Yesterday, North Carolina Senator Julia Boseman proposed a video game bill designed to restrict the access of minors to violent video games. The bill, SB87, adds violent games to an existing statute which defines material harmful to minors. Similar to the recent Utah and Louisiana proposals, it seeks to define video game violence in the same terms used to restrict minors’ access to pornography. But what's especially irritating is that it applies to arcades as well as retail stores. So that red "Mild Violence" sticker on top of Mortal Kombat won't be enough any more; arcade games will actually get yanked if the bill passes.

Geez...the government never gives up when it comes to making video games boring. Anyways, you know that I'm making a game that pokes back at these stupid laws? What if it was the near future, where all violent video games are banned, and you (as a game developer) must fight for the freedom of us gamers?

Hope a situation like that doesn't happen in real life...

And this the 1,482,623rd attempt to pull such a thing, and thankfully it never works.

Aside from that, I have mixed feelings about the issue. I think it depends on the age of the player and the content of the game. "Violence" can be so varied that I fear a blanket policy would do more harm than good.

The problem with legislation such as this is that people have wildly different opinions on what is acceptable and what isn't, and it would be impossible to make a universal policy that satisfies parties on all sides. For example, I think it's perfectly ok for a 12 year old to play Doom, but I wouldn't be comfortable allowing a 6 year old to play GTA San Andreas. Others will feel differently. Regardless of any of that however, it is parental involvement, not government involvement, which should dictate who gets to play which games.

I've also noticed that a lot of times the politicians behind these movements wouldn't even be able to describe what Mortal Kombat is, or tell you the difference between an FPS and an RTS, rather this is just used as an emotional platform to drum up support and advocacy for one's own political career. Get a gamer in there that really knows his stuff, have him/her offer a proposal such as this, and we could see some real trouble. But not to worry, anyone that really knows games is not going to bother with such garbage.

Exactly.

I completely agree with Riamus about the parental control. But, its also the retail store employees responsibility for asking ID. I believe video games should be treated like cigarettes, if they don't 13, 18, or 21 then you should ask for ID. But, I guess in the end there will always online sites selling games without ID requirements so it really is an endless battle.

I'm not Riamus but that's ok.

If you think that games should be treated like cigarettes, then you should be behind this bill 100%.

Aside from that, depending upon a retail employee to keep these nasty games out of the hands of impressionable minds doesn't say much about your level of conviction on the matter.

Luckily for us, video games are not the first medium on which censors and political self-interest groups have attempted to advance their policies. Tipper Gore and the whole warning label thing helped to soften the blow against video games. That, and of course the trial for Judas Priest and their music which apparently drives people to kill or commit suicide. For gamers, we're fortunate that it was the music industry, not the gaming industry, that was the guinea pig for neo-conservative censorship. It failed miserably and taught a lesson to those barking up the wrong tree. I firmly believe that those failures and the accompanying embarrassment have kept controversial games on our shelves.

The public in general is not convinced that gaming is harmful. So long as that holds true, these politicians in question will be fighting an uphill battle, as they have been for a long time without result in their favor.

Another thing is that once you have government regulation, you have taxation. The government regulating age restrictions on products invariably results in taxes on the products they regulate. Look at alcohol, tobacco, a business charging sales tax, highway tax when you buy fuel... the list goes on.

Actually Comic Books were subjected to the same kind of censorship in trying to restrict depictions of "excess violence", nudity and foul language. Just like videogames, it was legislators who were thinking primarily that the medium was aimed or consumed primarily by children... and so should always be legislated down to something "suitable" for youth [new argument begins here...]. And as far as those controlling the game were concerned... it succeeded. Heavy censoring of U.S. comics went on for roughly 25 years. Looking back, many comic fans would look at this as the "death of the comic industry", the restrictions dilluting many interesting elements and outright destroying many established IP brands. Before placing the same kinds of restrictions on gaming, a lot of people on both sides of the issue should really look at the fallout from the comic books world and decide if the measures taken ultimately helped or harmed the people of that generation.

Brief summary available via Wikipedia article on Comics Code Authority.

The whole comic code authority wasn't a government entity nor was it regulated by the government. Membership with CCA is voluntary, and there are many successful series that do things the CCA "bans". Hellblazer and Sandman come to mind. This is an entirely different ball game.

Nowadays maybe, but remember that Vertigo didn't exist until the late 80's. Back in the day non CCA-compliant comics were treated as porn and basically banned from newsstands. The whole "voluntary membership" was really no choice at all for any company that tried to continue publishing. The CCA basically ended the life of countless horror/crime/etc. comics, and really cemented the superhero comics (to the joy/horror of many depending on whom you ask). Back on topic I'd say such a law having the same effect on today's world would be pretty difficult, but we shouldn't underestimate its effects to seriously change the landscape of the industry should it come to pass.

Public support makes the difference. Comics regulation had it at the time, video game regulation doesn't.

Besides, one was a private venture, the other is a government venture.

Maybe but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of scared grandmas ready to back the law. As for the CCA being a private venture you have to understand it was a self-imposed preemptive strike, the same "we regulate ourselves so you don't have to regulate us" thinking behind the ESRB (only in the case of the CCA, it worked) but it still would never have happened without government pressure.

I agree with you, but I wouldn't be comfortable with anyone playing the Grand Theft Auto games. Where Doom and Mortal Kombat are only rated M for violence and have you pitted against bad guys, Grand Theft Auto has you cold-bloodedly killing cops and innocent people, dealing drugs, having sex with hookers and killing them to get your money back, etc. It's really disturbing to know that a lot of kids play that kind of stuff, especially kids ages 10 and younger, since most of that particular age group doesn't know better than to not repeat the stuff that they see in movies and videogames.

An example to my point, which is to say there are too many differing opinions on the subject for a select group of people to make a blanket policy covering the issue.

If widely differing opinions prevented legislation, then I doubt there could be _any_ laws passed on _any_ subject. Many people will take the minority viewpoint, if only to be contrarian.

I love games and don't love censorship, but I have to wonder if a world without Mortal Kombat in public places would really be such a nightmarish scenario? As for the ID checking, most stores seem to do that already when you purchase with a credit card.

Besides, I've lived in North Carolina for six years now. There aren't many video game arcades here anymore anyway. Mortal Kombat machines can't disappear where they don't even exist...

Widely differing opinions can certainly prevent legislation when public support is needed, which is the case with this issue. Being that the public opinion is so varied, I don't see them getting that support. There are few advocacy groups that back such endeavors, and those that do are minority in nature themselves. This would also require support from other officials which barely exists. Those pushing for the laws are not generally supported by the public, or their colleagues.

What has prevented these laws from being passed? Lack of support, lack of foundation, lack of importance.

There could be lots of support for it, and these laws _still_ wouldn't pass, if the money (and thus the influence on politicians) is all on one side. I suspect that is the case with the games industry, which can surely outspend its critics.

Perhaps, in this case, that is a good thing.

having sex with hookers and killing them to get your money back

While I haven't played a lot of GTA series games, I must say that this is an oft-cited chestnut that falls way outside my brief experience of them. Did I miss it somewhere? If so, someone please set me straight. Beating up {pedestrians of various general types, including some that could be interpreted as streetwalkers} and collecting money from the bodies... that I saw. Selling sex? Hot coffee wouldn't have been a controversy if this was part of the standard gameplay. (And supposing that there are no special missions that specifically target hookers as victims, would it make sense to exclude them as viable targets in a world where everything on two legs is a potential punch-recipient? Why so much furor over beating hookers and so little about massacring Hare Krishnas? Better PR?)

Now, giving bonus points for running over a driver with his own former vehicle -- that's twistedly anti-social.

What it comes down to is many people feel that games are harmful and influence those who play them. Many others (including myself) think that games and books and movies and whatever else that is similar will not influence anyone who is taught right from wrong. Yes, right and wrong are different for different people. Morals are not always black and white. However, I'm sure the majority of parents would agree that doing drugs or murdering people is wrong. If *parents* take the time to raise their kids and teach them right from wrong, then the books/movies/games/etc will not influence them to do those things.

However, these days, parents are not doing that. They tend to let their kids run around and do whatever they want to. How many parents of this generation (let's say under age 35 or so) know what their kids do online? How many try to find out? How many are talking to their children on a daily basis about what they did in school, who their friends are, etc? The percent is dropping drastically in the US. And with the increased lack of support from parents, we are seeing increased crime and we are also seeing an increased number of kids who *are* influenced by books/movies/games/etc because they weren't taught what is right and wrong.

I can tell you that I play violent games often. I play the GTA series (though I don't play it all the time like some people because it's not my favorite genre). No game or book or movie has changed how I behave or influenced me into doing something I shouldn't do. I'm not immune to influences... I was just taught right from wrong. I know not to try the "bad" things that I see in those mediums in real life. Parents who teach their children these things can prevent such problems. Then, they just have to deal with peer pressure, which is MUCH more influencial than any game, book, or movie in a child's life.

I hate when that happens. Some of my friends were pressured into smoking, drinking, and/or doing drugs by some of their other friends. What I hate even more is when people view teens who fall victim to peer pressure as stupid, irresponsible people. I mean, I know that it should be up to the victim to decide whether he/she should do what their peers say. However, a lot of these people lack the "balls" to resist the peer pressure (they don't want to offend their friends), but they do have the "brains" to know that they're doing something wrong. In some ways, it's almost as if their friends are "controlling" them. It really depends from person to person, and how the friends pressured them (for instance, simply saying "Hey, you want a cigarette?" is much different from making threats like "I'll shoot you if you don't smoke with me"). Either way, someone who tries to force you into doing that stuff is not your friend, and is actually trying to hurt you. It's very sad, because a lot of these teens would have gone on to be really good people if not for alcohol/drugs/tobacco. This is the main reason why I want to join the DEA when I grow up.

Personally, I've never dealt with peer pressure before, since most of my friends are really nice to me. But when the time comes, since I have the "balls" to offend my friends if I need to, I feel that it'll be pretty easy for me to deal with peer pressure.

Let's hope you get drunk and stoned before doing something stupid.

Sometimes it's more than just having the guts to stand up to your friends, but I do agree with you.

That is the whole point, sirs. We have all have an opinion. Children mentally don't have an opinion. They just play. The problem is, if some idiot kid thinks because its alright to blow/shoot people up in a video, then its alright to do so in real life.

Though we think that's stupid. Apparently there has been several mention of this the news.

Personally I'm for that bill. Only because kids today are really that stupid.

But if we didn't have so many stupid parents today, then we wouldn't have so many stupid kids. Shouldn't there be a law that you must take parenting classes before you have kids? (Personally, I don't want to have kids when I grow up, because they're just too difficult to please when you can't give them everything they want...)

Having people be required to pass a parenting course before being allowed to have kids would be great. Too bad it will never happen. :)

As for kids being too hard to please if you "can't give them everything they want" ... you shouldn't *be* giving them everything they want. Parents who do that are spoiling their kids and those are the kids who tend to get into the most trouble and cause the most problems. When you know the value of things, you're more likely to respect them. If you have everything you want given to you, then nothing has any value to you and you're more likely to destroy something that isn't yours because you don't see any value in it.

The problem is, unfortunately, that if I don't give my child everything he/she wants, then he/she will get upset. We don't want kids to be upset, now do we?

If they don't grow up getting what they want all of the time, then you don't have as much of a problem except in the early years (where you have such problems regardless).

My opinion exactly. Today's kids are spoiled to the extreme. In the past, children were often beaten up and forbidden too many things; today, it's the other extreme. Children are taught to feel that they can have anything they want. Parents just give them what they ask for, without caring whether this thing is good for the child or not. My wife's nine-year-old nephew is a Counter-Strike expert. He came to our house and watched how I shoot zombies with decaying faces in "Half-Life 2". He wasn't shocked at all; he was used to this sight. I think this is terrible.

Times are changing, Oleg. Though from our perspective, it may sound bad. But our parents probably thought the same of us.

Personally I still get a knack of showing youngsters games that use ASCII characters. Kids today do not comprehend "games without graphics" are playable.

They'd probably shoot themselves if they played interactive fiction games...haha.

"You kids get off my lawn!!!!"

Idealistically, I would agree with you. Realistically, stupid parents that have stupid children probably had centuries of bad lineage, but we really can't blame Adam and Eve for being stupid. :p

*warning entering philosophical discussion*

But hey, do most parents have a good reason for having children. Most of them don't, at least not to me they aren't. Here some of the reasons to why people have children, where I come from:

I want someone to carry my family name;

Because that's what your supposed to do when your getting married;

My parents want grandchildren;

I just want children;

etc....

Come to think of it, kinda selfish (and stupid) most of the reason to bring life aka children into this world, eh? I have yet to think of a "noble" concept of bringing life to this world. I used to be one of the above, until I thought about the seriousness of the matter.

My best reason to have children is because of the paternal instinct is begging me to have children...very irritating. Personally, I'd prefer not to.

The best reason I've heard from a person is "I really don't know, it just happened". Not much of an answer, but its an honest one.

By the same token, most of the other "good" stuff we do also has a selfish motive, either in part or in full. Have you never done a favor for a friend so you could get into their good books and make yourself look good? My thinking is that if you raise a child correctly and are a good parent it doesn't matter what your motive was for having a child.

I understand and agree. Though I'm still fixated on why people really want children in the first place, besides our biological genes dictating us to breed.

Lol. I love kids. They are a lot of fun to horse around with. Of course, I'm like a big kid myself and love to have fun. Babies bug me just because of the crying, but otherwise, I've found few kids that I didn't like (up to about age 14). After that, you never know. :)

Same here :) Kids and cats are two things that never bore me ;)

That said, I like boys only up to age 5 or so. After that, they become so stupidly boyish that I can't stand them. And the problem is that they remain so until they are about 70...

That explains your overfixation with girls! Your a "Dudeophobic!"

LOL, I've never heard a more fine and precise definition of myself!

ehh.... WTF??

I mean, I can't stand this whole "boyish" aspect in men. You know, showing off, being hyperactive and rude, not listening, thinking "Doom" is a great game... ;) Problem is, most men, especially those who do creative work, never grow up.

You are saying some disturbingly homo-erotic Michael Jackson stuff there dude...

Heh. Unless my biological clock gets the better of me (and it ticks really loud lately), I think I'll prevent myself from having children. I think I love my children too much for them to grow up in to a #!%!#%! like me.

To put a cynical light on it, why do we create ANYthing? Because we think we can do it the best!

We think OUR children will be the smartest and kindest and greatest at everything...

(Hey, I still think so!)