I figured this would be a good topic to start a debate over.

In light of the slew of high school shooting incidents (yes, they're still happenning) Many members of Congress have started a witch-hunt aimed specifically at Videogames.

So to start the discussion, How do the members of this forum feel about the topic. Do you agree or disagree with the actions taken by members of congress. And, Are there certain games out there that could justify these accusations?

Feel free to post any and all thoughts on the topic.

------------------
http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/select/2000/28/img/select_one.jpg)

I think that a big part depends on the nature of the person, for example, if a person has quite a violent nature, playing violent games could only awaken the violence that's inside that person. (good thing that there aren't that many people with a violent nature).
And even if that's the case, I personally think that everybody should be able to control their rage. I know what I'm talking, I'm a Diabettic, and when bloodsugar levels are low, I tend to get angry more quickly then usual(so I'll also hit people more quickly), but I've learned to remain calm even under the worst surcumstances.
So the point is: Violent games, great, but keep reality and virtuallity apart, and ALLWAYS remain calm.

i think the government is wrong about accusing video games for the shootings. its not like the games control human behavior.

------------------
http://pages.hotbot.com/sf/sithmaul/images/duel3.gif) "So your name is Bob huh. Whats your last name? Up and down in the water?" -Tony Clifton

Well to a certain extent it is justified.

When the Columbine incident took place, A video diary belonging to the assailants made a specific reference to a videogame. The game was Doom to those of you who didn't know.

Since then however, the aim has spread to every type of game out there. And it has been done on an indiscriminate basis. So even games series like Star Wars and FF have most likely been targeted as well. This is where I think the line should be drawn.

There is a dramatic and distinct difference between games like FF or Crash: Warped and games like Thrill Kill (which was never released due to its graphic and pointless display of violence & uproar in government) Resident Evil Series, or Doom style First person Shooters (Half Life, Quake, etc.) I'm not saying those games are in any way bad or influencing teens to murder. In fact, I play most of them regularly, With the exception being Thrill Kill because its Games like this that give the industry a bad rep.

All in all I don't belive that videogames in any way influence teens to murder their peers.

I must say that I strongly believe that reasons for Columbine & other incidents have to do with family life. I think it depends greatly on a child's upbringing and the parents teachings and disiplines. I also believe that if shootings do occur, the parents should take some responsibilty as well. Whether it be because they were not actively involved in the child's day to day life, or perhaps because they never took the time to really know what their child was thinking, or the lack of disipline, access to firearms, etc. I belive all of these factor into the scheme of things. Whereas videogames play a very minor part at best ( like if a young child shot his/her sibling beacuse he saw it in the videogame.) Even in that scenario the blame goes back around to parents for 1) Letting their children play games not intended for them. 2) Not teaching them the difference between reality and make-believe.

In any instance, I believe the balme is not and should not be placed on developers or the games they make. The industry has grown. Games aren't for just for kids anymore. There is a rating system to reinforce this even though very few VG retailers enforce the rating system (which could also contribute to the scrutiny of developers by government and the problem in general.)

Either way, the situation is clearly a modern day Witch-Hunt, filled with finger pointing hypocrits looking to blame someone for what are clearly loopholes in their own perfect visions for society.

the13thJedi

Btw, I am hoping to hear from as many members on this board as possible. I am very interested to hear the opinions of others.

------------------
http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/select/2000/28/img/select_one.jpg)

I haven't heard about anything like this.
I've played Blood, Quake, and Half-Life(all of which belong to a friend of mine) and I'm not going to go out and actually shoot someone because I've played them.
Also, about really bloody games, I don't like 'em. I think that 1) it's sick and 2) all it does is slow down the game's running speed.
The "highest" rating on any game I own is Teen.


------------------
Feel free to visit my Fan Site:
Mark-enobi's Site (http://fan.starwars.com/MarkenobisSite/HomeScreen.html)

Personally, I think over the top violence in games is just funny. Ok, call me sick if you want, but the fact of the matter is that I can distinguish between a videogame and real life.
The same can be said of gory movies.
The way I see it, if a person cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not, they are a threat to society.
Maybe that's where these shooting arose from - maybe the killers believed so strongly in their games/movie violence, that they saw it as real, and ok to do.
I do not support their actions - hell, I'm way against it.
It bothers me how the media immediately targets computer and videogames as the source of violence - one newspaper here in the UK even had the audacity to title a story "Nintendo killed my Son."
Didn't they stop and look at all the violence shown on TV? Not just the fictional stuff, but all the violence around the world being shown on prime-time TV, when kids are watching.
You know what started a lot of wars? Religion. I'm in no way slamming it - I'm just saying that some wars stemmed from two opposing religious beliefs. I can't name any off the top of my head, but I'm sure history points to it.

[To all: This is in no-way a flame to anyone, no matter their belief/creed/colour - it is simply my opinion, and is not to be taken personally]

------------------
www.thereckoning.co.uk) (http://www.thereckoning.co.uk) - My Personal Starcruiser.

I agree with Markenobi. There are some people who enjoy games where your goal is to rip out as many intestines as possible; fine. That's their decision, I'm not here to stop them. Just shows what type of people they are.

Star Wars games simply show someone being killed with a couple of shots from a blaster. They just fall backwards, or slump over, whatever. How people can compare that to something like a man having his head ripped off, I don't know.

Video Games incouraging violence? That's what certificates are for.

------------------
http://sweeet.com/newpics/darthmaulprv.gif) (http://sweeet.com/cgi-bin/sweeetview.cgi?picname=darthmaul&size=6x4)
Dave Maul

"violent" video games are a slight misnomer.. I mean MOST games are violent in some aspect.

Sports games, driving games, shooters, fighting games, etc.

The only exceptions could be some adventure games, and puzzle games. Most games involve some kind of fighting or conflict.

It's the same deal with movies, TV shows, etc. Most of them involve some kind of conflict or fight of some sort. Somebody gets hurt, even if it's "for comedy purposes."

As to whether or not violent games (let's say we're talking about games loaded with gratituous violence, gore, profanity, etc) CAUSE real life violence.

I don't think anybody but a person who was insane (who had trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality) would kill BECAUSE of playing a game.

Certainly some people become more aggressive after playing really violent games, but it obviously depends on the person.

Many people play alot of very violent games, and yet they don't commit crimes, and they don't have mental problems.

Violent games have been with us for years (the first video games released to the public were violent.. the 'Space War' type games were all about blowing up the other person's ship before they blew up your's).

Some people have tried to show statistics that show rising crime rates are related to increased violence in video games.

However, similarity does not prove casuality.

Alot of things, according to sociologists, contribute to violence in society:

social tension based on age, sex, language, cultural, religious, political barriers between people; poverty, low wages, competition in the workplace, pollution, expectations of society putting pressure on individuals, job stress, drug abuse, personal crises, etc.

If a person assumes that if you play a game, you give up your free will and become a zombie, who is then coerheced into commiting violent acts after getting up from the screen and setting down the keyboard or joystick, is ridiculous.

I play alot of games that would be considered extermely violent. I don't play ALL the violent games, but I play quite a few, now that I think about it.

I haven't been in a fist fight since grade school (and back then I didn't play many video games, the ones I did play were the "pac-man" variety mainly). I've never been arrested, etc. I'm not in a gang, etc.

When people point the finger at some criminal, they often say: let's see what he did in his life.. and let's try to figure out what made him do such a thing.

But to say that that one thing CAUSED him to commit the crime doesn't add up.

Let's take a look at the Columbine killers.

Supposedly they played Doom alot, and made some doom levels. Okay, I have done that too.

They listened to Marilyn Manson and other "hardcore" music. Gee, so have I.

They wore black. Hey, I like that color and I wear it too.

And yet, with all those similarities, I haven't killed anyone, nor am I making pipe-bombs to blow up my school.

Here's how I see the whole situation:

If people want to make laws restricting kids (under 13 or under 18) from playing CERTAIN GAMES because of ultra-violent or sexual content. THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. They already do that with movies and magazines, and I think there's certain things kids shouldn't have to deal with until they are older and more mature. Parents have the right to educated their kids about these things themselves, etc. etc. I don't think it's cool to show five year olds X-rated movies or let them play Soldier of Fortune with the gore settings turned on.

I think game companies realize that most gamers are younger or are offended by gore. Much of the violence in games that gets publicity only encourages them. It sends the message that violence in games makes more money. Thus if people don't want to encouarge them, they shouldn't make such a big deal about it.

Game ratings are good. I like to know what I'm playing before I play it. If there's going to be sex or gore in this game, I want to know beforehand, before I let my little son or daughter play it with me, etc.

Do I think we should ban violent video games? No. There's no reason to. Just like there's no reason to ban violent movies or books. If you dont' like it, don't buy it. If you dont want your kids getting it, don't let them get it. Ratings and making laws restricting what young minors can buy for entertainment purposes aren't very radical, and I have no problem with them. It helps the parents have more control in upbringing their children.

The violence in games can be exciting, just as watching a care-chase or fist fight in a movie can be exciting. However, it's not the reason it's fun. There are games that lack these things that are still very fun and challenging. It's like art. Art can have stuff in it that's intense, and still have a message and be enjoyable. The same goes for games.

That's my 50 cents. ; )

Kurgan

to quote Chris Rock on this subject: "Whatever happened to crazy? Whats the matter, you can't be crazy no more?"
has it ever occured to anyone that these kids could've been totally nuts?
The people who need to take the most responsibility for these kids shooting others are the PARENTS. The parents are the people who are supposed to prevent these events from happening. Parents don't have to buy their children video games that are violent. They are the people who have the most power over what their children watch and hear, not the government.

uh oh guys, i think i'll go and legally change my name to kyle katarn. im going to go find a robot that will give me a lightsaber, and im going to kill everyone on the earth that has the name jarec. honnestly folks, the government is pointing fingers because they cant think right.

------------------
http://pages.hotbot.com/sf/sithmaul/images/duel3.gif) "kank you vedy much." - Vlodka

[This message has been edited by obi-wan13 (edited July 31, 2000).]

Even though I'm not an American, I feel very strongly about this. You guys have made some excellent points.

If they ban videogames, what's next? Movies? Cartoons? Comic Books? What if they suddenly decide that Casper isn't such a friendly ghost after all? Please. Banning games is NOT the answer.

In fact, can someone name one game where you specifically have to enter a high-school, walk into a classroom and shoot as many people as possible? The only game I can think of is Silent Hill, where you have to kill all the Child Zombies. But that's it. Most of the other 'violent' games don't even come close, so how can they be at fault?

------------------
http://sweeet.com/newpics/darthmaulprv.gif) (http://sweeet.com/cgi-bin/sweeetview.cgi?picname=darthmaul&size=6x4)
Dave Maul

Actually somebody did make a freeware Flash game where you enter a high school with the express purpose of killing. It's in pretty poor taste, coming out right after the Columbine killings.

HOWEVER, even then, in this game you are one of the victims. Ie: something similar to columbine happens, and you're in the middle of it. Some gangsters go crazy and start shooting people, so you go under cover, you find some weapons and you have to go kill them. Violent yes.. but you're still the "good guy." It's a pretty offensive game though, considering the events that have happened.

There are some pretty screwed up games out there, but there's also some pretty screwed up people. I can read a Stephan King novel, watch an R-rated movie, and play Mortal Kombat Trilogy.. and guess what? I'm still a perfectly-sane, non-violent person. I know millions of people CAN handle such things responsibly.. it's not like we're dealing with alcohol here. Some probably can't, but these people generally have many other problems as well.

From an early age, children should be taught that what's on the screen is the realm of fantasy, and what's off the screen is the realm of reality (generally speaking anyhow). Kids also need to be taught the golden rule. After that, any normal person can see the difference.

Kurgan

The only game I can think of that has someones head ripped off is Turok 2 but you blow the heads and some limbs off of mutated dinosaurs that are trying to kill you in every possible way.I see no resemblence to a creature that lives in another dimension to a human being.
In TPM the only blood I saw was the fakest ever.Only when you were getting stabbed by Gungans and thugs did blood ever show.

A game is a game...

------------------
Mission Accepted...
http://gundamwing55.homestead.com/files/Deathscythe-Mega_Slash.gif)

I do not think that violent games make people violent. However, violent people will be attracted to violent games.

It's like ganster rap. If someone listens to it they aren't going to be brainwashed into becoming a gang member. But someone who is already a gangmember will most likely listen to gansta rap. See the trend emerging? How many G's do you know that low ride and bass Micheal Bolton while looking for someone to cap?

Games come with a rating now and as far as I am concerned, that is good enough. Now it is up to the parents to monitor what their kids are playing. If they buy a 17+ rating game for their 11 year old child to play, that is their responsibility not the gaming industry.
If in the future that 11 year old gets a gun and goes on a shooting spree; the media shouldn't do a report on the violent games the child owned, but a story on why the parent knowingly bought that child violent games, violent music, ect.

The parents have the greatest level of control in these situations(besides the offender). And need to excercise it as long as the kids are living in their house. Look at the Columbine shooters, they were making bombs in their parents garage!!!! Don't tell me they were doing this behind their parents backs. They either knew about it and thought it was no big deal or willingly turned a blind eye to it.


[This message has been edited by Orbvs_Terrarvm (edited August 01, 2000).]

gee what a hard topic, it depends on how much you play those types of games, i usually play like one different game a week or less, i think the more hards games, like PLATFORM games that AREn't violent would make you even more violent, Super Mario 64 for example, it's not at all violent but you can get ticked off very easily, like when you want retardio to jump onto a platform and he overjumps it, and you start chanting "my brain is dead" to the music in the big small level. But if someone comes in the moment you are having a hard time you think very evil thoughts for them having messed up your gameplay. Violent games you're just taking out your anger on the enemies, and then when someone comes in the room when you're getting killed you could say, ALRIGHT MAN! that is so awesome, look i'm dying! OR you could say, hey wanna do a multiplayer? And you're using more strategy in those types of games instead of saying "how in earth do i jump from here to there without falling it's impossible, and you go to jump and you make it, but then you see another place you gotta jump and then you fall (because your hand is all sweaty from the last jump and your hand slips and someone walks in your room (the cat for instancE) and you get up slam your controller down, run up to the screen and screem and punch it and then shut it down the wrong way (so it deletes everything and makes you even more ticked) and then you go after the cat and pick it up by the scruff and get grounded from the game and then you are very very very mad and you can't contain your anger and you go to...the dark side for probably a few hours and think evil thoughts about the thing that caused you to get grounded in the first place. And if you don't like violent games 'cause they got blood and stuff in it, you could always turn the blood off. it looks like paint to me, well the cerebral bore is something else-it squirts brain juie out of the victim. (this is stuff in the turok games).

So there you got it. After you take out your anger in the violent games you will be happy the rest of the day even if you have to do the dishes, 'cause you could plan the next thing you're going to do in that level and won't be harming any real lifeforms. If you think hard about it violent games are just computer animations and not as violent as some stuff in some movies.

ad it also depends on what type of atmoshpere you grew up in, i grew up around a Bible training center (actually it was called pinecrest bible training center) and i'm a christian, but i can play violent games without wanting to go kill the mailman for not delivering my "the making of star wars episode 1" book that i ordered about 2 months ago and still it hasn't come yet. I actually get more friendlier when i play violent games, like after i play for a while on Turok Rage Wars i go do the dishes, and since i'm glad i showed those bots who's boss i get the dishes done even faster!!! IF you're a violent person and you can't get off the games (or you can't control when you want to stop playing that day, like if you totally skip lunch for the game) and your mom (or dad) finally comes in to make you turn it off and do the dishes, you'll want to break all the dishes because you're mad that you were kicked off your game, then you need to take a month away from the violent games. It's like totally worth it, you'll be a little more happier and so will everyone else. I like totally agree with Kurgan and Pedro the Hutt. In most games you can turn off the gore options making the game easier (like in turok 2 on level 2 where the zombies come out, they don't throw their guts at you). I also believe if you just quit playing when you feel very mad at a game and go back to it later, usually when you quit the game and are still amd you should either take a nap, go outside and get some fresh air, get something to eat (this helps with headaches), or do some chores.

Gee, Thanks http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)


------------------
No!
I am your father.

if videogames influenced real life shootings, they would be too inaccurate and laggy.

Well, if violent games begat violence then the release of John Romero's Daikatana was the ultimate act of violence against innocent people in the gaming industry! http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/tongue.gif)

Like most other topics like this one started here, (i.e.the CHURCH and Atheist Abortion Debatethreads) the subject matter is sensitive and depends how you look at it.

Personally, I dont believe that a violent vidio game would make someone with a sound mind and a strong grasp of realityGo out and murder or commit other illegal acts. I stressed "with a sound mind and strong grasp of reality" because, of course, this is the excepton.

I know first hand that violent (or even non-violent) video games can a direct effect on the behavior in mentally handicaped people.

I draw this conclusion from 12 years of watching my little brother react in different ways to different violence factors in video games. You see, my brother was diagnosed with autism and obsessive compulsive disorder shortly after birth.

For those of you who are not familar with these two disablities, obsessive compulsive disorder (O.C.D.) is a handicap that forces the sufferer to uncontrollably repeat certain tasks such as pick at things, or, in my brother's case, tap thier fingers and repeat themselves several times. Autism can best be described by the movie "Whats Eating Gilbet Grape?" In that movie, the role portrayed by Lienardo DeCaprio can best personify the effects autism has on a person.

Anyway, I've noticed in watching him that as a game gets more violent, so does my brother. In fact, I can recall a time in which there was a time in a game where you could throw knives in order to kill enemies. After playing this game, my brother thought that it would be a good ide to try this out at home. Thank GOD nobody was hurt. Needless to say, the game was taken away from him promptly. I another example, a game that had swearing in it had to be revoked de to the fact that mant times after playing the game, my brother would walk around the house mimicing the profanity in the game.

Now, on the other hand, me, and most everyone i know, played through this game several times without the faintest urge to swear or throw a knife at someone.

This proves my point, as well as what others have stated here: The effect that a violent video game has on a person depends entirely on how sound the person's mind is, and thier grasp of what is real, and what is not.

It is wrong for congress to point the finger at the video game industry for violence in schools. Yes, the Columbine killers did make refrences to certain violent games in thier journals, but those kids obviously had problems. They were relentlessly teased in school by their peers. I believe that this is the reason that they went on that shooting spree last year. The government should stop trying to point the finger and start trying to get better consoling for other kids who have the same problems as Thomas and Clebold did. Untill that happens, the violence will continue to get worse, i just hope it gets better soon, so i dont have to raise my children in a world full of hate and misunderstanding.

------------------
http://sd02.znet.com/kr2/Margarete/BTEA/BTEA1/Originals/BTEA01.jpg)

<font color = "blue"> "Be excelent to each other." </font>

The Un-Council's Disgruntled Bounty Hunter
-Calypso

[This message has been edited by Jedi Calypso (edited August 02, 2000).]

Garidan brought up a good point.

I find that when I play a "cartoony" kids type of game (like OddWorld or Crash,) I'm more easily upset than if I'm playing a game like Medal of Honor, or Half-Life. I think this happens because games like Crash are just considered easier by default.

In fact, I can remember specific times where I would get upset to the point of breaking my controller or something else, because I would get so frustrated while playing one of these games. Whereas if I'm playing a super-violent-Shoot-'em-up I don't get angry at all. I think games where there is a lot of violence may sort of be my way of venting surpressed anxieties.

I also can relate to what he says about thinking "evil" thoughts about someone for either walking in front of the television, or talking to me while I was at a crucial point in the game I happened to be playing. Some years back, this was a major problem with me. So much so that I had to stop playing Videogames for a while.

After my hiatus, I had calmed down quite considerably and haven't had a problem like that since.

I tend to think that the IS a certain type of Violence linked with Videogames, but I don't for one second believe that it streches nearly as far as murdering your peers. The Violence I'm thinking of tends to be symptoms like both Garindan and I described (Things like throwing your controller, or flippin' out because someone interrupted your game.)

So, Once again, I do believe that there is a certain violence in VGs, but I think that attacking all games in general is innaccurate as well as irresponsible.

If a couple of kids decide to shoot up a school full of their peers, don't place the blame on their games, blame it on other factors that are ultimately more important. Things like their surroundings, the beliefs that their parents taught them (if any), and most importantly, the parents themselves.

I belive that if a parent isn't willing enough to play an active part in their child's life, then they should be prepared to deal with the reprecussions of their ignorance and neglect.

I have always believed that a child grows up watching his/her parents behavioral patterns and uses that as a blueprint for how his/her life will be. If the parent sets a good example, the child will be okay for the most part (except in a few cases where there are other factors involved). But, if a parent isn't setting the right examples, the child will grow up with misplaced values and a general misconception of right and wrong from the start (except, like before, for a few rare exceptions.)

the13thJedi




------------------
http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/select/2000/28/img/select_one.jpg)

I can only half agree with you there.

Yes, I agree that a child's parents play an important role in the upbringing of a child, they should know what their child is going through, set a good example for them, ect.

However, when a child is put in a scenario that treats them with nothing but hate, disrespect, and misunderstanding day afrter day for a long time, it is only natual for the child to want to want to lash out in a violent way.

Remember: I am not condoning shooting, or in any other other way hurting anyone

I am just simply saying that that is the natural reation. However much anyone will deny it, this is the basic human response to certain situations.

The blame cannot be put simply in one place. Several elements must be consdiered when thinking about this, the parents of the child only being one.

All in all, administration at the school should have recognised the problems the child was having and taken steps to rectify them.

I agree that perhaps the parents should see that something was wrong, and talked to the child about what was going on, if nessesary, even seek consoling services.

So as i said before, it really depends on how you view the situation.

to each other.

GOD bless,
-Calypso

Calypso,

I agree that in negative situations, children/kids can become violent in nature.

But, like I said, there are a very few instances where a child could be raised in an environment such as that and still turn out for the better.

I know because I've witnessed it. And said person has quite a good life going for him.

the13thJedi

------------------
http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/select/2000/28/img/select_one.jpg)

Well, I've found that there are two types of "violent" FPS-type games.

Some games are like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D, and the like. They are violent and gory to the point of glorifying it. There's little strategy besides charging in and wreaking as much havok as possible.

The other group is made up of games like Jedi Knight, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, and so on. These games use violence as a tool. The games treat violence realistically (not necessarily in graphics terms, but the enemies rarely leap right out at you), and the focus is on stealth and/or puzzle-solving. These games take style and skill.

Personally, I prefer the latter. I've actually learned an important lesson from JK: any time you get into a fight, there's a chance you could lose. Pride aside, I've had my ass blasted by stormtroopers enough that I'll tend to avoid and sneak past them if at all possible.

It all comes back to the fact that Humans as a species are violent and savage by nature, and will use any excuse to fight, even if they don't have a reason. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/frown.gif)

------------------
"The Beasts know much that we do not." -Ancient Jedi proverb

What about childrens nursery ryhmes?

1 Humpty Dumpty broke into pieces and no one could fix him.

2. Jack and Jill fell off of a hill and broke their crowns.

3. Red Riding Hodd was eaten by a wolf.

4. The rock a by baby fell out of the tree.

5. The gingerbread man was eaten by a fox.

6. Liss Miss Tuffet was scared by a spider.

7. Goldey Lox was scared by bears.


It is a wonder we all didn't sommit suicide when we were in kindergarten!

13th Jedi:

I see what you mean, I have no way to explain that, other than that some people have a stronger mind thn others.

By the way, happy to hear that eveything worked out for your "said person"

GOD bless,

-Calypso

<marquee align = "center"> <font color = "#38B0DE"> <font size = "5"> "Be Exclent To Each Other." </font> </font> </marquee>

Look at games like Perfect Dark. For one thing, it's a made up, but excellent, game. You gotta get the enemy before the enemy gets you. How in the world does congress think games like this causes school shootings, when the characters aren't real?

Originally posted by Darth Prime:
Look at games like Perfect Dark. For one thing, it's a made up, but excellent, game. You gotta get the enemy before the enemy gets you. How in the world does congress think games like this causes school shootings, when the characters aren't real?

That game has some very lifelike violence from the get-go.

If you noticed at the very beginning, if you felt like it you could just trun around and murder your partner.

The thing about that is, when I first tried it. I noticed that after I shot the partner, her blood was on the wall behind her.

Now, I think Perfect Dark is an excellent game, But that was a little too-much.

I know right now your saying "Well then don't do it" But it isn't that simple. Considering the game comes from a renowned publisher w/ many people already owning Goldeneye (including young kids), its almost certain to say that many parents will rush out to buy this game for their kids. This is where the responsibilty is placed in the hands of the vendors.

Sale of Tobacco to minors is illegal.

Sale of Alcohol to minors is illegal.

Sale of Pornography to minors is illegal.

These are all crimes punishable by law. The repricussions include heavy fines, revoking a dealers license, and in some cases, shutting down the business altogether.

Purchasing any of these products for a minor is also illegal. The punishment for that is heavy fines and up to 1 year in jail.

Now, if a game store sells a game with an "M" rating to a customer under the age of 17, WHY isn't that store fined?

If a parent buys a game with an "M" rating to give to their child, also a under the age of 17, WHY are they not fined or jailed?

This doesn't make sense to me.

The Video Game rating system was incorporated to keep unsuitable or mature material out of the hands of those too young to play it or understand its content fully. Yet, it still is not being enforced by either the government, the retailers, or the people who created it. Why?

I'm sure there are a few places that enforce the system, but they are very few.

If creating the VG rating system was so important in the first place, why then is it not important that it be enforced?

This is where we find more at fault.

The Government, Parents, Retailers, and certain Publishers pushed for the system to be created. By setting up a rating system or age requirement, all of the above were taking a step in keeping improper material out of improper hands.

That sounds good on paper.

Apparently its Okay to just walk away. So in the event that something like Columbine happens, instead of accepting blame for themselves, they point the finger at each other, Claiming they all did their good deed.

But, if they just walk away with no intentions of enforcing their own laws, are they not to blame?

What the industry needs to do is prioritize the enforcements of the rating system. So that NO ONE who is not old enough to purchase or play a game with the "T" or "M" ratings gets their hands on them. This includes parents purchasing games for their children.

The way to do this is start pushing SERIOUS penalties on those who do not obey the system. That will set the example, and eventually the occurences of under-age sales will decrease.

I know it may sound a little extreme, but if there are penalties for adult materials of other forms, why not for VideoGames?

When everyone realizes that VGs aren'y just for kids anymore, then maybe we'll get somewhere. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

Thats my 2 cents on the rating system.

the13thJedi


------------------
http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/select/2000/28/img/select_one.jpg)

[This message has been edited by the13thJedi (edited August 10, 2000).]

look at cartoons. and movies(particularly scream and bond)

------------------
http://andykaufman.jvlnet.com/tonyc.jpg) "Ahh Taxi laxi. Just the faxi,maxi." - Tony Clifton from Man On The Moon

13thJedi,
Very cool, man, that is a very interesting poin, i never even thought of that.

GOD Bless,
-Calypso


[This message has been edited by Jedi Calypso (edited August 08, 2000).]

Here is my take. Personally, Quake 3 is one of my favorite games to date. Sole objective: kill the other guy as much as possible, hopefully more than he kills you. For any of you who haven't played it yet, it isn't like any other FPS. Your enemies are just like you in the sense that they have an equal share in items and weapons, and are just as human as you when you play online. Now, it is a shooting game, and therefore your only means to kill the other person is to shoot them with guns. To offer a fresh sense of variety, the guns are not the kind that make a little poke in the skin and then the guy is dead. Most of the time a rocket will blow your opponent into many tiny pieces. But isn't that the way it is supposed to be? Realism is what all game developers are looking for, and therefore blood and guts should obviously be included. But on second thought, who would want to realize blood and guts? Well, I would. I don't know why, but I think it is just fun to actually have a guy explode when you kill him. Gives you a sense of accomplishment! I think the heart of the matter is differentiating violence from evil. Violence is a very hard word to describe when you really think about it. Punching a person in the face is obviously a violent act, but hitting a punchingbag isn't. Why? One reason - consequences. Most acts of violence will have consequences. Punch someone and they won't be your friend. Heck, you could even go to jail! It isn't the act of violence that one tries to avoid, it is the consequences. How many of you would stand for someone intentionally cutting you with a knife? That is violent, is it not? But it sure isn't evil. That person could be cutting you to remove a bad appendix. See my point? In no way are video games "evil". Some just have violence, or more adequately put SIMULATE violence.

One more point. I still haven't explained why anyone would want a simulation of violence. Obviously it is pleasing to some people (only the simulation of violence, not the actual act with defined consequences). I don't think it is anyone's place to define something as wrong when it is only a simulation and absolutely nobody is harmed in the process. And I don't think anyone will try to ACT OUT that simulation, unless of course all along they had no means to recognize consequences. Just to refine my point, I once saw a book in a bookstore that was 70 pages of rich, vibrant images of peoples insides taken during certain operations. Working entirely within the bounds of artistic form, I can hardly say this book was non-violent in nature, yet by representation alone one is led to understand the beauty the photographer was trying to portray. In conclusion, would somebody besides roguetwo or cricket please play me Quake 3? I need more close friends to get into this game!

P.S.
After re-reading this, I think I know what my new Heat profile signiture will be:

"I don't know why, but I think it is just fun to actually have a guy explode when you kill him. Gives you a sense of accomplishment!"

:O)

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

System? What system? The government is trying to take control of everything, soon they will be controlling (or at least trying to) us ahhh!

First I would like to say that all violence is not the same. JK for instance does not compare to "Redneck Rampage." The violence that the Nazi Totenkopf divisions committed in no way compares to the violence committed by those who opposed them. Nor does Charles Manson's violence compare to The SWAT teams.

If what you see, hear, and interact with does not effect the way you see things and act upon them then BILLIONS of dollars of marketing are going to waste. As are millions of hours of intensive studies so that companies are willing to take out multi-million dollar ads for the Superbowl time. Why do they do all that? Because they KNOW that if you see it it will effect you. Maybe you wont ALL go out and by "Bubba Beer" (No offense Bubba Fett!)but many will and more will remember it.

If something does not effect you then there isnt much point in it existing is there? After all, if there were NO effect for you in gaming, would you do it?
I dont think so.

And I would simply say that the effect is harmless...

The charge is that violent video games make people kill.

My response is that yes, a few game players have killed, but many millions HAVE NOT!

What about the majority that haven't?

More people have killed because of alcohol than because of games (and I use the phrase "because of" loosely), and yet nobody is saying we need to outlaw alcohol.

Driving cars has caused more deaths than video game playing. Why aren't we seeking to ban automobile driving?

That's like saying: drink this milkshake and 1 out of a 100 million people will get sick and maybe die from it. Yeah that sucks for that one person, but aren't those good odds for the other 99,999,999?

People take risks and make moral choices all the time, can't folks be trusted to make their own decisions anymore?

The game companies are not seeking to trick people into becoming homocidal maniacs, they are just trying to make money by selling games. Can they be blamed if a few random folks misuse their product and try to use it as an excuse for their illegal behavior?

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited August 18, 2000).]

[Don't get too carried away with the swearing and such...]

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited August 22, 2000).]

Ladies and Gentleman. The opinion on the subject as heard from a 12 yr old who thinks that swearing is cool.

Seriously man, there are better ways of getting your point across.

Back on topic.. wasn't Senator Lieberman the guy who was harassing the gaming industry a few years back over violence in games?

I think that was around the time they started implementing ratings systems (the Sega Genesis for example).

If they're going to go after violence in video games, might as well go after violence on TV, in comic books, in movies, in sports, etc. Lots of things that kids see/play have touches or hints of violence in them.

I don't buy the "violent media makes people commit violent crimes" line, however I have no problem with ratings systems.

These better inform the consumer or viewer of the content they are about to view. It also allows parents who feel their children should not see extreme graphic content to be selective in what they view until they are mature enough to understand it and make informed decisions on their own.

Banning games won't stop school shootings, neither will banning music, movies, or handguns. People need to get that through their heads.

People have been killing since Cain killed Abel, for crying out loud! It sucks, but it's not going to stop just because of some quick-fix, cure-all solution proposed by some irate group looking for a scapegoat.

(pardon the ranting and raving)

Kurgan

Not at all Kurgan.

Also, to build on what you said about regulating violece in television shows, magazines, ect., as well as in video games, i have a bit of news to share.

The PTC,(i belive it stands for Parent Television Council, or something to that effect) is a copmpany that was after the popular wrestleing federation the WWF to tone down the amount of violence on their television programs. I mean, come on! Get serious! How can you have a wrestling match w/o having a bit of violence? I was flabergasted when i heard that the PTC had won a battle (in court, i think) to tone down the TV14 rating to a TVPG rating for their Thursday night show. It just made no secne to me.

Well, anyway, now that peice of news i told you i had to tell you. TYhe PTC recently had to shut down their website ue to several hundred e-mails from fans of the WWF who were in protest to what the PTC was doing. In fact, the WWF has a few of their wrestlers doing a gimmick in a group called "The Right To Censor", designed to mock and poke fun at the PTC. Basically, the group goes around, trying to censor various forms of gratuitous violence in the WWF, and, consequentlly, gets beaten up for it. In fact, heres a link to their website if anyone wants to check it out, i think its worth taking a look at if you want a quick laugh. http://www.righttocensor.com/)

Furthermore, while Im thinking of it, the I was just wondering why boxing dosnt get as bad of a wrap as pro wrestling. Both can be pretty violent, in fact, I'd be willing to argue that 90% of the time boxing is a whole lot more violent than pro wrestling, considering that wrestling is pre-determined and boxing is not.

And, incredably enough, I was flipping through the local channels (i live in eastern PA,), and on RCN 4 I made a shocking discovery:

>>>>>>>>>>>Here was an ameture boxing match, with two small children going at each other like hungry wolves! I was amazed! The one kid was 8 and the other a=one was 7, and by the time that they were done, both of their noses were dripping blood!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Now, if the PTC can let something as incredible as that slide w/o a problem, then why do theygive pro wrestleing such a problem? Because, in my opinion, two children under 10 years old beating each other bloody in a boxing match, is far more radical than a 30 year-old-man being put through a fake table in a controlled enviroment, a move that had been most likely praticed a half a dozen times before the show.

Now, i dont know, maybe I'm over reacting, but I dont think that there shouod be a double standard in this, or any case for that matter.

What do you guys think?

GOD Bless,
-Calypso

I'm not ignoring you Calypso. I've been busy. But as soon as I get the chance, I'll put my thoughts in.

the13thJedi

Kids violence? Ask the parents...