RF Generation Message Board

For once, I can't say I entirely disagree with them.  There are a few things that kind of bother me, but overall I'm not totally opposed to their proposition.  I think it's a shame that only video games are being singled out here (and not music and movies too).  Also, I think that the M and E-10 ratings need to be done away with completely because they are worthless piles of crap.  Other than that though, I think this bill would be just fine, and would hopefully stop many of the frivolous lawsuits against store chains and video game companies.  I doubt it will stop many kids from playing adult games, but that's only because the majority of them have their parents buy it for them anyway.  Then when their kids go on rampages we'll all know who to blame (as if we didn't before).

article: http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/146121.html

I disagree.  I think this is the result of someone who wants to run for President next term trying to get noticed as a moderate by solving a problem that doesn't exist.

I don't see a problem with this as long as adults can still buy everything they want.

The problem is that your tax dollars are going to more useless legislation with the result being publicity for a presidential hopeful.

And we will lose more freedoms because of the fear of a small minority of the people in this country. Do any fucking politicians read the constitution before they go on these crusades?

I don't see a need for this legislation. New systems all have parental controls, and it should be a right of the company to determine whether they should or shouldn't sell games to minors. I am sure that this bill would be struck down if it ever made it to being a law, for every state attempt to limit sales has been struck down by the courts for being a violation of the First Amendment.

Nope. And I'm against all these dumbass bills because of that. We're turning socialist.

I agree with parts of the bill like Mike said.
But like everyone else said it is a complete waste of money.

There are SO much more useful things this money could be going to in our country.

For the US being a free country I think  we have more laws,rules regulations etc than anywhere else in the world..I get sick of all the special intrest groups on crusades.

This is definitely true.  I would bet that Bush would actually do one good thing during his presidency if this were to pass and veto it.  Even if he signed it, it would get taken down immediately in the courts.  But, in principle, it wouldn't bother me if minors couldn't buy adult games.  We limit sales of pornography, and I think this is good.  Nobody complains about this, because adults still have complete freedom to buy the stuff if they want to.  As long as the law wouldn't affect what adults buy, it wouldn't bother me too much

Here's a related update.  The Illinois Safe Game Act was struck down as (no surprise) unconstitutional.  News from gamepolitics.com

When politicians went on a crusade to require citizens by law to wear seatbelts at least they provided us with scientific evidence telling us that seat belts do in fact save lives.

With this retarded videogame legislation they're telling us we can't let our kids see a naked chick in a videogame without providing any evidence whatsoever why not.  Because there is no evidence, and this crusade she's on is just drummed up to get her name in the papers more often in hopes she'll sit on the throne some day.  Sad.

To think that the only reason this is even going on right now is because of the Hot Coffee easter egg which exists in a game where you can beat up pedestrians and shoot cops is mindboggling.

I can't agree with you here.  The law would not affect your ability to let your kids play a game with a "naked chick" in it.  You can still go to the store and buy the game for your kids.  Storm troopers aren't going to bust down your door and light your living room up with flamethrowers.  The only thing that changes is your kid can't make that decision for him/herself.  You have to do it for and with them.

I will agree that the spark for this is definitely the hot coffee mod, and this is ridiculous.  Very few people probably even went to the trouble of ever seeing that crappy minigame, and anyone who was seventeen that did is definitely old enough to see that.  Half of them have been having sex in their real life for a year by then.

But why restrict it without providing evidence that seeing pixelated breasts will somehow harm our children?

In the netherlands, france they show nudity (real, not pretend cartoon nudity) on public television.  There are fewer sex related crimes there, so the evidence would sort of point to the contrary.

Why can these slimeballs push legislation through without any actual evidence?

Just to remind you: There are already laws in place which prohibit the sale of pornography to minors.  These laws apply to video games.  Why do you think more legislation is needed?

The conclusion you just drew there is just as logical as saying that high rates of violence in this country are due to violent video games.  I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that there are just a few more variables that affect sex crimes than whether or not nudity is shown on television.

As for the laws pertaining to pornography - good point.  Still, I never really said I support this bill - just that I don't think it would do anything horribly wrong, because it wouldn't change ANYTHING in terms of what adults can and cannot purchase for themselves.

EDIT: Fixed a verb-subject agreement.

That's where you're wrong.  It can easily change what an adult buys.  I'll paint a simple example, but there are many others.

Let's say legislation passes requiring videogame stores to do part of the job parents should be doing and deciding what children are not allowed to purchase.  Let's say the law reads: "if you sell hot coffee enabled games to minors, you will be fined $25,000".  Videogame stores will stop selling these games.  Then you won't be able to get the game.

This is why there are very very few AO (adult only) games on the market.  The Leisure Suit Larry game had an AO version you could only buy through their website.

Again, why should this legislation be passed without ANY type of evidence to back it up?  Simply because you think you won't be affected (you will) is not reason to be apethetic about this.

And no, the conclusion I drew wasn't the same thing as saying violence comes from video games.  I'm saying that there is CONFLICTING EVIDENCE currently available, why can these crusaders against smut come up with some evidence of their own?  Children on the streets of Japan can buy much more violent, bloody, and sexually oriented videogames in their home country, yet there are far FAR fewer violent crimes in Japan.  Oops, don't let that evidence get in the way of anything.  By all means, let's pass some more laws!  Think about the children!

Why are we passing these laws again?  Bleh.

If I'm not mistaken, the UK has a ratings system that is age-based and (I believe) legally enforced.  This makes a whole lot more sense to me than a letter system that also defines age as a sub-heading.  Do we really need both an M rating and an AO rating?  No.  The M rating should be canned.  The difference between a seventeen year old and an eighteen year old is essentially nothing in terms of ability to handle violence or sex in entertainment.  The 18 rating in the UK is essentially the same thing as the AO rating.  If we did this sort of thing, the hot coffee scandal would not have happened, because it would have only affected adults.  The ESRB, as far as I'm concerned, is in part responsible for all the criticism it receives.

Is it true that stores don't carry AO games?  Yes.  Is this idiotic?  Yes.  Retailers in the UK carry 18+ games, so if the M rating were eliminated, to say that nobody here would carry AO games is kind of silly.

In the UK it is not illegal (currently) for a 17 year old to purchase an age 18 rated game.  

I don't see how that's relevant to anything though.  As for the letters, it doesn't really matter.  They give a pretty good description for parents to decypher what the game contains (gore, violence, strong language, whatever).

There is currently no law prohibiting a 13 year old from watching an R rated movie, I don't see why there should be a law prohibiting a 13 year old from purchasing an M rated game.

But whatever.