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.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I was going to say. The use of the word "product" here is something that you produce and make available to others.
If you create a product that you intend to make available, and the government does not permit the sale/consumption of that product to certain people, it is restricted. It is not banned, it is restricted. It is also censored, depending on what definition of the word you'd like to use. Censor can mean to ban, it can mean to ban based on certain criteria, or it can mean to remove specific portions of content that would otherwise result in tougher restrictions with those pieces of content included than it would without.
You are correct in that the "product" of your imagination is not restricted or banned (actually, in some cases, I believe it can be. I'm pretty sure that producing child pornography, even if it is not consumed by anyone, is illegal. If it's not consumed, how would anyone find out about it? By hearing from the children included in your work), but the "product" as a whole is restricted.
Of course, you can restrict the sale of your product yourself, by making yourself the only avenue of consumption and refusing to let certain people consume it, but for the purposes of this conversation, we're talking about another entity place those restrictions, like the government.
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.
Theoretically, it could be. But even if it's not part of the artwork, it's part of the "product." Not in the "product of your imagination" definition, but in the "merchandise" definition.
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.
Trust me, they were necessary. The point was made so much more cogent by the presentation.
Gore should not be used just to say "Hey look blood!" which a lot of emphasis on blood and gore and sex buy our game we're so gritty blood blood blood blood gore gore gore! But it's just like any other tool of artistic expression and should be used accordingly.
When going for realism in games, or even an absurdity of surrealism(such as in No More Heroes), Chex quest just doesn't cut it. In a game such as CoD4 where there is an attempt to portray war pretty realistically, if the guns just made someone fall over and then the effect really would be lost.
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.
And if it was made freely available? Is distribution only an unnecessary evil part of the capitalist pig if there's money involved?
Khavall on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
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.
And if it was made freely available? Is distribution only an unnecessary evil part of the capitalist pig if there's money involved?
If the product was made freely available, obviously there would be no point in discussing the possibility of restricting the sale of the product, which this discussion is about.
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.
I think that's a terrible definition. It's ok for, say, a sculpture, but it makes the word not mean a whole lot when applied to intellectual property.
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.
And if it was made freely available? Is distribution only an unnecessary evil part of the capitalist pig if there's money involved?
If the product was made freely available, obviously there would be no point in discussing the possibility of restricting the sale of the product, which this discussion is about.
What about restricting the distribution? If I don't charge for something, but the government passes law that I can only give it to certain people, is that censorship because there was no money involved?
Money is a necessary side-effect of the distribution which supports the artist. The distribution is what's important.
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.
So if the government says that the mother and only the mother of a work's creator is allowed to experience that work, then no censorship is taking place? Or if the government says that the only person who can experience a work is a censorship board who will, without fail, determine that nobody else can view that work, that is not censorship? Am I understanding that right?
Because if I am, we're not the ones with the fevered delusions.
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.
And if it was made freely available? Is distribution only an unnecessary evil part of the capitalist pig if there's money involved?
If the product was made freely available, obviously there would be no point in discussing the possibility of restricting the sale of the product, which this discussion is about.
I think he meant "available for free", as in without money.
If something is available without paying for it, but not everyone can access it based on certain restrictions such as age, it is restricted.
Again, the product is restricted. Not the product of your toil, or the product of your imagination, but the product that is merchandise. In that sense of the word, it's not a product unless its made available; if it's not, it doesn't exist as a product/merchandise.
Any formal restriction on selling certain games to minors should be in the hands of the retailers, not the government. Now obviously there will be cases where they look the other way to make a sale, but even then, it's not a major issue in my opinion.
As someone else said, it's not against the law for a minor to see an R rated movie, but the theaters still typically restrict them from getting in. Now, who's to stop those kids from buying a ticket for a different movie to get past the ticket taker, and just going to the screen showing the movie they actually want to see?
Some try to equate this to the age restriction on alcohol or cigarettes, but it's not the same. Those actually cause harm to your body, and in the case of alcohol, can quite easily alter your mental state to a noticable degree. Movies and video games aren't harmful to your health, and don't really alter your mental state past getting you a bit excited. That's why there's no legally enforced age limit on them in most places, nor should there be.
Well and moreso than the physical harm, movies and games and books are protected forms of speech (or in games' case, should be), whereas cigs and liquor obviously are not. That's why porno mags are legally restricted, since they're seen as having no artistic merit and thus no protection under the first amendment.
Any formal restriction on selling certain games to minors should be in the hands of the retailers, not the government. Now obviously there will be cases where they look the other way to make a sale, but even then, it's not a major issue in my opinion.
As someone else said, it's not against the law for a minor to see an R rated movie, but the theaters still typically restrict them from getting in. Now, who's to stop those kids from buying a ticket for a different movie to get past the ticket taker, and just going to the screen showing the movie they actually want to see?
Some try to equate this to the age restriction on alcohol or cigarettes, but it's not the same. Those actually cause harm to your body, and in the case of alcohol, can quite easily alter your mental state to a noticable degree. Movies and video games aren't harmful to your health, and don't really alter your mental state past getting you a bit excited. That's why there's no legally enforced age limit on them in most places, nor should there be.
Yep. The problem is, some people think that movies and video games can alter your mental state to a noticeable degree. Especially video games, because they are interactive.
I'm stupidly not aware of actual laws regarding ratings. Are movie ratings really just enforced by the theaters, while game ratings are enforced legally? The United States is going to hell faster than I thought. No wonder horror movies and torture porn are so popular now; the populace really does want to be genuinely scared.
nlawalker on
0
DyvionBack in Sunny Florida!!Registered Userregular
Movies and video games aren't harmful to your health, and don't really alter your mental state past getting you a bit excited. That's why there's no legally enforced age limit on them in most places, nor should there be.
"Don't really" is like saying they do, only not very much. How much mental state alteration is allowed for children before it becomes "really alters"? I don't believe the only mental alteration is 'a bit excited' so I don't let my children see things that are inappropriate. But mostly I teach my children what is appropriate for them. I'm constantly hearing from my children's friends parents about how my children refused to watch something the other kids were watching, and went outside or something. I've been blessed with good children though. Or is it that I actually parent <verb form>.
e: clarification on the "I don't let my children see things that are inappropriate for them" section. I don't let them see things that I feel are innapropriate. Comic hijinx ah-la three stooges is fine. When they start acting these things out I explain to them how they could actually hurt someone or themselves by imitating what they've seen. But there is a level that is too much for them at their current age.
Dyvion on
Steam: No Safety In Life
PSN: Dyvion -- Eternal: Dyvion+9393 -- Genshin Impact: Dyvion
John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
April 16, 2008
Sheriff Kevin Beary
Orange County Sheriff's Department
2500 W. Colonial Drive
Orlando, FL 32804
Re: Sale of Sexual Material Harmful to Minors in Orange County, Florida
Dear Sheriff Beary:
On April 29, video game retailers will begin selling around the country, and in Orange County, Florida, the video game Grand Theft Auto IV. Previous versions of this game are basically "cop-killing simulators." I have appeared on CBS' 60 Minutes because of my representation of the families of three Alabama police officers killed by a teen who literally trained to kill them on Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.
It appears that this latest version, GTA IV, contains "sexual material harmful to minors," as defined by Florida Statute 847.012, and it appears sale of it to anyone under 18 will thus be a felony criminal act. As you may know, major retailers often violate their own age-ID policies by selling "Mature-rated" games to kids under 17, roughly half the time. But even if the retailers were to adhere to this policy, a game sold to someone 17, if it contains "sexual material harmful to minors," would constitute a criminal act, given the hiatus between the "17 and over" industry rating and the more stringent "18 and over" standard pertaining to sexual material. Game makers and retailers foolishly ignore the various states' and the federal government's laws that define a minor as someone 18, and that someone under that age cannot be sold this sexual material.
Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart and other major retailers in your area routinely ignore the video game industry's "17 and over" policy and sell "Mature" games to anyone of any age, even kids in their early teens. Repeated studies by the Federal Trade Commission have found this. Thus, you can be sure that many, many copies of GTA IV, marked "strong sexual content" like earlier versions of this "cop-killing game" will be sold to kids of all ages in Orange County starting April 29.
This particular game, GTA IV, has been edited for sale in Australia, and here is a news story suggesting some of the level of sexual content that is in the unedited American version that was taken out of the Australian version:
"In regards to what Rockstar has removed for the Australian release, as far as we're aware there was only one sexually violent cut-scene which Rockstar felt would cause the game to be Refused Classification [in Australia].
Unfortunately we're not able to go into specifics until after the game has been released but I can tell you that the scene involves a weapon being inserted into an enemies private area during a mission where Niko is taking revenge after one of his close friends was forced into sexual intercourse during his stay in prison."
In other words, it appears that the above-described scene may be in the unedited American version, along with other sexual content, of course, likely inappropriate for minors.
What we do know is that Rockstar Games, the maker of the GTA games, has put incredible amounts of sexual material in their earlier versions of the game, and in fact they placed a very graphic, sexually explicit mini-game in the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas game which forced the worldwide recall of the game when the hidden content was discovered. I am a Republican, but I worked with Senator Clinton in effectuating that recall in July 2005. Rockstar lied to the public in that scandalous episode known as "Hot Coffee."
Regardless of the above information as to what may have been removed for Australian consumers, it is clear that GTA IV should not be sold to minors anywhere. Here is the Entertainment Software Rating Board "descriptor" that is on the GTA IV game:
"Intense Violence, Blood, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content,
Partial Nudity, Use of Drugs and Alcohol."
I would strongly urge your Sheriff's Department to issue a warning now to all video game retailers in your County that your Department may proceed against them if it is found that a) GTA IV contains sexual material harmful to minors as defined by Florida Statute 847.012, and b) if these retailers are caught selling this game to minors. They will do so unless warned not to. That is certain. The Federal Trade Commission, as I indicated, has proven that fact over and over and over again.
I am more than happy to assist your Sheriff's Department in this regard, as the sale of this game to minors poses a significant public health and safety problem, as it truly is a murder simulator that has resulted in the deaths of law enforcement officers.
I'm stupidly not aware of actual laws regarding ratings. Are movie ratings really just enforced by the theaters, while game ratings are enforced legally? The United States is going to hell faster than I thought. No wonder horror movies and torture porn are so popular now; the populace really does want to be genuinely scared.
No, movie and game ratings are both voluntary. As wiki says:
Recently, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich passed a law banning the sale of "violent or sexually explicit" video games to minors under the age of 18. The new law would have taken effect on January 1, 2006, but was struck down by District Court judge Matthew Kennelly. As Kennelly so concisely put it: "In this country, the state lacks the authority to ban protected speech on the ground that it affects the listener's or observer's thoughts and attitudes." In doing so, the Judge confirmed yet again that video games are protected under the First Amendment and deserve treatment no different than film and literature.
I'm stupidly not aware of actual laws regarding ratings. Are movie ratings really just enforced by the theaters, while game ratings are enforced legally? The United States is going to hell faster than I thought. No wonder horror movies and torture porn are so popular now; the populace really does want to be genuinely scared.
No, movie and game ratings are both voluntary. As wiki says:
Recently, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich passed a law banning the sale of "violent or sexually explicit" video games to minors under the age of 18. The new law would have taken effect on January 1, 2006, but was struck down by District Court judge Matthew Kennelly. As Kennelly so concisely put it: "In this country, the state lacks the authority to ban protected speech on the ground that it affects the listener's or observer's thoughts and attitudes." In doing so, the Judge confirmed yet again that video games are protected under the First Amendment and deserve treatment no different than film and literature.
Most relevant part bolded.
Ah, thank you. Learn something new every day.
I anxiously await the day that video games aren't regarded as toys by the general populace, but as media. I predict that it's at least 30 years away.
I've skipped most of the thread so far so if this question has already been answered feel free to just quote me the previous answer.
Anyway, I was wondering what how exhaustive the review process is when detemining the classification of a game. I mean, you can sit down and watch and movie and in two hours you'll be able to say "okay, this a violent, sexually explicit or otherwise adult movie" and stick a classification on it.
Games I imagine are not so simple, because think of all the content in a game - divide that into how much you will see in a single average playthrough and how much is hidden down different side quests, hidden areas, trees of dialogue, cheat codes, etc.
Is there some kind of onus on the developer or the publisher to disclose what kind of adult content you could potentially expect to find beyond your average playthough?
W2 on
0
DyvionBack in Sunny Florida!!Registered Userregular
I anxiously await the day that video games aren't regarded as toys by the general populace, but as media. I predict that it's at least 30 years away.
I suspect it's much closer than that. Especially with the advent of games like Rock Band that are catching hold in the main stream. Motley Crue just released a single exclusively through Rock Band. That in itself is some massive forward movement.
Dyvion on
Steam: No Safety In Life
PSN: Dyvion -- Eternal: Dyvion+9393 -- Genshin Impact: Dyvion
But ironically the biggest penetration of games into the mainstream is the Wii, which, let's face it, to the casual observer is about as toy like as consoles can get right?
As has been said in many places, it's going to take a lot of deaths before games become accepted like film and tv. The deaths of the generation who have not grown up with them. The exact same process took place when cinema was introduced many many decades ago, and with tv and all genres of music.
It's the natural evolution of society.
When the president of the united states is someone who was playing sonic the hedgehog at the age of nine then the world will embrace games. Thats going to be another 20 years maybe less.
I anxiously await the day that video games aren't regarded as toys by the general populace, but as media. I predict that it's at least 30 years away.
I suspect it's much closer than that. Especially with the advent of games like Rock Band that are catching hold in the main stream. Motley Crue just released a single exclusively through Rock Band. That in itself is some massive forward movement.
I certainly hope so. I say at least 30 years because I don't really think it will take hold until we have some senators, public representatives etc. who grew up on video games and understand that there is no rational reason for regarding them as the devil. They're the rock music of this set of generations.
To W2: I believe that the developer is obligated to show "representative" portions of the game.
If they don't, ESRB could always change the rating later, which makes you look really, really bad. See "Hot Coffee:" IIRC, you could return a copy of the game that was purchased at any time, even if it had already been played, scratched, etc., for a refund, because the rating wasn't accurate. Maybe that was just one retailer, I don't recall.
To W2: I believe that the developer is obligated to show "representative" portions of the game.
If they don't, ESRB could always change the rating later, which makes you look really, really bad. See "Hot Coffee:" IIRC, you could return a copy of the game that was purchased at any time, even if it had already been played, scratched, etc., for a refund, because the rating wasn't accurate. Maybe that was just one retailer, I don't recall.
This is what I was thinking, yeah. Even if they're not required by any law to do so it still makes good sense to cover themselves.
I've skipped most of the thread so far so if this question has already been answered feel free to just quote me the previous answer.
Anyway, I was wondering what how exhaustive the review process is when detemining the classification of a game. I mean, you can sit down and watch and movie and in two hours you'll be able to say "okay, this a violent, sexually explicit or otherwise adult movie" and stick a classification on it.
Games I imagine are not so simple, because think of all the content in a game - divide that into how much you will see in a single average playthrough and how much is hidden down different side quests, hidden areas, trees of dialogue, cheat codes, etc.
Is there some kind of onus on the developer or the publisher to disclose what kind of adult content you could potentially expect to find beyond your average playthough?
The onus is indeed on the publisher to provide all the worst content in the game. There is a written form where you go into detail about all the various aspects of the game: if and how you can kill people, if and how much blood there is, swearing, drug use, sexual content, violent sound effects, the works. Along with that, the publisher has to send in video footage of the "best" (worst) examples of these things, along with general gameplay footage to demonstrate how common it is and in what context it appears.
Any formal restriction on selling certain games to minors should be in the hands of the retailers, not the government. Now obviously there will be cases where they look the other way to make a sale, but even then, it's not a major issue in my opinion.
As someone else said, it's not against the law for a minor to see an R rated movie, but the theaters still typically restrict them from getting in. Now, who's to stop those kids from buying a ticket for a different movie to get past the ticket taker, and just going to the screen showing the movie they actually want to see?
Some try to equate this to the age restriction on alcohol or cigarettes, but it's not the same. Those actually cause harm to your body, and in the case of alcohol, can quite easily alter your mental state to a noticable degree. Movies and video games aren't harmful to your health, and don't really alter your mental state past getting you a bit excited. That's why there's no legally enforced age limit on them in most places, nor should there be.
Yep. The problem is, some people think that movies and video games can alter your mental state to a noticeable degree. Especially video games, because they are interactive.
I'm stupidly not aware of actual laws regarding ratings. Are movie ratings really just enforced by the theaters, while game ratings are enforced legally? The United States is going to hell faster than I thought. No wonder horror movies and torture porn are so popular now; the populace really does want to be genuinely scared.
Well I'm in Canada for reference. It may be different in the States, but I don't think it is.
Neither movies nor video games are restricted by actual law in most places. It's up to the distributor to make the call and enforce it.
As for what people think, it comes down to what the actual facts are, and the facts according to the study in the OP are that your mental state isn't significally altered, nor for any real amount of time.
If it isn't going to do you physical harm, it should be up to the distributor, not the government.
"Don't really" is like saying they do, only not very much. How much mental state alteration is allowed for children before it becomes "really alters"? I don't believe the only mental alteration is 'a bit excited' so I don't let my children see things that are inappropriate.
With "Don't really" I misspoke. Based on evidence we currently have, they don't alter your mental state beyond a bit of excitement.
As for deciding what's appropriate for your children, that's fine. If all parents simply took responsability like that, there wouldn't be a problem.
TubularLuggage on
0
DyvionBack in Sunny Florida!!Registered Userregular
Well I'm in Canada for reference. It may be different in the States, but I don't think it is.
Neither movies nor video games are restricted by actual law in most places. It's up to the distributor to make the call and enforce it.
As for what people think, it comes down to what the actual facts are, and the facts according to the study in the OP are that your mental state isn't significally altered, nor for any real amount of time.
If it isn't going to do you physical harm, it should be up to the distributor, not the government.
"Don't really" is like saying they do, only not very much. How much mental state alteration is allowed for children before it becomes "really alters"? I don't believe the only mental alteration is 'a bit excited' so I don't let my children see things that are inappropriate.
With "Don't really" I misspoke. Based on evidence we currently have, they don't alter your mental state beyond a bit of excitement.
As for deciding what's appropriate for your children, that's fine. If all parents simply took responsability like that, there wouldn't be a problem.
I'm not sure how Canada works, but in the US even if a protected form of speech has an effect on an observer's thoughts or attitudes, it can't be restricted based on that. I believe it can be restricted if it can be proven that it may create imminent danger or somesuch, but that's pretty rare and hard to push through.
I wonder how many games would have this in their rating box if it was shown...
Violence, brief nudity, murdering humans by decapitation, murdering animals by impaling, murdering representations of humans by burninating.
It sounds funny, but there actually is a separate section for the burning/mutilation of bodies, and for the destruction of dead bodies. They're strangely specific over there. Nothing about effigies, though.
I'm not sure how Canada works, but in the US even if a protected form of speech has an effect on an observer's thoughts or attitudes, it can't be restricted based on that. I believe it can be restricted if it can be proven that it may create imminent danger or somesuch, but that's pretty rare and hard to push through.
That's how it is here. Things can't be legally restricted in any manner unless they have a direct physical effect on you.
So wait... You shoot someone in the nads, and that's bad? Fuck, that should be a rating alongside Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, etc... And the game should automatically get less than a 50 if you can have a gun, and NOT shoot someone in the nuts.
I don't think mature games should be sold to kids, if their parents buy it them or are asked to buy it then that's their choice. I'm happy with that, but otherwise no. A little kid should not be able to walk into a shop and buy GTA,
Uncle_Balsamic on
0
DyvionBack in Sunny Florida!!Registered Userregular
I don't think mature games should be sold to kids, if their parents buy it them or are asked to buy it then that's their choice. I'm happy with that, but otherwise no. A little kid should not be able to walk into a shop and buy GTA,
Because their parents shouldn't let them? I don't know about you and yours, but my little kid isn't going to have that kind of easy access to a mall/ebstop and that kind of funds at the same time.
This got me thinking about punishments for obtaining an M rated game without my permission... which would probably be cutting the power cord for the offending system in multiple places... which dredged up a memory i had apparently suppressed... one summer between my junior and senior year of high school, i woke up one saturday morning, started MUD'ing (on my 286 with my 14.4k baud modem) and later realised the sun had gone down and i was tired, so i went to bed. Turns out i played for 16 hours straight, didn't eat, didn't pee... my dad the next day thought i had spent the night at a friends house, and when he found out i was on the computer the whole day he went in my room, picked it up (ripping all the cords out of the wall/off the monitor) and threw it whole out the back door. Wow, i had forgotten that. No wonder i'm so picky about it now.
Dyvion on
Steam: No Safety In Life
PSN: Dyvion -- Eternal: Dyvion+9393 -- Genshin Impact: Dyvion
I don't think mature games should be sold to kids, if their parents buy it them or are asked to buy it then that's their choice. I'm happy with that, but otherwise no. A little kid should not be able to walk into a shop and buy GTA,
There is not one single person in this thread who disagrees with you.
I know, I'm just making it clear, for anyone else as well as you, that anyone arguing against government control doesn't necessarily want kids to be able to buy whatever they want.
I don't think mature games should be sold to kids, if their parents buy it them or are asked to buy it then that's their choice. I'm happy with that, but otherwise no. A little kid should not be able to walk into a shop and buy GTA,
There is not one single person in this thread who disagrees with you.
Um, yes there is, that's pretty much the whole point of this thread now. half the people say that it should be allowed to be sold to minors, half say it shouldn't.
I don't think mature games should be sold to kids, if their parents buy it them or are asked to buy it then that's their choice. I'm happy with that, but otherwise no. A little kid should not be able to walk into a shop and buy GTA,
There is not one single person in this thread who disagrees with you.
Um, yes there is, that's pretty much the whole point of this thread now. half the people say that it should be allowed to be sold to minors, half say it shouldn't.
Does anyone know for sure of policies one way or the other for certain retailers?
For example, I know GameStop implemented the thing a while back where if someone gets caught selling a game to someone too young to meet the rating, they are fired and they their family is disemboweled. But if I was a kid, I'd walk across the street to Target/Best Buy/what have you and buy it there. It doesn't really work unless everyone implements it (I'm not really considering situations such as the parent saying "you can go to GameStop ONLY and buy whatever you want there, because I know they won't sell you something inappropriate, etc.)
I'm not looking for a list of everyone, just curious if anyone knows offhand whether, say, Best Buy will sell a game regardless of age.
I don't think mature games should be sold to kids, if their parents buy it them or are asked to buy it then that's their choice. I'm happy with that, but otherwise no. A little kid should not be able to walk into a shop and buy GTA,
There is not one single person in this thread who disagrees with you.
Um, yes there is, that's pretty much the whole point of this thread now. half the people say that it should be allowed to be sold to minors, half say it shouldn't.
Does anyone know for sure of policies one way or the other for certain retailers?
For example, I know GameStop implemented the thing a while back where if someone gets caught selling a game to someone too young to meet the rating, they are fired and they their family is disemboweled. But if I was a kid, I'd walk across the street to Target/Best Buy/what have you and buy it there. It doesn't really work unless everyone implements it (I'm not really considering situations such as the parent saying "you can go to GameStop ONLY and buy whatever you want there, because I know they won't sell you something inappropriate, etc.)
I'm not looking for a list of everyone, just curious if anyone knows offhand whether, say, Best Buy will sell a game regardless of age.
Well, a couple of years ago I was buying games from Best Buy without issue. In the last 6 months I've been carded both times that I bought a mature 360 game from them (and one of those times I looked like a hobo thanks to not shaving for a week, so they don't just eyeball it). I've never had Fry's ask for ID, but I'm 25 so they could just have a policy of carding anyone who looks like they could be underage.
Posts
Yeah, this is pretty much what I was going to say. The use of the word "product" here is something that you produce and make available to others.
If you create a product that you intend to make available, and the government does not permit the sale/consumption of that product to certain people, it is restricted. It is not banned, it is restricted. It is also censored, depending on what definition of the word you'd like to use. Censor can mean to ban, it can mean to ban based on certain criteria, or it can mean to remove specific portions of content that would otherwise result in tougher restrictions with those pieces of content included than it would without.
You are correct in that the "product" of your imagination is not restricted or banned (actually, in some cases, I believe it can be. I'm pretty sure that producing child pornography, even if it is not consumed by anyone, is illegal. If it's not consumed, how would anyone find out about it? By hearing from the children included in your work), but the "product" as a whole is restricted.
Of course, you can restrict the sale of your product yourself, by making yourself the only avenue of consumption and refusing to let certain people consume it, but for the purposes of this conversation, we're talking about another entity place those restrictions, like the government.
Theoretically, it could be. But even if it's not part of the artwork, it's part of the "product." Not in the "product of your imagination" definition, but in the "merchandise" definition.
Trust me, they were necessary. The point was made so much more cogent by the presentation.
Gore should not be used just to say "Hey look blood!" which a lot of emphasis on blood and gore and sex buy our game we're so gritty blood blood blood blood gore gore gore! But it's just like any other tool of artistic expression and should be used accordingly.
When going for realism in games, or even an absurdity of surrealism(such as in No More Heroes), Chex quest just doesn't cut it. In a game such as CoD4 where there is an attempt to portray war pretty realistically, if the guns just made someone fall over and then the effect really would be lost.
And if it was made freely available? Is distribution only an unnecessary evil part of the capitalist pig if there's money involved?
If the product was made freely available, obviously there would be no point in discussing the possibility of restricting the sale of the product, which this discussion is about.
I think that's a terrible definition. It's ok for, say, a sculpture, but it makes the word not mean a whole lot when applied to intellectual property.
What about restricting the distribution? If I don't charge for something, but the government passes law that I can only give it to certain people, is that censorship because there was no money involved?
Money is a necessary side-effect of the distribution which supports the artist. The distribution is what's important.
Because if I am, we're not the ones with the fevered delusions.
I think he meant "available for free", as in without money.
If something is available without paying for it, but not everyone can access it based on certain restrictions such as age, it is restricted.
Again, the product is restricted. Not the product of your toil, or the product of your imagination, but the product that is merchandise. In that sense of the word, it's not a product unless its made available; if it's not, it doesn't exist as a product/merchandise.
That's the ticket.
As someone else said, it's not against the law for a minor to see an R rated movie, but the theaters still typically restrict them from getting in. Now, who's to stop those kids from buying a ticket for a different movie to get past the ticket taker, and just going to the screen showing the movie they actually want to see?
Some try to equate this to the age restriction on alcohol or cigarettes, but it's not the same. Those actually cause harm to your body, and in the case of alcohol, can quite easily alter your mental state to a noticable degree. Movies and video games aren't harmful to your health, and don't really alter your mental state past getting you a bit excited. That's why there's no legally enforced age limit on them in most places, nor should there be.
Yep. The problem is, some people think that movies and video games can alter your mental state to a noticeable degree. Especially video games, because they are interactive.
I'm stupidly not aware of actual laws regarding ratings. Are movie ratings really just enforced by the theaters, while game ratings are enforced legally? The United States is going to hell faster than I thought. No wonder horror movies and torture porn are so popular now; the populace really does want to be genuinely scared.
"Don't really" is like saying they do, only not very much. How much mental state alteration is allowed for children before it becomes "really alters"? I don't believe the only mental alteration is 'a bit excited' so I don't let my children see things that are inappropriate. But mostly I teach my children what is appropriate for them. I'm constantly hearing from my children's friends parents about how my children refused to watch something the other kids were watching, and went outside or something. I've been blessed with good children though. Or is it that I actually parent <verb form>.
e: clarification on the "I don't let my children see things that are inappropriate for them" section. I don't let them see things that I feel are innapropriate. Comic hijinx ah-la three stooges is fine. When they start acting these things out I explain to them how they could actually hurt someone or themselves by imitating what they've seen. But there is a level that is too much for them at their current age.
PSN: Dyvion -- Eternal: Dyvion+9393 -- Genshin Impact: Dyvion
... And this was shown on G4?
TWITTER TWATS
Most relevant part bolded.
Ah, thank you. Learn something new every day.
I anxiously await the day that video games aren't regarded as toys by the general populace, but as media. I predict that it's at least 30 years away.
Anyway, I was wondering what how exhaustive the review process is when detemining the classification of a game. I mean, you can sit down and watch and movie and in two hours you'll be able to say "okay, this a violent, sexually explicit or otherwise adult movie" and stick a classification on it.
Games I imagine are not so simple, because think of all the content in a game - divide that into how much you will see in a single average playthrough and how much is hidden down different side quests, hidden areas, trees of dialogue, cheat codes, etc.
Is there some kind of onus on the developer or the publisher to disclose what kind of adult content you could potentially expect to find beyond your average playthough?
I suspect it's much closer than that. Especially with the advent of games like Rock Band that are catching hold in the main stream. Motley Crue just released a single exclusively through Rock Band. That in itself is some massive forward movement.
PSN: Dyvion -- Eternal: Dyvion+9393 -- Genshin Impact: Dyvion
As has been said in many places, it's going to take a lot of deaths before games become accepted like film and tv. The deaths of the generation who have not grown up with them. The exact same process took place when cinema was introduced many many decades ago, and with tv and all genres of music.
It's the natural evolution of society.
When the president of the united states is someone who was playing sonic the hedgehog at the age of nine then the world will embrace games. Thats going to be another 20 years maybe less.
I certainly hope so. I say at least 30 years because I don't really think it will take hold until we have some senators, public representatives etc. who grew up on video games and understand that there is no rational reason for regarding them as the devil. They're the rock music of this set of generations.
To W2: I believe that the developer is obligated to show "representative" portions of the game.
If they don't, ESRB could always change the rating later, which makes you look really, really bad. See "Hot Coffee:" IIRC, you could return a copy of the game that was purchased at any time, even if it had already been played, scratched, etc., for a refund, because the rating wasn't accurate. Maybe that was just one retailer, I don't recall.
This is what I was thinking, yeah. Even if they're not required by any law to do so it still makes good sense to cover themselves.
Neither movies nor video games are restricted by actual law in most places. It's up to the distributor to make the call and enforce it.
As for what people think, it comes down to what the actual facts are, and the facts according to the study in the OP are that your mental state isn't significally altered, nor for any real amount of time.
If it isn't going to do you physical harm, it should be up to the distributor, not the government.
With "Don't really" I misspoke. Based on evidence we currently have, they don't alter your mental state beyond a bit of excitement.
As for deciding what's appropriate for your children, that's fine. If all parents simply took responsability like that, there wouldn't be a problem.
I wonder how many games would have this in their rating box if it was shown...
Violence, brief nudity, murdering humans by decapitation, murdering animals by impaling, murdering representations of humans by burninating.
PSN: Dyvion -- Eternal: Dyvion+9393 -- Genshin Impact: Dyvion
But that's just one man's opinion.
Because their parents shouldn't let them? I don't know about you and yours, but my little kid isn't going to have that kind of easy access to a mall/ebstop and that kind of funds at the same time.
This got me thinking about punishments for obtaining an M rated game without my permission... which would probably be cutting the power cord for the offending system in multiple places... which dredged up a memory i had apparently suppressed... one summer between my junior and senior year of high school, i woke up one saturday morning, started MUD'ing (on my 286 with my 14.4k baud modem) and later realised the sun had gone down and i was tired, so i went to bed. Turns out i played for 16 hours straight, didn't eat, didn't pee... my dad the next day thought i had spent the night at a friends house, and when he found out i was on the computer the whole day he went in my room, picked it up (ripping all the cords out of the wall/off the monitor) and threw it whole out the back door. Wow, i had forgotten that. No wonder i'm so picky about it now.
PSN: Dyvion -- Eternal: Dyvion+9393 -- Genshin Impact: Dyvion
Um, yes there is, that's pretty much the whole point of this thread now. half the people say that it should be allowed to be sold to minors, half say it shouldn't.
Does anyone know for sure of policies one way or the other for certain retailers?
For example, I know GameStop implemented the thing a while back where if someone gets caught selling a game to someone too young to meet the rating, they are fired and they their family is disemboweled. But if I was a kid, I'd walk across the street to Target/Best Buy/what have you and buy it there. It doesn't really work unless everyone implements it (I'm not really considering situations such as the parent saying "you can go to GameStop ONLY and buy whatever you want there, because I know they won't sell you something inappropriate, etc.)
I'm not looking for a list of everyone, just curious if anyone knows offhand whether, say, Best Buy will sell a game regardless of age.
"Hey, little kid, I've got some free GTA IV in the back of my van."
Well, a couple of years ago I was buying games from Best Buy without issue. In the last 6 months I've been carded both times that I bought a mature 360 game from them (and one of those times I looked like a hobo thanks to not shaving for a week, so they don't just eyeball it). I've never had Fry's ask for ID, but I'm 25 so they could just have a policy of carding anyone who looks like they could be underage.