If you reverse his name, it actually spells 'Nedib Eoj', which is also the name of a well known sorcerer in the Warcraft Universe :O Coincidence? Ahmagad
If they banned or restricted 18+ video games in the states they would have to look at the same for that massive cash cow you guys have called Hollywood...I doubt that is going to happen any time soon.
Interestingly our government here in Australia finally introduced an 18+ rating after years of the games industry and it's supporters saying violent or adult themed titles should be restricted.
We used to just ban them outright or laughingly lower the rating to 15+.
The thing which gets me in these debates is the responses on both sides are always so ridiculously binary to me. It's either 'ban it' or 'keep it the same', no one willing to give any ground...why?
just to clarify my stance, I'm a hypocrite...I love playing violent games, I was a child of the 80's so I grew up pretending to kill everything. lol :P
And apart from being a bit of an arrogant dick sometimes (often) I'm pretty well adjusted.
But if I put my big boy hat on and think objectively and honestly about the debate I do think there is room for all parties to do better.
I personally don't belief there is a link between violence (even in excess) and an increased likely hood of developing an urge to enact violence on others, I think that was in you already.
I do however think the prevalence, and more importantly the dishonest depiction of violence we have in our entertainment is unnecessary and desensitises us all to acts of violence in our society.
My mother will often tear up watching the news while I don't blink an eyelid at it, the massacre of children in the states recently was horrific but I wan't shocked one bit that it occurred, it is par for the course in the USA now.
You guys have people who regularly kill large groups of civilians with military grade weapons...Crazy? Hell yes, Shocking? Not any more...isn't that sad?
I'm not saying do away with violent video games, that's not feasible or even probably helpful but I think we as an industry could look at how we depict/use violence as a theme.
Observing violence can actually be a fantastic motivator for people to fight against it but only if:
(A): It is well made, good context and honest depiction of the pain it causes - making violence titillating degrades it.
(B): The intended viewer should have the mental tools to truly understand the context, i.e. not for the young or immature.
The entertainment industry could look at better self regulation of the presence/depiction of violence, misogyny and racism in titles and the people responsible for sales/distribution of the product (in particular parents) could better regulate the ease at which inappropriate content is dispersed.
I wonder if we'll end up with a non-voluntary ESRB rating system after all the dust settles.
I wouldn't exactly call the ESRB voluntary, its self regulation but definitely not voluntary when every console manufacture requires ESRB ratings for every game and refuse to have adult rated games.
I'm not saying do away with violent video games, that's not feasible or even probably helpful but I think we as an industry could look at how we depict/use violence as a theme.
this. There've been games which I really enjoyed on a gameplay level, but sometimes you really have to wonder if you sit back and just think of the message all the gameplay often involuntarily gets across.
While working in the industry I encountered a couple of strange stories and plots in the games I worked on that made me scratch my head as in "do you have to mention/depict that? Does that really add anything of value to your story?". Although the weirdest thing are still the quests in WoW where you're asked to torture some baddies. I mean wtf does a game like WoW gain from adding this theme? Sometimes it's like we're turning our brains off when adding blood, gore and violence to games and where the things we try to tell totally miss the mark. But this never makes it into any post mortems. It's always just "the particle system didn't" work, the "pipeline can be improved" but we rarely talk about the message the final product sends and how we can improve it.
I was thinking more in terms of web games and downloadable games from places like Steam, Desura, or straight from developer's own web sites, etc... rather than mainstream console titles.
I think such a move would certainly have a negative impact on gamejams. Imagine putting up a non-rated game for people to try out online then getting your whole site pulled down by something like a DMCA.
Hopefully my fears about this are just me worrying too much.
This recent trend in the industry lately to pressure other developers into designing games that they morally approve of is very disappointing to me. This is nothing more than the use of shame as a tool to get people to voluntarily engage in self-censorship, a technique that organized religion has perfected for thousands of years.
No artist, game designer, writer, or musician has any "social responsibility" to protect audiences from ideas they might find distasteful.
this. There've been games which I really enjoyed on a gameplay level, but sometimes you really have to wonder if you sit back and just think of the message all the gameplay often involuntarily gets across.
[...]
...we rarely talk about the message the final product sends and how we can improve it.
Since when was this the agreed-on point, or responsibility, of video games or any art what-so-ever?
This recent trend in the industry lately to pressure other developers into designing games that they morally approve of is very disappointing to me. This is nothing more than the use of shame as a tool to get people to voluntarily engage in self-censorship, a technique that organized religion has perfected for thousands of years.
No artist, game designer, writer, or musician has any "social responsibility" to protect audiences from ideas they might find distasteful.
Let's not pretend the industry is all about the artistry and creative vision of an individual. It's an industry; it is fueled by profits. On the contrary this could be good incentive towards giving developers funding to try something new.
In terms of positive effects I can see coming from this, perhaps this will be an impetus for the industry to attempt producing major titles other than first person shooters.
At the very least these topics challenge designers to think about and challenge their design conventions, the context and value of violence in their games and how they can create an engaging experience with or without it.
Without pressure there is no change, so while the situation is not ideal, I can at least see some positive value in stirring the industry a bit.
Let's not pretend as though most artists are actually creative visionaries with grand ideas to express to begin with. Most artists have repetitive tastes that reflect things they've already seen and know they like, just as most consumers continue to buy the same things they already like instead of trying out a new game.
I see no reason why the industry should change. if first person shooters is what people want then why not give it to them? The reason why major title developers are risk averse has nothing to do with social impact, it has to do with the risk associated with developing games with huge budgets. This doesn't put pressure on developers to make different games, it puts pressure on them to make the same games that are less gory.
This recent trend in the industry lately to pressure other developers into designing games...
Let's not pretend as though most artists are actually creative visionaries with grand ideas to express to begin with.
Do you see the incongruity there? You're critiquing the trend of pressuring developers to create certain games and then following up with how it doesn't matter what developers want to make anyway.
I see no reason why the industry should change. if first person shooters is what people want then why not give it to them?
It's hard to know what people want when there is only one thing available. As I said this will at least cause some dialogue to openly discuss the value of certain conventions.
The reason why major title developers are risk averse has nothing to do with social impact, it has to do with the risk associated with developing games with huge budgets.
I agree; in my own words I stated the industry is "fueled by profits", but a game with less violent emphasis has more value being discussed now than it did before any of this was immediately relevant. Even beyond that, these topics can still prove valuable to designers as a challenge to their own conventions, which would in fact be valuable for a designer even if it's not immediately obvious.
Do you see the incongruity there? You're critiquing the trend of pressuring developers to create certain games and then following up with how it doesn't matter what developers want to make anyway.
No, I'm pointing out that these kinds of games are very much the kinds of games that many developers want to make. How many aspiring game artists here do you think dream of working on a Call of Duty or Elder Scrolls game? Your initial comment seemed to be implying that the reason that these developers work to build these games is purely for business and profit which is simply false.
This is not merely a criticism of people inside the industry see other developers either but one that portrays the consumers that enjoy them as "lowest common denominators" as one gamasutra writer described them.
It's hard to know what people want when there is only one thing available. As I said this will at least cause some dialogue to openly discuss the value of certain conventions.
Fewer than 10% of the games released every year are rated M, 75%+ are rated E or 10+. These are not the only games available, some of these games are among the most popular games available because people buy them because it's what they want, not because they have no alternatives.
I wouldn't exactly call the ESRB voluntary, its self regulation but definitely not voluntary when every console manufacture requires ESRB ratings for every game and refuse to have adult rated games.
uh, it is definitely voluntary, because the difference we're drawing is between the industry volunteering to police itself versus the government censoring itself.
the ESRB, RIAA Explicit Lyrics stickers, and MPAA's ratings system are all voluntary ratings boards. They are not government enforceable (this is different than say, Australia's ratings board, which must rate everything released there).
Additionally, you can choose to not release a game under the ESRB's rating. However, the companies that own the principal delivery platforms (consoles), can choose to keep content that isn't rated off their system.
You don't have a right to release games on someone else's console. They're privately owned.
You DO have a right to release software to open platforms or publish/produce your own platforms, and the government can't block your release of DongWranglers 3: By the Scrape of My Scrote. But just because you want to release it on XBLA doesn't mean Microsoft has to allow it.
I wouldn't exactly call the ESRB voluntary, its self regulation but definitely not voluntary when every console manufacture requires ESRB ratings for every game and refuse to have adult rated games.
The industry likes it because they run it, they set the punishment which means no one really gets punished... If the government runs it they will look to make some money off it any way they can and you really don't want octogenarians setting the rules, who only fear games and anything younger than they are, which is just about everything.
Adopt the ESRB into law, it makes sense but it won't stop there, which why it turns into an all or nothing struggle. If games get the regulation hammer then they get blamed for everything and restrictions get crazy. It will be congresses dumping ground for blame while they ignore any real problems.
The president's proposals are also expected to include steps for improving school safety and mental health care, as well as recommendations for addressing violence in entertainment and video games.
Just to throw this in the mix, Minecraft (PC) and FTL, among others, have no ESRB rating. Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony have basically mandated ESRB ratings but independent PC development is still a woolly wilderness. At least, for now... DUN DUN DUNNN.
At the same time progressive groups sponsored a study and then published it, the "study" said that 77% of parents blame violent video games. Of that, 45% said violent games are a major problem.
0% of parents own up to the fact that they bought those "mature" rated games for their children. <- not a real statistic I just thought I would throw that out there.
Nice to see that tool is looking out for our tax payer money and wanting to spend it wisely... TEN MILLION DOLLARS?! Yes, I know, proverbial drop in the bucket compared to other gov spending, doesn't change the fact that he just loves wasting cash.
Oh... and all the people going 'fuckin NRA' and 'fuckin video games'.... politicians sure do a great job of turning us against each other and avoiding the real issues, don't they?
we should just take the NRA's stance - games are protected speech, any discussion or argument means you want to destroy the first amendment.
You'll learn through experience that, sadly, this is really the only effective approach to prevent incrementalist encroachment and the slow metastasizing of more and more burdensome bureaucracy.
When somebody with power is misguidedly intent on doing what they think is best for you because they believe they know better than you do what "best for you" is, and because they feel some duty to do so, pretty much the only way to stop them is to fight them from every direction, every step of the way. At that point, they're not interested in compromise because to them, any compromise is a violation of their duty to your well-being.
Give them an inch, or any opening at all, and they'll stretch it as far as they can because they honestly believe they're doing the right thing for you.
It's like dealing with politically active ideological Terminators. There's no bargaining or reasoning with them. They know what they know, they know you're wrong, they know what's best for you (you don't), and they have to do what's best for you by any means necessary.
Nice to see that tool is looking out for our tax payer money and wanting to spend it wisely... TEN MILLION DOLLARS?! Yes, I know, proverbial drop in the bucket compared to other gov spending, doesn't change the fact that he just loves wasting cash.
Oh... and all the people going 'fuckin NRA' and 'fuckin video games'.... politicians sure do a great job of turning us against each other and avoiding the real issues, don't they?
I dunno, what if the study finds not much of a link? Would it be a waste then?
I dunno, what if the study finds not much of a link? Would it be a waste then?
BTW What is the real issue?
The real issue is the social problems these folks face. No accountability on the part of the parents, existing laws and rules not enforced or twisted to serve one group or another. It's just a pass the buck system until something either tangible or easibly blamable (like the NRA and video game industry) is caught up in this mess.
Ask yourself this... who represented the game industry in Biden's bs little meeting? Anyone you know? Anyone you feel you could have had a meaningful discussion with, or at least been able to send a useful suggestion to?
As for the NRA, I'm not a member, and yah, I think the folks up top in that group are somewhat disconnected from reality, but it's one of the biggest groups around for protecting civilian rights to arms (regardless of the argument of what *type* of arms are in question). The bs aside, I'd feel more comfortable having a group like them represent me than I would most politicians, at least they're focused on arguing a point instead of closed-room politics like what just went down in New York.
uh, it is definitely voluntary, because the difference we're drawing is between the industry volunteering to police itself versus the government censoring itself.
the ESRB, RIAA Explicit Lyrics stickers, and MPAA's ratings system are all voluntary ratings boards. They are not government enforceable (this is different than say, Australia's ratings board, which must rate everything released there).
Additionally, you can choose to not release a game under the ESRB's rating. However, the companies that own the principal delivery platforms (consoles), can choose to keep content that isn't rated off their system.
You don't have a right to release games on someone else's console. They're privately owned.
You DO have a right to release software to open platforms or publish/produce your own platforms, and the government can't block your release of DongWranglers 3: By the Scrape of My Scrote. But just because you want to release it on XBLA doesn't mean Microsoft has to allow it.
The industry likes it because they run it, they set the punishment which means no one really gets punished... If the government runs it they will look to make some money off it any way they can and you really don't want octogenarians setting the rules, who only fear games and anything younger than they are, which is just about everything.
Adopt the ESRB into law, it makes sense but it won't stop there, which why it turns into an all or nothing struggle. If games get the regulation hammer then they get blamed for everything and restrictions get crazy. It will be congresses dumping ground for blame while they ignore any real problems.
You two are absolutely correct, self regulation is obviously better than a government review system (which wouldn't be legal in the united states anyway). The ESRB is pretty much exactly like the film rating system, you can draw parallels from consoles being like movie theatres being like consoles, most theatres (besides independent ones) refuse to show NC 17 rated movies. If you want to see a good critism of the MPAA rating system watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated. I'm not saying it's a bad system, but I'd rather games develop more as art and expression instead of being limited by ratings and being limited by console developers and stores.
For the ESRB and MPAA rating systems
-The system is not very transparent, and (if the ESRB is like the MPAA (I couldn't find anything on this) reviewers are 50 year olds with limited or no experience with movies/games.
-Extremely violent content is fine, but any sexual content is closely rated.
-Homosexual and heterosexual sexual situations are rated differently
-Male and female sexual depictions are rated differently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board#Controversy
Just to throw this in the mix, Minecraft (PC) and FTL, among others, have no ESRB rating. Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony have basically mandated ESRB ratings but independent PC development is still a woolly wilderness. At least, for now... DUN DUN DUNNN.
I think it's awesome steam and indy devs don't worry having a ESRB rating. I also think it's interesting that these devs really don't care or worry about putting content warnings or suggested ages on these games. Of course steam does put in that fill in your age, but that's more of a internet regulation than game one.
You'll learn through experience that, sadly, this is really the only effective approach to prevent incrementalist encroachment and the slow metastasizing of more and more burdensome bureaucracy.
When somebody with power is misguidedly intent on doing what they think is best for you because they believe they know better than you do what "best for you" is, and because they feel some duty to do so, pretty much the only way to stop them is to fight them from every direction, every step of the way. At that point, they're not interested in compromise because to them, any compromise is a violation of their duty to your well-being.
Give them an inch, or any opening at all, and they'll stretch it as far as they can because they honestly believe they're doing the right thing for you.
It's like dealing with politically active ideological Terminators. There's no bargaining or reasoning with them. They know what they know, they know you're wrong, they know what's best for you (you don't), and they have to do what's best for you by any means necessary.
It's nuts.
That's a big reason why I have a hard time "meeting in the middle" with supporters of Obama and his group; you definitely get the impression he thinks he knows what's best for everybody, and by gosh he's going to do anything he can to make sure it happens his way, and if you argue against him, well, heck, you're just damning the whole country by doing so. :poly142:
The real issue is the social problems these folks face. No accountability on the part of the parents, existing laws and rules not enforced or twisted to serve one group or another.
Which folks? The ones who commit the massacres? You need more details/examples of what you mean exactly.
That's a big reason why I have a hard time "meeting in the middle" with supporters of Obama and his group; you definitely get the impression he thinks he knows what's best for everybody, and by gosh he's going to do anything he can to make sure it happens his way, and if you argue against him, well, heck, you're just damning the whole country by doing so. :poly142:
doesnt every president think they know what is best for all the citizens of the country ?
and isnt that part of the job description to lead the country ?
also, going into a for/against Obama debate means u think it really matters who the president is. Bush took the country to war creating a majority of debt. Bush thought it was best for our country to invade Iraq with just for oil. so this discussion is pointless really. all presidents think they know the best. presidents are also just puppets of the millitary industrial complex, the oil companies and the banks so it is really pointless to talking about presidents.
Fantasizing is nice but a gun owner is not a potential revolutionary, at most you are a potential Ruby Ridge or Waco - the conservative drive to have a strong military kind of negates the "fighting tyranny" clause of gun ownership; unless we get invaded by weaponized paper targets.
I will gladly let you keep our guns if we cut 2/3 of the military budget and put it back to work into our terrible healthcare & education system.
I'd also like to add I grew up around guns and have fired guns ranging from black powder rifles to AR-15s and even a .454 Casull Taurus Raging Bull. This argument is about collectibles that are good for shooting paper targets, going on shooting sprees, or getting killed when your cult/militia is raided by the ATF. It's like owning a razor sharp replica movie sword, you aren't going to slay the dark lord with it.
Geez $10 mill., I'd be frothing at the mouth if I was an American citizen right about now.
First thing Obama has done that I think is really really stupid and pointless.
Let me ask you this, because nobody seems to be addressing it. The real gun problem in this country is the criminals with guns ...and I'm not referring to the law abiding citizens who have been made criminals by the introduction of back-room laws like what's happened in NY. What's going to be done about them? I sure as fuck don't feel safe in many parts of the bay area, especially since I know that the police are so understaffed they wont even bother talking to you if you're robbed. I'm not going to start walking around open carry (kind of a stupid idea in a heavily populated area), but I'd much rather have money and effort being put into rebuilding our police force (which has had cutback after cutback).
Another thought... "Blame video games"... if it's kids, they're not supposed to be playing violent games to begin with. If it's adults (who commit the crime), there's something else wrong with them to begin with if a game can incite them to violence.
"Blame guns"... in both kids and adults, if they're not taught to respect a gun and how to handle it properly, then they're just going to see it as another tool (or toy) and you've got a problem.
We can say all we want about "proper education" though, when the rules and laws are already in place (ESA ratings and gun laws), but if someone's messed up enough to want to do an act anyways, they're going to do it and they're going to find a way to do it. The school down the road from me had a guy just barely caught before he was going to go around throwing pipe bombs into classrooms. How are you going to stop that? Guns are targetted because, like games, they're a tangible item that people have made a living around.
This argument is about collectibles that are good for shooting paper targets, going on shooting sprees, or getting killed when your cult/militia is raided by the ATF. It's like owning a razor sharp replica movie sword, you aren't going to slay the dark lord with it.
Sooo, what's wrong with owning a razor sharp replica? You know how many gun-hating folks I've worked with before who had just that kind of thing in their cubicle? If I'd wanted to display my airsoft AR I would've had the cops called on me.
This argument is about collectibles that are good for shooting paper targets, going on shooting sprees, or getting killed when your cult/militia is raided by the ATF. It's like owning a razor sharp replica movie sword, you aren't going to slay the dark lord with it.
My wife - who is native American - would love to have a word with you about your implication that it is impossible and crazy to believe that one's government would ever become oppressive or violent towards the populace.
Practically the entire history of her people from the arrival of white settlers in North America until just very recently, within living memory in fact, is a sad testament to the opposite.
The 60-something partisanis in Mussolini's Italy who gave their lives to hide my grandfather from Waffen SS death squads after he was shot down might have a word to add to that.
Always remember that the long run (with a few ugly exceptions) we've had in America with a representational, constitutionally limited government that respects the rights of the individual, is a truly precious exception throughout history... so far. Nobody who has seriously studied history would regard it as something that can forever be taken for granted.
My wife - who is native American - would love to have a word with you about your implication that it is impossible and crazy to believe that one's government would never become oppressive or violent towards the populace.
what I'm saying is you aren't going to do shit against the trillion dollar army.
I guess I should be thankful that there's heavy regulation on machine gun ownership - you only see people getting pissy about that on the super hard core gun sites.
anyway I'm done, there's no real conversation - I saw how ballistic people went when Florida toyed with the idea of not letting schizophrenics own guns after that lady killed her son at the shooting range. Hopefully the issue will just tobacco itself out over time.
Replies
Interestingly our government here in Australia finally introduced an 18+ rating after years of the games industry and it's supporters saying violent or adult themed titles should be restricted.
We used to just ban them outright or laughingly lower the rating to 15+.
The thing which gets me in these debates is the responses on both sides are always so ridiculously binary to me. It's either 'ban it' or 'keep it the same', no one willing to give any ground...why?
just to clarify my stance, I'm a hypocrite...I love playing violent games, I was a child of the 80's so I grew up pretending to kill everything. lol :P
And apart from being a bit of an arrogant dick sometimes (often) I'm pretty well adjusted.
But if I put my big boy hat on and think objectively and honestly about the debate I do think there is room for all parties to do better.
I personally don't belief there is a link between violence (even in excess) and an increased likely hood of developing an urge to enact violence on others, I think that was in you already.
I do however think the prevalence, and more importantly the dishonest depiction of violence we have in our entertainment is unnecessary and desensitises us all to acts of violence in our society.
My mother will often tear up watching the news while I don't blink an eyelid at it, the massacre of children in the states recently was horrific but I wan't shocked one bit that it occurred, it is par for the course in the USA now.
You guys have people who regularly kill large groups of civilians with military grade weapons...Crazy? Hell yes, Shocking? Not any more...isn't that sad?
I'm not saying do away with violent video games, that's not feasible or even probably helpful but I think we as an industry could look at how we depict/use violence as a theme.
Observing violence can actually be a fantastic motivator for people to fight against it but only if:
(A): It is well made, good context and honest depiction of the pain it causes - making violence titillating degrades it.
(B): The intended viewer should have the mental tools to truly understand the context, i.e. not for the young or immature.
The entertainment industry could look at better self regulation of the presence/depiction of violence, misogyny and racism in titles and the people responsible for sales/distribution of the product (in particular parents) could better regulate the ease at which inappropriate content is dispersed.
I wouldn't exactly call the ESRB voluntary, its self regulation but definitely not voluntary when every console manufacture requires ESRB ratings for every game and refuse to have adult rated games.
this. There've been games which I really enjoyed on a gameplay level, but sometimes you really have to wonder if you sit back and just think of the message all the gameplay often involuntarily gets across.
While working in the industry I encountered a couple of strange stories and plots in the games I worked on that made me scratch my head as in "do you have to mention/depict that? Does that really add anything of value to your story?". Although the weirdest thing are still the quests in WoW where you're asked to torture some baddies. I mean wtf does a game like WoW gain from adding this theme? Sometimes it's like we're turning our brains off when adding blood, gore and violence to games and where the things we try to tell totally miss the mark. But this never makes it into any post mortems. It's always just "the particle system didn't" work, the "pipeline can be improved" but we rarely talk about the message the final product sends and how we can improve it.
I was thinking more in terms of web games and downloadable games from places like Steam, Desura, or straight from developer's own web sites, etc... rather than mainstream console titles.
I think such a move would certainly have a negative impact on gamejams. Imagine putting up a non-rated game for people to try out online then getting your whole site pulled down by something like a DMCA.
Hopefully my fears about this are just me worrying too much.
@Malus & Kwramm:
I totally agree with what you guys are saying.
No artist, game designer, writer, or musician has any "social responsibility" to protect audiences from ideas they might find distasteful.
Since when was this the agreed-on point, or responsibility, of video games or any art what-so-ever?
Let's not pretend the industry is all about the artistry and creative vision of an individual. It's an industry; it is fueled by profits. On the contrary this could be good incentive towards giving developers funding to try something new.
In terms of positive effects I can see coming from this, perhaps this will be an impetus for the industry to attempt producing major titles other than first person shooters.
At the very least these topics challenge designers to think about and challenge their design conventions, the context and value of violence in their games and how they can create an engaging experience with or without it.
Without pressure there is no change, so while the situation is not ideal, I can at least see some positive value in stirring the industry a bit.
I see no reason why the industry should change. if first person shooters is what people want then why not give it to them? The reason why major title developers are risk averse has nothing to do with social impact, it has to do with the risk associated with developing games with huge budgets. This doesn't put pressure on developers to make different games, it puts pressure on them to make the same games that are less gory.
Do you see the incongruity there? You're critiquing the trend of pressuring developers to create certain games and then following up with how it doesn't matter what developers want to make anyway.
It's hard to know what people want when there is only one thing available. As I said this will at least cause some dialogue to openly discuss the value of certain conventions.
I agree; in my own words I stated the industry is "fueled by profits", but a game with less violent emphasis has more value being discussed now than it did before any of this was immediately relevant. Even beyond that, these topics can still prove valuable to designers as a challenge to their own conventions, which would in fact be valuable for a designer even if it's not immediately obvious.
This is not merely a criticism of people inside the industry see other developers either but one that portrays the consumers that enjoy them as "lowest common denominators" as one gamasutra writer described them.
Fewer than 10% of the games released every year are rated M, 75%+ are rated E or 10+. These are not the only games available, some of these games are among the most popular games available because people buy them because it's what they want, not because they have no alternatives.
uh, it is definitely voluntary, because the difference we're drawing is between the industry volunteering to police itself versus the government censoring itself.
the ESRB, RIAA Explicit Lyrics stickers, and MPAA's ratings system are all voluntary ratings boards. They are not government enforceable (this is different than say, Australia's ratings board, which must rate everything released there).
Additionally, you can choose to not release a game under the ESRB's rating. However, the companies that own the principal delivery platforms (consoles), can choose to keep content that isn't rated off their system.
You don't have a right to release games on someone else's console. They're privately owned.
You DO have a right to release software to open platforms or publish/produce your own platforms, and the government can't block your release of DongWranglers 3: By the Scrape of My Scrote. But just because you want to release it on XBLA doesn't mean Microsoft has to allow it.
Adopt the ESRB into law, it makes sense but it won't stop there, which why it turns into an all or nothing struggle. If games get the regulation hammer then they get blamed for everything and restrictions get crazy. It will be congresses dumping ground for blame while they ignore any real problems.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-weighing-executive-action-guns-082740829--politics.html
Here it comes!
Nice to see that tool is looking out for our tax payer money and wanting to spend it wisely... TEN MILLION DOLLARS?! Yes, I know, proverbial drop in the bucket compared to other gov spending, doesn't change the fact that he just loves wasting cash.
Oh... and all the people going 'fuckin NRA' and 'fuckin video games'.... politicians sure do a great job of turning us against each other and avoiding the real issues, don't they?
You'll learn through experience that, sadly, this is really the only effective approach to prevent incrementalist encroachment and the slow metastasizing of more and more burdensome bureaucracy.
When somebody with power is misguidedly intent on doing what they think is best for you because they believe they know better than you do what "best for you" is, and because they feel some duty to do so, pretty much the only way to stop them is to fight them from every direction, every step of the way. At that point, they're not interested in compromise because to them, any compromise is a violation of their duty to your well-being.
Give them an inch, or any opening at all, and they'll stretch it as far as they can because they honestly believe they're doing the right thing for you.
It's like dealing with politically active ideological Terminators. There's no bargaining or reasoning with them. They know what they know, they know you're wrong, they know what's best for you (you don't), and they have to do what's best for you by any means necessary.
It's nuts.
I dunno, what if the study finds not much of a link? Would it be a waste then?
BTW What is the real issue?
The real issue is the social problems these folks face. No accountability on the part of the parents, existing laws and rules not enforced or twisted to serve one group or another. It's just a pass the buck system until something either tangible or easibly blamable (like the NRA and video game industry) is caught up in this mess.
Ask yourself this... who represented the game industry in Biden's bs little meeting? Anyone you know? Anyone you feel you could have had a meaningful discussion with, or at least been able to send a useful suggestion to?
As for the NRA, I'm not a member, and yah, I think the folks up top in that group are somewhat disconnected from reality, but it's one of the biggest groups around for protecting civilian rights to arms (regardless of the argument of what *type* of arms are in question). The bs aside, I'd feel more comfortable having a group like them represent me than I would most politicians, at least they're focused on arguing a point instead of closed-room politics like what just went down in New York.
You two are absolutely correct, self regulation is obviously better than a government review system (which wouldn't be legal in the united states anyway). The ESRB is pretty much exactly like the film rating system, you can draw parallels from consoles being like movie theatres being like consoles, most theatres (besides independent ones) refuse to show NC 17 rated movies. If you want to see a good critism of the MPAA rating system watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated. I'm not saying it's a bad system, but I'd rather games develop more as art and expression instead of being limited by ratings and being limited by console developers and stores.
For the ESRB and MPAA rating systems
-The system is not very transparent, and (if the ESRB is like the MPAA (I couldn't find anything on this) reviewers are 50 year olds with limited or no experience with movies/games.
-Extremely violent content is fine, but any sexual content is closely rated.
-Homosexual and heterosexual sexual situations are rated differently
-Male and female sexual depictions are rated differently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board#Controversy
I think it's awesome steam and indy devs don't worry having a ESRB rating. I also think it's interesting that these devs really don't care or worry about putting content warnings or suggested ages on these games. Of course steam does put in that fill in your age, but that's more of a internet regulation than game one.
That's a big reason why I have a hard time "meeting in the middle" with supporters of Obama and his group; you definitely get the impression he thinks he knows what's best for everybody, and by gosh he's going to do anything he can to make sure it happens his way, and if you argue against him, well, heck, you're just damning the whole country by doing so. :poly142:
Which folks? The ones who commit the massacres? You need more details/examples of what you mean exactly.
doesnt every president think they know what is best for all the citizens of the country ?
and isnt that part of the job description to lead the country ?
also, going into a for/against Obama debate means u think it really matters who the president is. Bush took the country to war creating a majority of debt. Bush thought it was best for our country to invade Iraq with just for oil. so this discussion is pointless really. all presidents think they know the best. presidents are also just puppets of the millitary industrial complex, the oil companies and the banks so it is really pointless to talking about presidents.
I will gladly let you keep our guns if we cut 2/3 of the military budget and put it back to work into our terrible healthcare & education system.
I'd also like to add I grew up around guns and have fired guns ranging from black powder rifles to AR-15s and even a .454 Casull Taurus Raging Bull. This argument is about collectibles that are good for shooting paper targets, going on shooting sprees, or getting killed when your cult/militia is raided by the ATF. It's like owning a razor sharp replica movie sword, you aren't going to slay the dark lord with it.
First thing Obama has done that I think is really really stupid and pointless.
"Blame guns"... in both kids and adults, if they're not taught to respect a gun and how to handle it properly, then they're just going to see it as another tool (or toy) and you've got a problem.
We can say all we want about "proper education" though, when the rules and laws are already in place (ESA ratings and gun laws), but if someone's messed up enough to want to do an act anyways, they're going to do it and they're going to find a way to do it. The school down the road from me had a guy just barely caught before he was going to go around throwing pipe bombs into classrooms. How are you going to stop that? Guns are targetted because, like games, they're a tangible item that people have made a living around.
Sooo, what's wrong with owning a razor sharp replica? You know how many gun-hating folks I've worked with before who had just that kind of thing in their cubicle? If I'd wanted to display my airsoft AR I would've had the cops called on me.
My wife - who is native American - would love to have a word with you about your implication that it is impossible and crazy to believe that one's government would ever become oppressive or violent towards the populace.
Practically the entire history of her people from the arrival of white settlers in North America until just very recently, within living memory in fact, is a sad testament to the opposite.
The 60-something partisanis in Mussolini's Italy who gave their lives to hide my grandfather from Waffen SS death squads after he was shot down might have a word to add to that.
Always remember that the long run (with a few ugly exceptions) we've had in America with a representational, constitutionally limited government that respects the rights of the individual, is a truly precious exception throughout history... so far. Nobody who has seriously studied history would regard it as something that can forever be taken for granted.
what I'm saying is you aren't going to do shit against the trillion dollar army.
I guess I should be thankful that there's heavy regulation on machine gun ownership - you only see people getting pissy about that on the super hard core gun sites.
anyway I'm done, there's no real conversation - I saw how ballistic people went when Florida toyed with the idea of not letting schizophrenics own guns after that lady killed her son at the shooting range. Hopefully the issue will just tobacco itself out over time.