certain circumstances anyone can buy it"
You might as well say "The sale isn't restricted, a 12-year-old could still buy it as long as they waited until they were 17. Absolutely no restriction at all"
Khavall on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
No, they wouldn't. Do you not understand that consumption and distribution is an important part of expression?
Company makes a game for target audience A. Member of target audience A purchases and "consumes" the game. How has the company's right to express themselves been infringed? Because someone from target audience B couldn't buy a game that was not made for them in the first place? They expressed themselves exactly to the people they set out to express themselves to.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
But they would be infringing on who can access that expression, which is just as bad.
No, they would not. A 12-year-old could still access the expression provided that their parent ok'd it and bought the game for them. All it would affect that the 12-year-old cannot personally purchase the game, and as far as I am aware buying things isn't a form of artistic expression.
Are we now confused about what "restricting" means?
"It's not restricted at all. Under certain circumstances anyone can buy it"
You might as well say "The sale isn't restricted, a 12-year-old could still buy it as long as they waited until they were 17. Absolutely no restriction at all"
Restricting sales of products and restricting products are two different things.
A kid can still play GTA4. Noone is banning it. That would be restricting the product.
Restricting how you can buy it isnt bad at all. If anything, its good that a product which could have moral and social impact on children has at least a modicum of protection on how it is sold.
Well noone is censoring games in this situation of gta4 in australia.
Restricting the age by which you need to be to play those games isnt censorship in the usual sense right?
You can still make a game where you murder children. Just dont expect anyone to buy it or any retailer to stock it.
It's not like the government is saying 'GTA4 gunrape must be removed' because they would have still allowed the game to go on sale, just with a different rating. An accurate rating of the content of the game. meaning in effect the consumer is censoring the product themselves by only buying stuff that is suitable.
which is why r* removed it, to get a different rating to sell more copies. noone is impeding their artistic freedom other than their own greed.
Restricting the age by which you need to be to play the game is censorship, in that it is a suppression of the distribution of the art.
However the Australia situation is not censorship in the traditional sense, because Rockstar chose to edit the material to remove the material that caused the censorship. Yes, if R* had released GTAIV with the material and it had been restricted that would've been censorship, but since they chose to change the content to reach a broader audience in effect nothing is being censored. However, forcing artists to temper their material so as to not offend anything is simply going to stagnate the medium, so the proposed censorship that led to the material change still had an impact that in certain cases(probably the GTAIV thing was not doing it to make a stronger artistic point anyways, hence taking it out) would hinder the artistic expression and experimentation.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
But they would be infringing on who can access that expression, which is just as bad.
Not really, as has been said before, if the parent decides the 12 year old can play the game, the parent can buy it for them.
Honestly, Children in the world do not have the same rights as adults. And they shouldn't. Children cannot vote, children cannot consume alcohol, children cannot smoke tobacco. children cannot watch pornography. Children cannot own firearms. Driving a vehicle is not possible until you are 16(although I do argue that it should also be 18 for that, but that's a different thread). Now, I know that a lot of kids drink, and a lot of kids smoke, but I'm talking about things that they cannot do.
So if we don't let kids do all those things, why do we let them buy games that depict all of that? Why do we let them play games that are very, very violent if we are trying to keep them from doing it themselves. I am not at all trying to make the argument that violent video game players are serial killers, but I am saying that by letting them buy and play these games we are letting them do things that we don't' let them do in real life.
Personally, when I have kids, if they ever bought a game like GTAIV, it would be thrown out by me. I'd take it, crack the disc in half, and that would be it. But the thing is is that I know my children will try to hide it for as long as they can. play it when I'm not home, switch the game out if they hear me coming. they could play through the whole game before I notice. That's what kids do. I know, becuase I did it. The parents should have full, 100% control about the content their kids can watch/play. If something is rated for people over 18 years of age, it should be up to the parents to decide whether the kids can watch/play it. By letting the kids buy it, you are circumventing the parents authority in that. That is why it should be restriced.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
No, they wouldn't. Do you not understand that consumption and distribution is an important part of expression?
Company makes a game for target audience A. Member of target audience A purchases and "consumes" the game. How has the company's right to express themselves been infringed? Because someone from target audience B couldn't buy a game that was not made for them in the first place? They expressed themselves exactly to the people they set out to express themselves to.
If I write a harlequin romance book, I may be targeting middle aged women who like to see Fabio on the cover of their novel but I would still be restricted if men or people under 18 were legally prevented from purchasing it.
Tailoring something for a demographic does not suggest that it is okay to restricting other demographics from experiencing it or that the creator is not potentially harmed in doing so.
The other problem with your opinion is that you immediately agree that games rated 17+ are inappropriate for children under 17+. And I don't. At all. Do you understand now?
Yes. We can agree to disagree. I believe that it is inappropriate for a child to play a game that is rated above their age without a parent's agreement. I believe that a child can be harmed by being exposed to extreme content. These aren't trendy or cool ideas, but they are what I believe.
I guess I am getting pissed off at you calling your opinion "obvious" and using words like "surely" and calling me "crazy." Funny how smug words tend to turn conversations like this to shit. Or not funny. Sad, actually.
So instead of being full of yourself, why don't you leap off your horse and converse with a bit more of an open mind. Or if you can't do that, at least debate close mindedly with a civiler tongue.
What. The. Fuck?
As far as I am aware, I never said anything personally offensive towards you, and I only used the word "crazy" in the context of an abstract idea, and never as a personal attack.
I never intended anything to be taken as being offensive, and was simply describing how strongly I felt about a certain idea. I'm actually upset that you took offense at the words I used. I really am sorry if I offended you.
This is the point where I shut my browser.
Marlor on
Mario Kart Wii: 1332-8060-5236 (Aaron)
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
No, they wouldn't. Do you not understand that consumption and distribution is an important part of expression?
Company makes a game for target audience A. Member of target audience A purchases and "consumes" the game. How has the company's right to express themselves been infringed? Because someone from target audience B couldn't buy a game that was not made for them in the first place? They expressed themselves exactly to the people they set out to express themselves to.
If I write a harlequin romance book, I may be targeting middle aged women who like to see Fabio on the cover of their novel but I would still be restricted if men or people under 18 were legally prevented from purchasing it.
Tailoring something for a demographic does not suggest that it is okay to restricting other demographics from experiencing it or that the creator is not potentially harmed in doing so.
Again, no one is restricting other demographics from experiencing it, just from buying it. Buying or selling things is not an artistic expression.
My feeling is that I, being well over the age of 12, aren't allowed to play on the swings or the merry go round at my local park. It's social censorship.
So fuck kids. The day I get to play Tag-tarzan on the jungle gym is the day they get to play GTA4.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
No, they wouldn't. Do you not understand that consumption and distribution is an important part of expression?
Company makes a game for target audience A. Member of target audience A purchases and "consumes" the game. How has the company's right to express themselves been infringed? Because someone from target audience B couldn't buy a game that was not made for them in the first place? They expressed themselves exactly to the people they set out to express themselves to.
I don't understand how you can continue to make this point like it's a valid one. If something is made for a target audience, restricting its availability to another audience doesn't mean that nothing has been infringed, it just means that the infringement is slightly less bad than completely removing the distribution.
Sales and distribution of art is not a linear thing. Games aren't made for Audience A and then exclusively bought by audience A. If this were the case then legislation restricting it to audience A would be unnecessary. When artists create something they don't say "well we're making it for these people and we only want our message to reach these people anyways, everyone else can fuck off", they say "Well we're mainly targeting these people, but we're hoping that our message reaches the broadest range possible".
Like, really do you think that only the dead-on target demographic for any game buys that game? Or that artists are really happy and not restricted at all when they can't reach more people?
Also Scarab, restricting sales and restricting products are definitely linked, the broadest distribution happens when there is no restriction on the distribution. Also, once again I'm not saying that kids should just walk into stores and be able to buy GTAIV. I'm saying that congress shall pass no law restricting on the distribution of artistic expression.
Khavall on
0
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
I just noticed my Call of Duty 4 is rated MA 15+, that's right at 15+ you're old enough to kill *men who wear towels as hats* en masse but you'll be damned if you can see boobies.
My feeling is that I, being well over the age of 12, aren't allowed to play on the swings or the merry go round at my local park. It's social censorship.
So fuck kids. The day I get to play Tag-tarzan on the jungle gym is the day they get to play GTA4.
And if the government passes a law restricting your ability to play Tag-tarzan I will back you up 100%
Khavall on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
No, they wouldn't. Do you not understand that consumption and distribution is an important part of expression?
Company makes a game for target audience A. Member of target audience A purchases and "consumes" the game. How has the company's right to express themselves been infringed? Because someone from target audience B couldn't buy a game that was not made for them in the first place? They expressed themselves exactly to the people they set out to express themselves to.
I don't understand how you can continue to make this point like it's a valid one. If something is made for a target audience, restricting its availability to another audience doesn't mean that nothing has been infringed, it just means that the infringement is slightly less bad than completely removing the distribution.
Oh fer chrissakes. No one is restricting the availability of the product, they are restricting the ability to purchase the product. The product is still available to anyone aslong as someone who meets the requirements to purchase the product buys it for them.
I dont think anything to do with ratings should be properly legal. Just a strongly pressed upon us guideline.
Kinda like PEGI system in Europe.
That was its down to two things, store policy, which they have every right to impose. If they dont want to sell anything to anyone they can do so by all means.
And parental guidance. A kid can still buy gta4 if it has the pegi rating (though im positive it has the bbfc one which while still afaik not legally binding carries much harsher penalties)
regardless, point being making the enforcement of game ratings legally imperative should and probably will never happen. but guidelines, ratings and all kinds of other means are probably acceptable. i mean, the system at the moment is more lax than any other form of media, so we shouldnt complain just yet.
My feeling is that I, being well over the age of 12, aren't allowed to play on the swings or the merry go round at my local park. It's social censorship.
So fuck kids. The day I get to play Tag-tarzan on the jungle gym is the day they get to play GTA4.
And if the government passes a law restricting your ability to play Tag-tarzan I will back you up 100%
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
No, they wouldn't. Do you not understand that consumption and distribution is an important part of expression?
Company makes a game for target audience A. Member of target audience A purchases and "consumes" the game. How has the company's right to express themselves been infringed? Because someone from target audience B couldn't buy a game that was not made for them in the first place? They expressed themselves exactly to the people they set out to express themselves to.
If I write a harlequin romance book, I may be targeting middle aged women who like to see Fabio on the cover of their novel but I would still be restricted if men or people under 18 were legally prevented from purchasing it.
Tailoring something for a demographic does not suggest that it is okay to restricting other demographics from experiencing it or that the creator is not potentially harmed in doing so.
Again, no one is restricting other demographics from experiencing it, just from buying it. Buying or selling things is not an artistic expression.
But buying and selling is necessary for the dissemination of artistic expression.
It's like refusing to let people into a movie theater. You're not restricting the movie at all, just anyones ability to view it. It's not expression at all, and the movie totally has the same impact.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
But they would be infringing on who can access that expression, which is just as bad.
Not really, as has been said before, if the parent decides the 12 year old can play the game, the parent can buy it for them.
Honestly, Children in the world do not have the same rights as adults. And they shouldn't. Children cannot vote, children cannot consume alcohol, children cannot smoke tobacco. children cannot watch pornography. Children cannot own firearms. Driving a vehicle is not possible until you are 16(although I do argue that it should also be 18 for that, but that's a different thread). Now, I know that a lot of kids drink, and a lot of kids smoke, but I'm talking about things that they cannot do.
So if we don't let kids do all those things, why do we let them buy games that depict all of that? Why do we let them play games that are very, very violent if we are trying to keep them from doing it themselves. I am not at all trying to make the argument that violent video game players are serial killers, but I am saying that by letting them buy and play these games we are letting them do things that we don't' let them do in real life.
Personally, when I have kids, if they ever bought a game like GTAIV, it would be thrown out by me. I'd take it, crack the disc in half, and that would be it. But the thing is is that I know my children will try to hide it for as long as they can. play it when I'm not home, switch the game out if they hear me coming. they could play through the whole game before I notice. That's what kids do. I know, becuase I did it. The parents should have full, 100% control about the content their kids can watch/play. If something is rated for people over 18 years of age, it should be up to the parents to decide whether the kids can watch/play it. By letting the kids buy it, you are circumventing the parents authority in that. That is why it should be restriced.
But in North America anyway, why should the ESRB's ratings be followed at all, much less have laws based on them. They're not affiliated or supervised by any government organizations. They're basically just random people who decided "hey, lets start rating games" and most of the publishers went along with it because its actually good advertising for them.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
No, they wouldn't. Do you not understand that consumption and distribution is an important part of expression?
Company makes a game for target audience A. Member of target audience A purchases and "consumes" the game. How has the company's right to express themselves been infringed? Because someone from target audience B couldn't buy a game that was not made for them in the first place? They expressed themselves exactly to the people they set out to express themselves to.
I don't understand how you can continue to make this point like it's a valid one. If something is made for a target audience, restricting its availability to another audience doesn't mean that nothing has been infringed, it just means that the infringement is slightly less bad than completely removing the distribution.
Oh fer chrissakes. No one is restricting the availability of the product, they are restricting the ability to purchase the product. The product is still available to anyone aslong as someone who meets the requirements to purchase the product buys it for them.
How is restricting the availability of a product for distribution not restricting the availability of the product?
If you can't buy something, then it is not available. Saying "It's not restricted as long as someone meets all of the prerequisites of the restriction" is it still being restricted.
Khavall on
0
DyvionBack in Sunny Florida!!Registered Userregular
Censorship in the US is against some of the founding ideas of the nation.
Snip snip.
In America freedom of expression is protected so long as you're not harming anyone. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is the most common example of something you're not allowed to do. As many fire drills as we're put through as we grow up, mob psychology takes over and someone somewhere is going to get trampled. Seat belts save lives, this is an undisputed fact. (In conjuction with airbags you're most likely going to survive a vehicle accident as long as you're not exceding the speed limit too much) Speed limits protect you from the idiots who would go 100 mph in a school zone. The vast majority of restrictions put in place by the government (of the U.S. anyway) are there to protect you from joeblow who would kill/maim you (or himself) with his stupidity if he wasn't told otherwise.
As a parent I regularly sit down with my children to watch programs that I've chosen for them to watch. We don't have cable television, and our DVD collection is limited to selections that are relatively harmless. Anything we don't want them to see, we've excised from the collection. I realise I'm in the minority in this regard, and I'm very lucky to have a job that let's me spend alot of time with my family and my wife doesn't have to work.
With that background, I'd like to point out that those who make video games, and those that publish video games, don't do it because it's enjoyable, or because they want to express their artistic ability. They do it for Money. If they think a game will make money, then they make it. If they think there's no way this is going to make any money... it's not released. How many people would have tried Portal if it weren't released with the Orange Box? Far fewer than actually did. Portal isn't a great example, because it was an amazing game and word of mouth would have gotten that one out, but my point is that games are made for money. I vote with my hard earned dollars. I don't buy gore filled games. There's no place for porn on my game shelf. I buy things like Rock Band, Carcassonne, Peggle. Fun games I can play with my kids that involve physical action, concentration or mindless diversion. I know that addiction runs in our (mine and my wifes) genes, and I'm doing everything I can to teach my kids that dependancy is bad, before they become dependant. We have limits on our play time. (mine included)
Gore and sex and gun fights and blood arn't required to have a good game. I don't even think they really add anything to a game. If you're playing such games for the plot... really? I mean... seriously? If you're playing it just to see the gore and blood and sex, there are much easier ways to obtain all of the above (including fast forward, rewind and pause). Gore and sex argued as artistic expression baffles me. I don't enjoy it, and don't understand how it could be enjoyed, but I realise that somewhere, someone does enjoy it. Earlier someone mentioned that removal of a gun rape scene from a game would mean they would never visit the beautiful country of Australia. Is that supposed to be some kind of non-sensical threat to Australia? "You're never going to get my tourist dollars because you don't allow gun rape!" (and if I read the opening post correctly, it was male anal rape with a gun. Who would want to see that!?)
I'm all for freedoms, with limits. I don't want someone freely able to speed in a school zone and threaten children. I don't want some idiot leaving a bar in the middle of the night drunk and driving on the roads I, my friends or my family might be on. Government restrictions have their place in keeping safety and good order. Parents have the responsibility to govern how their children develope. Each individual has the responsibilty to spend his own money how he see's fit. The kind of games we're arguing about are going to get made as long as they make money.
I keep trying to come up with some kind of fanciful ending for all this, about how parents teaching their children moral values or some such drivel. But basically we're just screwed. Someone somewhere decided to let stupid people breed and the world is going to hell. Time to go live in a commune somewhere.
Dyvion on
Steam: No Safety In Life
PSN: Dyvion -- Eternal: Dyvion+9393 -- Genshin Impact: Dyvion
The other problem with your opinion is that you immediately agree that games rated 17+ are inappropriate for children under 17+. And I don't. At all. Do you understand now?
I believe that it is inappropriate for a child to play a game that is rated above their age without a parent's agreement. I believe that a child can be harmed by being exposed to extreme content.
I'm curious if you think that a child should be restricted from medical school. There are numerous instances of minors being gifted enough to attend med school, and operate on cadavers, seeing things up close that far better describe 'extreme content' than anything you will see in a video game.
If a government restricted access to certain content based on an arbitrary age, rather than the maturity level of the individual, that is just wrong.
As another thought, do we have government enforced ratings on books? Thankfully no.
I have read some incredibly vivid descriptions of sex, murder, drug use, you name it, but all those book are freely available to minors in libraries and bookstores. Hopefully someday soon, people will realize that games are just the next step in artistic evolution, and we shouldn't have any restrictions on them either.
Karenna on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
No, they wouldn't. Do you not understand that consumption and distribution is an important part of expression?
Company makes a game for target audience A. Member of target audience A purchases and "consumes" the game. How has the company's right to express themselves been infringed? Because someone from target audience B couldn't buy a game that was not made for them in the first place? They expressed themselves exactly to the people they set out to express themselves to.
I don't understand how you can continue to make this point like it's a valid one. If something is made for a target audience, restricting its availability to another audience doesn't mean that nothing has been infringed, it just means that the infringement is slightly less bad than completely removing the distribution.
Oh fer chrissakes. No one is restricting the availability of the product, they are restricting the ability to purchase the product. The product is still available to anyone aslong as someone who meets the requirements to purchase the product buys it for them.
How is restricting the availability of a product for distribution not restricting the availability of the product?
Because it's still available.
If you can't buy something, then it is not available. Saying "It's not restricted as long as someone meets all of the prerequisites of the restriction" is it still being restricted.
If no one could buy it, I'd agree with you, the distribution of the product would be restricted. But the fact is, people can buy it. This isn't the same as banning the game. It is still there, it can still be purchased and it can still be experienced.
Censorship in the US is against some of the founding ideas of the nation.
Snip snip.
Snippity
I'll bring it up again, how much of an impact would the nuke scene in CoD4 have if it was not for the gritty realism of the scene? Without the incredibly over-the-top gore in No More Heroes, would the striking difference between the low-paying violence-free jobs and the high-paying assassination missions have been there really? How about the complete shrugging off of the insane violence the game has? It's there for a reason, just like how in a lot of progressive artistic forms of expression other than games often times very mature themes are presented and explored. Bioshock, with all of its political exploration, would it really have mattered if the city built on objectivist principles was filled with happy bunnies that you had to put in a cage so they wouldn't starve? The violence and brutality of these games, clearly targeted at mature audiences, serves to enhance the artistic points of the games.
Everything about the ESRB is arguably fine, except for the AO rating which is a de facto ban. M requires the buyer to be over 17+, while AO is 18+. Apparently 1 year is the difference between graphic and OVER-9000-FACES-OF-DEATH-BANNED-IN-40-COUNTRIES graphic. If that rating was removed, I'm sure 90% of all politicians would stop throwing a shit-fit when a game like Manhunt is rated.
As far as calling the ESRB a censorship agency, I'm not too sure. While the age limitations are indeed cutting off kids from buying M-rated games, parents still have the ability to buy it for them. If the kid does not want to ask his Dad to buy him GTAIV, for fear of him saying no, then the censorship isn't in the ESRB, but in the parent, which is perfectly fine. There is no censorship, kids just need to take a different avenue to get an M-rated game.
Game companies that decide to cut content, in order to receive a lower rating, and thus more sales, have nothing to do with the ESRB, and more the parents. As demonstrated above, if the kid really wants the M-rated game, he can just ask someone who is over 17 to buy it for them, something I do for my 15 year old brother all the time. If the U.S. deemed it Illegal to buy M-rated games for underage kids, then maybe I would worry about censorship, but as of now, game companies have access to 100% of the market one way or another. The U.S. Government is not fully restricting underage kids from getting to M-rated games.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
No, they wouldn't. Do you not understand that consumption and distribution is an important part of expression?
Company makes a game for target audience A. Member of target audience A purchases and "consumes" the game. How has the company's right to express themselves been infringed? Because someone from target audience B couldn't buy a game that was not made for them in the first place? They expressed themselves exactly to the people they set out to express themselves to.
I don't understand how you can continue to make this point like it's a valid one. If something is made for a target audience, restricting its availability to another audience doesn't mean that nothing has been infringed, it just means that the infringement is slightly less bad than completely removing the distribution.
Oh fer chrissakes. No one is restricting the availability of the product, they are restricting the ability to purchase the product. The product is still available to anyone aslong as someone who meets the requirements to purchase the product buys it for them.
How is restricting the availability of a product for distribution not restricting the availability of the product?
Because it's still available.
If you can't buy something, then it is not available. Saying "It's not restricted as long as someone meets all of the prerequisites of the restriction" is it still being restricted.
If no one could buy it, I'd agree with you, the distribution of the product would be restricted. But the fact is, people can buy it. This isn't the same as banning the game. It is still there, it can still be purchased and it can still be experienced.
...Assuming the prerequisites of the restrictions are met.
You just keep setting yourself up for Reductio ad Absurdum counterpoints, so let's go with this one: If I release something that legally I can only sell to one person, is there a legal restriction on the product? It can still be purchased and experienced.
Khavall on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
No, they wouldn't. Do you not understand that consumption and distribution is an important part of expression?
Company makes a game for target audience A. Member of target audience A purchases and "consumes" the game. How has the company's right to express themselves been infringed? Because someone from target audience B couldn't buy a game that was not made for them in the first place? They expressed themselves exactly to the people they set out to express themselves to.
I don't understand how you can continue to make this point like it's a valid one. If something is made for a target audience, restricting its availability to another audience doesn't mean that nothing has been infringed, it just means that the infringement is slightly less bad than completely removing the distribution.
Oh fer chrissakes. No one is restricting the availability of the product, they are restricting the ability to purchase the product. The product is still available to anyone aslong as someone who meets the requirements to purchase the product buys it for them.
How is restricting the availability of a product for distribution not restricting the availability of the product?
Because it's still available.
If you can't buy something, then it is not available. Saying "It's not restricted as long as someone meets all of the prerequisites of the restriction" is it still being restricted.
If no one could buy it, I'd agree with you, the distribution of the product would be restricted. But the fact is, people can buy it. This isn't the same as banning the game. It is still there, it can still be purchased and it can still be experienced.
...Assuming the prerequisites of the restrictions are met.
You just keep setting yourself up for Reductio ad Absurdum counterpoints, so let's go with this one: If I release something that legally I can only sell to one person, is there a legal restriction on the product? It can still be purchased and experienced.
No, there is not a legal restriction on the product, only on who you may sell it to. No one is trying to censor the product itself and you have only yourself to blame for making a product with such a narrow customer base, just like if a game company wants to sell their game to every toddler out there, they shouldn't make it an M rated game in the first place.
If a government restricted access to certain content based on an arbitrary age, rather than the maturity level of the individual, that is just wrong.
We don't really have a way to measure the maturity level of an individual. The best we can do is to base the decision on their age, which lets an individual grow out of restrictions by assuming that they become more mature as they get older, or parents, who have the ability to sidestep many restrictions for their child if they believe that their child is mature enough to handle certain content.
See I keep thinking that maybe I'm misinterpreting your position because no one could actually think that a legal restriction of sale to one single person isn't a restriction on the product at all.
Separating a product and its distribution is I guess nice in theory, but it's completely out of left field in reality. If a product can only be bought by one person, then it is being restricted. The content is not being restricted, but the message and effect of the product is through the restriction on the sale. A movie that can legally be seen by no one, but still allowed to play isn't banned, right? It's still being shown, and it's still exactly the same product, just no one can buy it. Unless we're saying that it's only not banned if even a single person can legally view it in which case it's totally not restricted at all in any way.
Khavall on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
See I keep thinking that maybe I'm misinterpreting your position because no one could actually think that a legal restriction of sale to one single person isn't a restriction on the product at all.
It isn't a restriction on the product, the product exists as-is.
Just curious, what is the argument that there SHOULD be a law enforcing age restrictions on sales of games?
To stop kids from going out behind their parent's backs, buying a game they don't know about and playing it only in private so they don't find out? If the parent makes it known that they don't want a certain type of game purchased, but one does and goes unnoticed, then something worse than fantasy violence is wrong. With that poor of monitoring, the kid could be on drugs or severely depressed and no one would notice.
A law banning the sale would be solving the wrong problem while simultaneously inconveniencing people with different beliefs.
ZackSchilling on
0
DyvionBack in Sunny Florida!!Registered Userregular
Censorship in the US is against some of the founding ideas of the nation.
Snip snip.
Snippity
I'll bring it up again, how much of an impact would the nuke scene in CoD4 have if it was not for the gritty realism of the scene? Without the incredibly over-the-top gore in No More Heroes, would the striking difference between the low-paying violence-free jobs and the high-paying assassination missions have been there really? How about the complete shrugging off of the insane violence the game has? It's there for a reason, just like how in a lot of progressive artistic forms of expression other than games often times very mature themes are presented and explored. Bioshock, with all of its political exploration, would it really have mattered if the city built on objectivist principles was filled with happy bunnies that you had to put in a cage so they wouldn't starve? The violence and brutality of these games, clearly targeted at mature audiences, serves to enhance the artistic points of the games.
Well I apologise for not having played these games, to see what you're talking about, as I'm not much for gore and violence. The only reference I have to this (and it's a remote reference, I understand) is the book Starship Troopers vs. the Movie Starship Troopers. In the book Starship Troopers the main character undergoes a change in priorities and emotional growth after experiencing war for the first time. He joined the mobile infantry pretty much on accident, as that was what he was qualified for. He wanted to be a citizen and have the right to vote. His entire home country was obliterated and he fought back with all he had to win the war for his country/planet. The book was an amazing tale of one mans growth, while also including the horror of war and loss of friend and family. The movie sucked rocks. Was it necessary to show a man getting ripped in half by a bug to show the horror of war and the threat of the seemingly mindless enemy who could not be reckoned with and no truce was possible? No, I don't think seeing a man ripped in half added to the story one iota. I dare say the scenes you mention (which again, I apologise for not seeing for myself.) did not in fact need the over the top gore and gritty realism to achieve their goals. Probably not quite to the extreme of bunnies being relegated to cages though... that's just silly.
Dyvion on
Steam: No Safety In Life
PSN: Dyvion -- Eternal: Dyvion+9393 -- Genshin Impact: Dyvion
See I keep thinking that maybe I'm misinterpreting your position because no one could actually think that a legal restriction of sale to one single person isn't a restriction on the product at all.
It isn't a restriction on the product, the product exists as-is.
Ok, can you make room for the possibility that in art the product is not simply the physical manifestation of the product? But instead the product is an interaction between the artist and the consumer of the art? Because maybe that's what you're not getting. Art necessarily requires consumption, and a restriction on the consumption is a restriction on the art. Art in a cultural vacuum is just more noise. I mean god move past the concrete stage of thought.
See I keep thinking that maybe I'm misinterpreting your position because no one could actually think that a legal restriction of sale to one single person isn't a restriction on the product at all.
It isn't a restriction on the product, the product exists as-is.
Restriction of access to a product is a restriction of the product as a whole, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Government control over who can and cannot buy an artistic work is a form of censorship, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. No amount of "but the parents can still buy it!" will change that. Governmental restriction on the creation and distribution of artistic work is, by definition, censorship. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but there is no argument that it isn't censorship.
Houk the Namebringer on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
If a work of art is unaltered and can be experienced (even if by one person), it has not been censored by anyone. If the work of art is altered or cannot be experienced by anyone (which means it has been banned), it has been censored.
Buying and selling is not part of the artwork. The idea that it is part of it is nothing but a fevered delusion of an idiotic capitalist.
Posts
No, they would not. A 12-year-old could still access the expression provided that their parent ok'd it and bought the game for them. All it would affect that the 12-year-old cannot personally purchase the game, and as far as I am aware buying things isn't a form of artistic expression.
Restricting the age by which you need to be to play those games isnt censorship in the usual sense right?
You can still make a game where you murder children. Just dont expect anyone to buy it or any retailer to stock it.
It's not like the government is saying 'GTA4 gunrape must be removed' because they would have still allowed the game to go on sale, just with a different rating. An accurate rating of the content of the game. meaning in effect the consumer is censoring the product themselves by only buying stuff that is suitable.
which is why r* removed it, to get a different rating to sell more copies. noone is impeding their artistic freedom other than their own greed.
No, they wouldn't. Do you not understand that consumption and distribution is an important part of expression? Here's an idea, we'll let games do whatever they want including copious amounts of sex and violence to explore whatever themes they want, but no one ever is allowed to play it or what scenes from it. Hey, they still made it, so they were expressing themselves completely freely right?
Right? That's how censorship works, as long as you only restrict the sale then really the art is not affected at all, right?
I guess I am getting pissed off at you calling your opinion "obvious" and using words like "surely" and calling me "crazy." Funny how smug words tend to turn conversations like this to shit. Or not funny. Sad, actually.
So instead of being full of yourself, why don't you leap off your horse and converse with a bit more of an open mind. Or if you can't do that, at least debate close mindedly with a civiler tongue.
As far as your points are concerned, I think I've thoroughly expressed my opinion on why the government should not interfere with a parent's job to the extent you apparently believe they should. I have also thoroughly expressed that I do not believe a retailer should act as parent. If cigarettes and alcohol were non-destructive artistic things I would be making the same argument about them too.
Sellers should have as much freedom as possible. Buyers should have as much freedom as possible. Parents should be encouraged to parent as responsibly as possible. Retailers should not have the right or the responsibility to determine what content is appropriate for any specific child or any group of children. Only the parent should and the parent can go ahead and police their children or impart whatever wisdom on their children to their heart's content. It is the parent's job to keep an eye on what his or her children are doing. That includes where they are going, what they are buying, and what they are doing. Frankly I think ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY here in America, that allows parents ANY leeway is a VERY BAD THING. I actually do think the government should force parents to do their job...by not providing any safety nets for failure. If a kid is playing Grand Theft Auto IV at age 8 because you give him $100 a week in allowance and dump him at the mall while you go off to Brookstones with your buddies, well then you just failed as a parent and whatever harm comes of it (if any) is your own fault.
Forcing parents to rely on their parenting is a good thing.
The other problem with your opinion is that you immediately agree that games rated 17+ are inappropriate for children under 17+. And I don't. At all. Do you understand now? I think these ratings provide information for a parent. And a child, for that matter. But I don't think they communicate anything relevant to a government.
Why should the government prevent a 15 year old from purchasing and playing Grand Theft Auto IV? Do you actually have a good reason other than that it is rated 17+? "It is very violent" is not a reason I honestly give a flying fuck about and so legally enforcing it is not something I am willing to accept. Thank God our constitution has blocked any attempts to do so and will likely continue to do so in the future.
Restricting the ease at which someone can obtain something is a restriction of one's freedom. Or so anti-Gun Control lobbyists would say. A person who can walk into Walmart and walk out that day with a shotgun and forty boxes of buckshot is freer than someone who can still buy the shotgun and buckshot but has to get a permit and wait a month...no?
Normally such a comparison would be absurd, except in this particular situation I think it fits.
Are we now confused about what "restricting" means?
"It's not restricted at all. Under certain circumstances anyone can buy it"
You might as well say "The sale isn't restricted, a 12-year-old could still buy it as long as they waited until they were 17. Absolutely no restriction at all"
Company makes a game for target audience A. Member of target audience A purchases and "consumes" the game. How has the company's right to express themselves been infringed? Because someone from target audience B couldn't buy a game that was not made for them in the first place? They expressed themselves exactly to the people they set out to express themselves to.
Restricting sales of products and restricting products are two different things.
A kid can still play GTA4. Noone is banning it. That would be restricting the product.
Restricting how you can buy it isnt bad at all. If anything, its good that a product which could have moral and social impact on children has at least a modicum of protection on how it is sold.
Restricting the age by which you need to be to play the game is censorship, in that it is a suppression of the distribution of the art.
However the Australia situation is not censorship in the traditional sense, because Rockstar chose to edit the material to remove the material that caused the censorship. Yes, if R* had released GTAIV with the material and it had been restricted that would've been censorship, but since they chose to change the content to reach a broader audience in effect nothing is being censored. However, forcing artists to temper their material so as to not offend anything is simply going to stagnate the medium, so the proposed censorship that led to the material change still had an impact that in certain cases(probably the GTAIV thing was not doing it to make a stronger artistic point anyways, hence taking it out) would hinder the artistic expression and experimentation.
Not really, as has been said before, if the parent decides the 12 year old can play the game, the parent can buy it for them.
Honestly, Children in the world do not have the same rights as adults. And they shouldn't. Children cannot vote, children cannot consume alcohol, children cannot smoke tobacco. children cannot watch pornography. Children cannot own firearms. Driving a vehicle is not possible until you are 16(although I do argue that it should also be 18 for that, but that's a different thread). Now, I know that a lot of kids drink, and a lot of kids smoke, but I'm talking about things that they cannot do.
So if we don't let kids do all those things, why do we let them buy games that depict all of that? Why do we let them play games that are very, very violent if we are trying to keep them from doing it themselves. I am not at all trying to make the argument that violent video game players are serial killers, but I am saying that by letting them buy and play these games we are letting them do things that we don't' let them do in real life.
Personally, when I have kids, if they ever bought a game like GTAIV, it would be thrown out by me. I'd take it, crack the disc in half, and that would be it. But the thing is is that I know my children will try to hide it for as long as they can. play it when I'm not home, switch the game out if they hear me coming. they could play through the whole game before I notice. That's what kids do. I know, becuase I did it. The parents should have full, 100% control about the content their kids can watch/play. If something is rated for people over 18 years of age, it should be up to the parents to decide whether the kids can watch/play it. By letting the kids buy it, you are circumventing the parents authority in that. That is why it should be restriced.
If I write a harlequin romance book, I may be targeting middle aged women who like to see Fabio on the cover of their novel but I would still be restricted if men or people under 18 were legally prevented from purchasing it.
Tailoring something for a demographic does not suggest that it is okay to restricting other demographics from experiencing it or that the creator is not potentially harmed in doing so.
Yes. We can agree to disagree. I believe that it is inappropriate for a child to play a game that is rated above their age without a parent's agreement. I believe that a child can be harmed by being exposed to extreme content. These aren't trendy or cool ideas, but they are what I believe.
What. The. Fuck?
As far as I am aware, I never said anything personally offensive towards you, and I only used the word "crazy" in the context of an abstract idea, and never as a personal attack.
I never intended anything to be taken as being offensive, and was simply describing how strongly I felt about a certain idea. I'm actually upset that you took offense at the words I used. I really am sorry if I offended you.
This is the point where I shut my browser.
Again, no one is restricting other demographics from experiencing it, just from buying it. Buying or selling things is not an artistic expression.
So fuck kids. The day I get to play Tag-tarzan on the jungle gym is the day they get to play GTA4.
I don't understand how you can continue to make this point like it's a valid one. If something is made for a target audience, restricting its availability to another audience doesn't mean that nothing has been infringed, it just means that the infringement is slightly less bad than completely removing the distribution.
Sales and distribution of art is not a linear thing. Games aren't made for Audience A and then exclusively bought by audience A. If this were the case then legislation restricting it to audience A would be unnecessary. When artists create something they don't say "well we're making it for these people and we only want our message to reach these people anyways, everyone else can fuck off", they say "Well we're mainly targeting these people, but we're hoping that our message reaches the broadest range possible".
Like, really do you think that only the dead-on target demographic for any game buys that game? Or that artists are really happy and not restricted at all when they can't reach more people?
Also Scarab, restricting sales and restricting products are definitely linked, the broadest distribution happens when there is no restriction on the distribution. Also, once again I'm not saying that kids should just walk into stores and be able to buy GTAIV. I'm saying that congress shall pass no law restricting on the distribution of artistic expression.
*'s denote self-censorship.
And if the government passes a law restricting your ability to play Tag-tarzan I will back you up 100%
Oh fer chrissakes. No one is restricting the availability of the product, they are restricting the ability to purchase the product. The product is still available to anyone aslong as someone who meets the requirements to purchase the product buys it for them.
I dont think anything to do with ratings should be properly legal. Just a strongly pressed upon us guideline.
Kinda like PEGI system in Europe.
That was its down to two things, store policy, which they have every right to impose. If they dont want to sell anything to anyone they can do so by all means.
And parental guidance. A kid can still buy gta4 if it has the pegi rating (though im positive it has the bbfc one which while still afaik not legally binding carries much harsher penalties)
regardless, point being making the enforcement of game ratings legally imperative should and probably will never happen. but guidelines, ratings and all kinds of other means are probably acceptable. i mean, the system at the moment is more lax than any other form of media, so we shouldnt complain just yet.
;-)
But buying and selling is necessary for the dissemination of artistic expression.
It's like refusing to let people into a movie theater. You're not restricting the movie at all, just anyones ability to view it. It's not expression at all, and the movie totally has the same impact.
How is restricting the availability of a product for distribution not restricting the availability of the product?
If you can't buy something, then it is not available. Saying "It's not restricted as long as someone meets all of the prerequisites of the restriction" is it still being restricted.
In America freedom of expression is protected so long as you're not harming anyone. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is the most common example of something you're not allowed to do. As many fire drills as we're put through as we grow up, mob psychology takes over and someone somewhere is going to get trampled. Seat belts save lives, this is an undisputed fact. (In conjuction with airbags you're most likely going to survive a vehicle accident as long as you're not exceding the speed limit too much) Speed limits protect you from the idiots who would go 100 mph in a school zone. The vast majority of restrictions put in place by the government (of the U.S. anyway) are there to protect you from joeblow who would kill/maim you (or himself) with his stupidity if he wasn't told otherwise.
As a parent I regularly sit down with my children to watch programs that I've chosen for them to watch. We don't have cable television, and our DVD collection is limited to selections that are relatively harmless. Anything we don't want them to see, we've excised from the collection. I realise I'm in the minority in this regard, and I'm very lucky to have a job that let's me spend alot of time with my family and my wife doesn't have to work.
With that background, I'd like to point out that those who make video games, and those that publish video games, don't do it because it's enjoyable, or because they want to express their artistic ability. They do it for Money. If they think a game will make money, then they make it. If they think there's no way this is going to make any money... it's not released. How many people would have tried Portal if it weren't released with the Orange Box? Far fewer than actually did. Portal isn't a great example, because it was an amazing game and word of mouth would have gotten that one out, but my point is that games are made for money. I vote with my hard earned dollars. I don't buy gore filled games. There's no place for porn on my game shelf. I buy things like Rock Band, Carcassonne, Peggle. Fun games I can play with my kids that involve physical action, concentration or mindless diversion. I know that addiction runs in our (mine and my wifes) genes, and I'm doing everything I can to teach my kids that dependancy is bad, before they become dependant. We have limits on our play time. (mine included)
Gore and sex and gun fights and blood arn't required to have a good game. I don't even think they really add anything to a game. If you're playing such games for the plot... really? I mean... seriously? If you're playing it just to see the gore and blood and sex, there are much easier ways to obtain all of the above (including fast forward, rewind and pause). Gore and sex argued as artistic expression baffles me. I don't enjoy it, and don't understand how it could be enjoyed, but I realise that somewhere, someone does enjoy it. Earlier someone mentioned that removal of a gun rape scene from a game would mean they would never visit the beautiful country of Australia. Is that supposed to be some kind of non-sensical threat to Australia? "You're never going to get my tourist dollars because you don't allow gun rape!" (and if I read the opening post correctly, it was male anal rape with a gun. Who would want to see that!?)
I'm all for freedoms, with limits. I don't want someone freely able to speed in a school zone and threaten children. I don't want some idiot leaving a bar in the middle of the night drunk and driving on the roads I, my friends or my family might be on. Government restrictions have their place in keeping safety and good order. Parents have the responsibility to govern how their children develope. Each individual has the responsibilty to spend his own money how he see's fit. The kind of games we're arguing about are going to get made as long as they make money.
I keep trying to come up with some kind of fanciful ending for all this, about how parents teaching their children moral values or some such drivel. But basically we're just screwed. Someone somewhere decided to let stupid people breed and the world is going to hell. Time to go live in a commune somewhere.
PSN: Dyvion -- Eternal: Dyvion+9393 -- Genshin Impact: Dyvion
I'm curious if you think that a child should be restricted from medical school. There are numerous instances of minors being gifted enough to attend med school, and operate on cadavers, seeing things up close that far better describe 'extreme content' than anything you will see in a video game.
If a government restricted access to certain content based on an arbitrary age, rather than the maturity level of the individual, that is just wrong.
As another thought, do we have government enforced ratings on books? Thankfully no.
I have read some incredibly vivid descriptions of sex, murder, drug use, you name it, but all those book are freely available to minors in libraries and bookstores. Hopefully someday soon, people will realize that games are just the next step in artistic evolution, and we shouldn't have any restrictions on them either.
Because it's still available.
If no one could buy it, I'd agree with you, the distribution of the product would be restricted. But the fact is, people can buy it. This isn't the same as banning the game. It is still there, it can still be purchased and it can still be experienced.
I'll bring it up again, how much of an impact would the nuke scene in CoD4 have if it was not for the gritty realism of the scene? Without the incredibly over-the-top gore in No More Heroes, would the striking difference between the low-paying violence-free jobs and the high-paying assassination missions have been there really? How about the complete shrugging off of the insane violence the game has? It's there for a reason, just like how in a lot of progressive artistic forms of expression other than games often times very mature themes are presented and explored. Bioshock, with all of its political exploration, would it really have mattered if the city built on objectivist principles was filled with happy bunnies that you had to put in a cage so they wouldn't starve? The violence and brutality of these games, clearly targeted at mature audiences, serves to enhance the artistic points of the games.
As far as calling the ESRB a censorship agency, I'm not too sure. While the age limitations are indeed cutting off kids from buying M-rated games, parents still have the ability to buy it for them. If the kid does not want to ask his Dad to buy him GTAIV, for fear of him saying no, then the censorship isn't in the ESRB, but in the parent, which is perfectly fine. There is no censorship, kids just need to take a different avenue to get an M-rated game.
Game companies that decide to cut content, in order to receive a lower rating, and thus more sales, have nothing to do with the ESRB, and more the parents. As demonstrated above, if the kid really wants the M-rated game, he can just ask someone who is over 17 to buy it for them, something I do for my 15 year old brother all the time. If the U.S. deemed it Illegal to buy M-rated games for underage kids, then maybe I would worry about censorship, but as of now, game companies have access to 100% of the market one way or another. The U.S. Government is not fully restricting underage kids from getting to M-rated games.
...Assuming the prerequisites of the restrictions are met.
You just keep setting yourself up for Reductio ad Absurdum counterpoints, so let's go with this one: If I release something that legally I can only sell to one person, is there a legal restriction on the product? It can still be purchased and experienced.
No, there is not a legal restriction on the product, only on who you may sell it to. No one is trying to censor the product itself and you have only yourself to blame for making a product with such a narrow customer base, just like if a game company wants to sell their game to every toddler out there, they shouldn't make it an M rated game in the first place.
We don't really have a way to measure the maturity level of an individual. The best we can do is to base the decision on their age, which lets an individual grow out of restrictions by assuming that they become more mature as they get older, or parents, who have the ability to sidestep many restrictions for their child if they believe that their child is mature enough to handle certain content.
Separating a product and its distribution is I guess nice in theory, but it's completely out of left field in reality. If a product can only be bought by one person, then it is being restricted. The content is not being restricted, but the message and effect of the product is through the restriction on the sale. A movie that can legally be seen by no one, but still allowed to play isn't banned, right? It's still being shown, and it's still exactly the same product, just no one can buy it. Unless we're saying that it's only not banned if even a single person can legally view it in which case it's totally not restricted at all in any way.
It isn't a restriction on the product, the product exists as-is.
To stop kids from going out behind their parent's backs, buying a game they don't know about and playing it only in private so they don't find out? If the parent makes it known that they don't want a certain type of game purchased, but one does and goes unnoticed, then something worse than fantasy violence is wrong. With that poor of monitoring, the kid could be on drugs or severely depressed and no one would notice.
A law banning the sale would be solving the wrong problem while simultaneously inconveniencing people with different beliefs.
Well I apologise for not having played these games, to see what you're talking about, as I'm not much for gore and violence. The only reference I have to this (and it's a remote reference, I understand) is the book Starship Troopers vs. the Movie Starship Troopers. In the book Starship Troopers the main character undergoes a change in priorities and emotional growth after experiencing war for the first time. He joined the mobile infantry pretty much on accident, as that was what he was qualified for. He wanted to be a citizen and have the right to vote. His entire home country was obliterated and he fought back with all he had to win the war for his country/planet. The book was an amazing tale of one mans growth, while also including the horror of war and loss of friend and family. The movie sucked rocks. Was it necessary to show a man getting ripped in half by a bug to show the horror of war and the threat of the seemingly mindless enemy who could not be reckoned with and no truce was possible? No, I don't think seeing a man ripped in half added to the story one iota. I dare say the scenes you mention (which again, I apologise for not seeing for myself.) did not in fact need the over the top gore and gritty realism to achieve their goals. Probably not quite to the extreme of bunnies being relegated to cages though... that's just silly.
PSN: Dyvion -- Eternal: Dyvion+9393 -- Genshin Impact: Dyvion
Ok, can you make room for the possibility that in art the product is not simply the physical manifestation of the product? But instead the product is an interaction between the artist and the consumer of the art? Because maybe that's what you're not getting. Art necessarily requires consumption, and a restriction on the consumption is a restriction on the art. Art in a cultural vacuum is just more noise. I mean god move past the concrete stage of thought.
Buying and selling is not part of the artwork. The idea that it is part of it is nothing but a fevered delusion of an idiotic capitalist.