Yeeeeeeaaaahhh! :clap: :dance: :foodndrink: :celebration:

Isn't that already a law in the rest of the country... or at least in New York? I can't buy M-rated games, here. My mom already buys the games for me... or is this law being discussed about banning minors from playing violent video games at all? Are we talking about M-rated games or violent games? Most games I can think of have violence, but are not always rated M... not even close. Also, I'm a minor and I do play M-rated games. I have for quite some time, now, although I cannot remember when I started, and I must also question the logic behind trying to ban violence, and only in video games, from being viewed by the vulnerable idiots the average advlt supporting this must mistake everyone below the age of 18 for.

That's how the BBFC started here, as an advisory body. Now they're a statutory body. It changes.


All they really do is ban the worst porm films. To date, only two games have been banned, and even they were released after alterations were made.

Here we aren't even talking about banning stuff. We'd just be forcing the industry to abide by their own rules.

I played Mortal Kombat when I was three so yeah I was introduced to violent video games as a young child. Thank god they aren't banned!

I'd also like to point out a quote from the article in the OP:


I dunno if it's accurate or not, but something to think about.

If selling M rated games to minor was banned then they wouldn't sell nearly as much.

Do ,you really believe that? R and X rated movies seem to sell pretty good even though minors can't just go to the theater and and say gimme a ticket, then watch the film.

No clue when or what my first T and M games were. Apparently, they did not make an impression on me.

Unless they desensitised you.

I don't see the need for this law when the ESRB does the exact same thing. I think there are some anti Video Game people out there who want stuff put on Game Cases similar to Music Cases that get the Label on it if it contains bad language. Also that same group of people, they hate the violence that is in video games and that assume that they are entitled to regulate it (Which is complete BS). It's basically censorship which is wrong and I hate to burst their bubble but when a game is rated M the Developer can put whatever he wants in the game, like for example Barney the Purple Dinosaur shooting Laser Beams out of his butt. If it's rated M why not.

No one under the age of 17 can buy COD Black Ops. The only way that they could get it is if a Parent, Older Sibling or friend who's over 17 could get it for them, which that problem gets solved by better parenting but good luck with that happening in the USA. I hope this gets struck down because we don't need this in the industry when the ESRB does a good job on the ratings for games.

It works like that here, and the sky hasn't fallen yet. All it really means is some extra stickers on your game box. You can still buy them, nothing is going to stop you.

This no longer would affect me, but it's still a ridiculous idea for a law. As for when I played my first M rated game, I was 8, and it was Duke Nukem 3D.

My first M rated game was Mortal Kombat or maybe it was a computer game, when I was 10 or under. Diablo was one game that could scare me when I was 13, and one that seemed more mature. Yay for proposal failing.

Germany rarely "bans" a title. There are only about a dozen games that are banned, four of them so old that they would pass today and would be open re-evaluation.

Bulletstorm and the new MK are not banned at all, though three iterations of MK are - those are among the old titles as described above. The only thing that might happen is that a game is put on The Index?, which forbids public marketing. It's still open for purchase given an age-check in stores. Heck, you can even buy banned games, as long as you do not plan to sell them again.

Why don't these concerned parents and whatnot just go through their kids' library of games and confiscate any that are rated too high for them? The politicians should concentrate on programs and commercials and meetings and blah blah with a view to raising awareness among parents as to the rating system and the content of 15+ to M rated games. (Although the ratings are patently obvious, some parents are patently stupidous.) That way parents can do their job, and the State is seen to be doing its. All this money wasted on legal shenanigans and crappy press for video games gets my goat, and the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Old people with no clue when it comes to modern technology, social networking, and video games need to... honestly, just grow the frack up, and learn a little something about it all (The State should employ people who know about it, yeah some younger generations can do the job, and need work, and we could all avoid this cruddy, childish, draconian blah blah. I'm tired. I forget words.) While we're about raising awareness, these parents should learn what it is to be parents before they drop kids and blame some outside influence on their own crappy parenting techniques. lol Games are no different from movies, and my parents did all right keeping me away from stuff that was obviously too mature (spattered with mindless, pointless gore) for me. Heh. Bless 'em. Why can't parents today do it? Idiots.

violent games arnt the issue
its parents WHO WONT BEAT THERE KID WHEN THEY DO SOMETHING STUPID

My first M rated game I believe was Turok for the N64. That was like 14 years ago, so I was somewhere around 11 years old.

Well since i was born before ESRB ratings I'd imagine I was about the same age when I picked up my first Teen rated game because that's around the same time I really started seeing rated games. I would gander it was probably Shadows of the Empire or King's Field II.

As far as the whole court case is concerned i am glad it failed. It's up to the parent to determine how their child is raised, what they are allowed and what they are not allowed. Any thing else (or in this case) is just mediocre parents trying to shrug off their responsibilities as a parent by pointing the blame finger at yet another controversial scape goat. Not to mention all the while shoving it down other people's throats in the process. My two cents.

That's a ridiculous quote, the rest of the world has these laws in place it's still profitable to sell games outside the US. It's basically saying that it's not worth selling alcohol because you might get fined for selling it to minors.

Also, it's not a proposal to ban anything, pretty much all it would do is make the ESRB's guidelines law. So what if you can easily get around it by getting your parents to buy it? The point is that under the law you would have to have your parents buy it, you couldn't have a 12 year old walking in and buying any game they want.


This is possibly the worst argument I hear, for one, it has nothing to do with parental responsibility, a parent can still buy a child a game if they choose, and for two, how does it shove anything down anyone's throats, advlts can still do whatever they want.

Ban the sales of headsets to minors.

Well I'll admit you got me on a technicality there and you got me good. But what I'm getting at is, things like ESRB ratings for instance aren't even necessary. They're just sort of a further proof that parents aren't just taking enough of an interest in their children lives as to what they are doing, playing, watching etc. and this whole thing just pushes the case even further. I'll be happy to elaborate further if you wish it. Though bare in mind it's just my opinion.



This kind of goes in hand with what I mentioned above, it's the parents responsibility to take interest and regulate as needed. You shouldn't have to have the government telling you what is what, you the parent needs to decide. Also I guess I'm just thinking more in general (Jack Thompson and other similar instances) in that these sorts of court cases (if they had won) can end up being gateway cases to further government regulation. Therefore things can end up being shoved down your throat. It's just my reasoning.

Local shops near me stock pormography as well as alcohol and cigarettes and the law is pretty clear on those things too. Where video game ratings are regulated in the UK they are covered by the BBFC. I'm not aware the the ESRB is legally binding in any way. That's more a suggestion that parents ignore, because when holding a 'game' they see only a 'game' and how bad can a 'game' be? lol The way the proposal was worded for the regulation in the States though, I got the impression that it made for a skewed rating system, essentially restricting the developers because it's uncertain what is what. Killing a monster as bad as killing a photo-realistic baby in a whole wheat bread sandwich? Well, is it? If the United States used its Motion Picture rating system I wouldn't see a problem with it.

But what the people coming up with this stuff tend to do is put video games in an entirely different category because of the interactive element. That players aren't passively watching but are actively engaged in the violence or six or whatever. lol In doing they barf up a bunch of pseudo studies and defecate on reason at the same time, because they invariably know so little about what they're talking about. I'm pretty sure I read a line in that article that said "... r a p i n g young girls..." in reference to video games? lol Pulled that directly out of his ring piece. What a twodge! (Incidentally if anyone can direct me at the game he's talking about... ahem... lol) But anyway, these people seem to think playing classic Doom is worse than watching Hostel Part II. Watching girls being cut to smitherings and tortured? Hey, its passive.

The spotlight should be on the parents. That some parents can watch a movie rated 18, or R, whatever, like Hostel, and understand that it was a bit heavy for their kids, is great. Why are some advlts seemingly incapable of seeing video games in the same way? They seriously need to pull their heads from out of their butts and wake up, and look at what their kids have access to. These are the same parents giving lil skidlets (kids) iPhones with full and unlimited internet access, with no parental locks, and media storage up the ass for all the porm downloads they could ever dream of searching for. Personally I think governments and politicians, video game publishers, and of course the spin spin media always jumping on hype stories instead of delivering the facts about the video game industry, and the content of video games - that these all need to work together to dispel the stinky, heavy fart-like stigma attached to video games. Shine a light on modern tech and make parents aware of the facts.

If Parent A is watching her favourite show on prime time TV and a commercial comes on, 50's style with a slick dude grinning from ear to ear, in a dark suit looking like a Man in Black *FLASH* - explaining that video games rated R are for advlts and not for children, that they have content similar to R rated movies, "Do you know what your son or daughter is playing?" She might blink away from her spazbox lights (TV) that have had her enthralled for the majority of her advlt life, away from her glittery sitcom for two minutes to open her sons bedroom door to the sound of, "Marcus GET DOWN! Holy [censored] EVERYBODY DOWN. *Ratatatat! BOOM!* It's the [censored] and they're coming right [censored] for us! How the [censored] did they [censored] know we were heading this [censored] way?" She might know enough to check her ignorance-o-meter and realise her's has been flashing red for the past five years of her son's life from being aged ten to fifteen. lol

All this supreme court hype that makes its way into the papers obviously isn't get the attention of the people that matter, and its directing attention away from outright, pants parenting. Ignorance is no excuse. For every complaint against video games, you see a barrel full of ignorance. The complaints are never backed up by cold hard facts. lol Year after year of the same old tripe, with the same old spin. Bad parents are being born everyday. So I guess its an inevitable cycle. I suppose in a few years all the gamers growing up on games will be having kids, and will be in positions of power and politics, and we can step out from under the cloud of total d ouche-ness when it comes to reacting to changing technology, and to technology we're scared of trying. Get away from this mindset that gaming technology and software is considered 'for kids' right across the board, and the next it's ruining children with its advlt themes. Take your pick current old generation types! advlts are playing video games, so you can now remove the stigma attached to it and do away with the mindset that it's 'for kids'. You can't have it both ways! Heh ha.

Anyway the new generations should cull the older generations. Like me. I guess. *stop changing and consolifying my RPGs you young ruffians! In my day... things were better, menu-driven, and there was more glorious text! And get off my damn lawn*

For those you saying you have no problem with this law, let me restate this:
If that law had gone through, video games would be the only other media, besides, pormography, that the government could restrict.

Think about that for a minute. Think very hard. Video games and pormography being restricted together. All other media, books, movies, paintings, pictures, and what have you, are considered art and can not be restricted and are protected by the first amendment as free speech.. If games had be able to be restricted like that, they would not be on the same level as all those other media. They would be on the level of porm. Smut. Not art. Not protected as free speech. Totally able to be regulated entirely by the government.

The implications for further laws and restrictions could have been disastrous for the video game industry. As that paper that was posted mentioned, it is not important what the government CLAIMS they will do or not do with a law and the responsibilities it gives them, but what they COULD do. The government could have done some very nasty things to the industry thanks to the fact that games would not be considered an art and would not be protected by the first amendment.

This.

Starcraft was the first M-rated game I played. That was before it got re-rated T.

As for my first M-rated game that didn't get re-rated, that would be Thief. Although my playing style was much more T-rated.

Edit: My first T-rated game was Warcraft II, although in an inversion of my first M-rated game, I played it before it got rated by ESRB. And afterwards too.