Jon Stewert was I think calling for the suspension of games from kids the other night. He showed clips of Mortal kombat. really surprised by that. I wouldn't think he would agree with making it illegal to sell to kids under a certain age based on violence. He took issue with Scalia's words about how violence is okay, but sex is not; which i myself find ridiculous, but for a different reason.

My favorite was when he called a clip from MK a "virtual, interactive snuff film."
Remember when people were saying that about the original MK? Or GTA III?

Oh dear fucking god is this the early 90s again?

I mean it's the fucking parents job to know what their kids do in THEIR house, just because they're too fucking lazy is no excuse to fuck with the constitution in a way that would just open the floodgates for all kinds of stupid, oppressive laws. Some of which are already being pushed in congress.

And I find it ridiculous that of all the games out now, the new Mortal Kombat is the one getting media coverage. Mortal Kombat is the Evil Dead 2 of video games, there's nothing remotely realistic about it, unless you think Itchy & Scratchy cartoons are realistic because that's how over the top the violence is. It's FANTASY. It's very violent fantasy, but fantasy nonetheless.

I personally think the most disturbing games are the ones that try so hard to mirror reality, like gang violence and war, and glorify them, and kids love it. I'm sick and tired of every game now being designed like a war simulator.

Whatever happened to just good and pure escapism? Instead of trying to recruit kids into the fucking military?

Very well said.

He said it makes sense for the government to restrict the sale of violent games to children. They're already rated. We restrict what movies children can watch. Is it any different? The argument I can see from the video game industry is by imposing fines and sting operations, etc., retailers will become reluctant to carry violent games. It's quite possible considering how NC17 movies are not shown in movie theaters (although many will argue Showgirls's commercial flop is to blame). So, even though I agree with the court's ruling, I think it's certainly arguable that the government should be able to regulate the sale of video games just like it regulates the sale of tobacco (and the advertising of tobacco, if we want to talk about just speech issues).

If the government regulated video games in the same way they regulate tobacco that could very well lead to M rated games eventually being treated in a way similar to NC-17 rated movies.

And that is NOT a good thing for an industry that heavily depends on satisfying it's demographic's growing demands for sex and violence.

Though if this actually encouraged developers to make games that relied on actual imaginative ideas to get attention instead of the same old exploitation tactics I sure as hell wouldn't complain.

Oh, I don't think it should be regulated like tobacco. Tobacco is clearly worse. I'm just saying the same right that the government has to regulate to tobacco should logically apply to video games as well. I think pornography would be a clearer parallel, although, I feel this message board has a generally higher appreciation for pornography than tobacco, so I used the smoking industry as my example.

Since the debate is about what we can sell to minors, not what they can play, one can't put the blame solely on the parents. If a child saves up to buy video games at age 10, there isn't a whole lot the parents can do to stop the kid (not without controlling every aspect of the child's life). In this case, if retailers asked for identification, it would probably help parents a lot.

I don't know why 18 is the magical age, though. A 10-year-old is a bit young for a lot of violent video games, but the same doesn't apply to a 16-year-old, imo. Maybe that's just because that's the point I started to get desensitized. If I had kids, maybe my opinion on the age would be different. I certainly felt guilty when I watched A Clockwork Orange with my brother when he was 15. (It was my first time seeing it and I didn't know how graphic it was. He had recently been getting into classic movies, so I thought we'd watch it together).

That's the part I don't understand. The point of the ratings is that retailers can't sell certain games to minors without a guardian in the first place, isn't it? Perhaps its different in different States, but this seems like a superfluous legislation.

The fact that it was banned in Britain for several decades should have given you a clue.

Although I'm not a fan of censorship, I definitely agree that many games are not suitable for kids. If you're over 15 you can pretty much handle most violence and other disturbing things, so I think Australia's system, where MA15+ is the highest rating, is a pretty good one to have. (Except for the whole "banning every second game" thing)

I think it should just be a labelling system, with both an age recommendation and very accurate content warnings. Parents should be well educated to watch what kind of games their kids are playing. Plenty of mature games could be played by younger kids if they played along with their parents, who could contextualise the content they are seeing.

It depends on the retailer. It lacks consistency. I think it's true for most retailers and certainly true of the big chains.

Perhaps the biggest problem with California's law, though, was it's justification. It's certainly not necessarily true that video games are worse because they're interactive.

I dunno about that.

Take for example a war movie, while it's incredibly hard to depict war in a way that doesn't accidently make war seem cool (as François Truffaut famously pointed out) it is not impossible. Some films have successfully depicted war in a completely unglamorous light.

But with a video game it really is impossible, while some games based around war TRY to have an anti war message, it contradicts the basic requirement of every video game, which is that it has to be fun.

Interesting concept for a game..

Yeah, but does playing these games turn 10 year olds into violent sociopaths?

Not saying that but it makes the concept of war seem really exciting, and may give kids the wrong idea that just because they're good at Call of Duty, they'd kick ass in a real war.

Every see one of those army recuiter booths in the mall? They always have CoD set up on a flatscreen.