The Sims... More evil than GTA?

[Open the Muggy Gate 0]

Just remembered this to add to the fire: Hell, I remember playing Harvest Moon for the N64 and there was alcohol in that game. You could go to the bar at night and drink there. There was even some New Year's thing where everyone would drink until they passed out. The game was rated E. Yeah, let's so totally ban that.

 

They knew there was alcohol in there yet they rated it E?

[Black Lushus 0]

The government can't do it either.  It's even harder than expecting small theaters to always catch kids sneaking into R-rated movies, because once they have the game in their hands, they can play it all they want.  Parents will still buy it for them because they're AWARE of the ratings but they DON'T CARE.

 

Not every parent is like that, Andrew...stop trying to make these parents that don't care the majority when really, they aren't...I didn't say anything about a non-caring parent buying the games, I'm saying if little "Johnny 14 year old" comes in the store, don't sell him an M-rated game, which clowns at video stores will do...I was buying R rated VHS movies and stickered CDs/tapes back when i was 13...that kinda shit still goes on and really it shouldn't...a lot of times the parents DON'T KNOW...haven't you ever hid shit from your folks or were you a goodie-two-shoes your whole life? By enforcing these policies, your helping to shut the mouths of all those people who blame video games, movies, etc. for the bad shit that goes on in the world...if a parent comes to you and bitches because you wouldn't sell their kid a bad game, simply tell them about the policy and sell it to THEM instead, if they choose to let little Johnny have it and something happens, that's on them, not on the vendor or the manufacturer...

 

games, alcohol, cigarettes, porn, etc

 

Holy crap--which one of these is not like the other?

 

So, you want laws to throw parents in jail for giving a kid under 17 an M-rated game?

 

Maybe you want similar laws to prevent selling of T-rated games to kids under 13?  If there are immeasureably-stupid laws on the books against selling non-alcoholic beverages to minors, why not?

 

Did I mention anything about jail time? no I did not...I would appreciate if you would stop taking what I say out of context because I don't do that to you...

[Anya 0]

The age limits on ratings are way too high. You should be 17 to play a M game? What is that all about? Nothing in a game is so bad that you need to be 17. If you are mature and responsible enough to drive a car you can handle animated violence and mild sexual scenes.

[AndrewTS 0]

Ripper:

 

People want the rating system enforced.

 

Yes. Hillary Clinton, Leland Yee, parent groups who want to parent for other parents but are already doing their jobs are people.

 

you keep saying that parents will buy the game anyway, but that is definately not always the case. PLENTY of parents will not allow their kids to play MA games and they should be able to know that their kid can't just walk in a store and buy it without their permission.

 

From what I've seen, it *is* enforced. Some people in Congress seem to be confused that it isn't because of the GTA controversy. Or they know better and they're deliberately misleading people. You're working with the assumption that the stores rarely enforce the ratings, which I don't believe is true.

 

IF the stores suffer no reprecussions to selling a MA game to kids, they are going to do it. I mean seriously, they have to choose between following the supposed wishes of some kid they don't know or making 50 bucks, they are going to say fuck that parent and sell the game.

 

Why do the repercussions need to come from a government agency? Why can't the industry self-regulate? And where are the kids that are allegedly buying the games without parent/adult consent getting $49.99 from? And how are they playing a game jam-packed with tens of hours of gameplay without parents having a clue that they have it?

 

Yes the video gaming industry did their part by putting the ratings on games, but that is as far as they can possibly take it.

 

That's as far as the ESRB, by themselves, can take it.

 

Precautions mean nothing without penalties for breaking said precautions. That is what the government is doing here.  Its against the law to sell porn to a child. The porn industry have done their part by putting the warnings, and the ratings on the boxes. Are you saying that goverment shouldn't have anything to do with making sure that the rules set up are enforced?

 

So you're saying the government is gong to be much more effective in "correcting" a problem that may or may not even exist? Remember that parents buying a game for their kids is going to happen regardless. The proposals are so ridiculously easy to circumvent it is accomplishing nothing.

 

Oh, and porn is an irrelevant comparison. We're talking about games with the equivalent content of R-rated movies, not things that can only be sold to adults 18+. AO games are already almost impossible to get ahold of right now, treated with similar taboos as porn already. Hell, AO games are *harder* to find than porn.

 

Lushus:

 

Not every parent is like that, Andrew...stop trying to make these parents that don't care the majority when really, they aren't...I didn't say anything about a non-caring parent buying the games, I'm saying if little "Johnny 14 year old" comes in the store, don't sell him an M-rated game, which clowns at video stores will do...

 

Which is the standard policy for every video game retailer I know of. Thing is, Johnny 14 year old can't drive. Johnny 14 year old doesn't have a regular job to afford a $49.99 + tax. And I personally do not see a trend of stores selling M-rated games to Johnny 14 year old. Besides that, no one has convinced me yet that retailers selling M games to unaccompanied minors is happening much. GTASA having OMGPR0n discovered into in it after-the-fact has nothing to do with that.

 

Did I mention anything about jail time? no I did not...I would appreciate if you would stop taking what I say out of context because I don't do that to you...

 

No, I'm not taking it out of context, I'm saying that they're not the same thing. Those other things you need to be 18/21 to legally buy, and they're much more harmful (okay, porn is debatable). Plus, they have similar laws attached to them they're ignoring.

 

It's not just illegal to sell stuff like that to kids now, but if you *give* it to them and let them use them, you could be in some big legal trouble. So next parents might be penalized for letting "Johnny 14 Year Old" play an M game? Where is the line drawn? The problem doesn't begin and end at the retailers.

 

I'm proposing ratings be enforced and treated like movies/DVDs are now. Other people want them to be enforced and treated like drugs and alcohol. Sorry, but I think my proposal is a hell of lot more sensible and valid.

 

And frankly, I believe once you're 16, can drive, and likely have a job, you should be able to buy an M-rated game. The age 17 designation makes no sense--ditto for R ratings. Current ratings are totally archaic.

[AndrewTS 0]

Much like what's currently going on around Washington, the "Hot Coffee" mod has stirred up a hornets nest of trouble for Rockstar in Australia too. The game was originally rated MA15+, which is basically the Australian version of M for mature. This rating has now been removed, as the hidden content invalidates the rating. Because Australia has no rating higher than MA15+ the game can no longer be legally sold or even rented in Australia.

 

Source: Slashdot, GameDaily

 

Stolen from 1up.

 

Hooboy.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

Here's a big thing. If you work at a video game store and you see a parent buy the game and hand it off to a younger kid...what are you going to do? If you speak up, chances are you are going to have an angry parent with a "Don't tell me how to raise my children!" attitude.

 

I have said it numerous times before and I will say it again...if a child seeing violence or sexual situations in a video game leads to actual problems (such as the triple homicide), then not only is the child to blame, but the parents as well. Rockstar should never be put to blame because they followed the rules with the ratings system.

 

It continues to drive me insane that Rockstar and other video game companies take the heat when a child decides to go crazy and kill a few people. If you can not understand that pulling a gun out and shooting someone is wrong, not only to you have no business playing that video game, you hardly have any business being allowed out of your parent's basement.

 

Of all the things the government has time to worry about in this day and age, and a video game mod is near the top of the list. That sickens me more than anything.

[Black Lushus 0]

Andrew, here in Omaha, anyway, there is a Gamestop in every mall and every plaza, a lot of which are within suitable walking distance for younger teens to stroll over to (I bet we have at least 10 or 15 of them, easy, then add our own local stores, about 5 of those, on top of that)...a lot of kids get allowances and money for doing chores, mowing lawns, paper routes, etc. They have money and they have the ability to go and buy things without their parents knowing. The BEST parent will keep track of every little dime Johnny has and can monitor that stuff...I'm here to tell you those parents are few and far between given that in today's world, if you're middle class, BOTH parents have to work fulltime hours so the little details like that get missed...I'm simply saying that if a rating system is put in place, be it movies, music or games, retailers should abide by them if it happens to be someone under the age of 17 trying to purchase them...no, no one should go to jail for selling to minors, but does it really hurt THAT much to ask a kid to see his ID? I mean honestly, I know you worked or used to work or whatever in a game shop, does it kill you THAT much to ask? Do you think the kid might snap and try to kick your ass or what?

[AndrewTS 0]

That's perfectly reasonable. I don't see government intervention as reasonable, however. What you just suggested is what happens right now. What's wrong with it that we need government intervention for?

 

My point was that it's a "problem" that I feel is blown out of proportion, and those number of young teens that are in walking/biking distance and have their own money are not the vast majority. It should be pretty easy to not sell those few kids M-rated games.

 

I also have no problem with upholding the already-established policies of making certain that only 17+ folks are buying the M-rated games. I've personally enforced it already faithfully without fines hanging over my head (although with regulars I know if I've carded them already). I've given the spiel about the content to parents who don't give a damn. I've told snot-nosed brats who can't see above the counter no, and had them go get a parent who looked ticked off I had to dare bother them.

 

So, why the hell would I suddenly buy the line of BS that retailers everywhere put on blindfolds and hand M games to anybody that can count up money?

 

Have you seen instances of that happening? One? Two? Three even?

 

The scapegoating going on here is ridiculous, IMO.

 

Rockstar should never be put to blame because they followed the rules with the ratings system.

 

Um, no they didn't. That's why we're discussing this right now. And somewhere along the line people (Hillary, Yee that is) begin to think "OMG kiddies are buying M games and stores don't care!" It's bullshit. They have nothing to do with each other.

 

Does it go on? I'm sure it does (it's a big country), but there's not a single shred of evidence suggesting how much and if it is a problem.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

The A-O rating still just makes the buying age 18 instead of 17. If Rockstar is to blame, fine, I can deal with that...but I can not deal with the fact that there is so much shit going down over a max one calendar year of people getting the game. Hell, the way it goes in the industry, by the time a 17 year old would turn 18 and be able to get the game, there would be something a thousand times better out there for them to get there hands on that might just have an M rating or lower.

 

Also, I'm now waiting for "Grand Theft Auto: National City" or something, where the main character can run around snipering government officials and blowing up landmarks.

 

Although at this point the GTA franchise might be completely fucked, regardless of whether or not they can actually make an improved game over SA.

[AndrewTS 0]

LCS will sell regardless. It could be a card-based, stripped down GTA3 and still sell.

 

However, there are 15 year olds right now who will be of voting age if Hillary becomes the Dem nominee--so I don't think she's planned this out well. Not that they'd vote Rep., but it won't reverse young voter apathy.

[EricMM 0]

I used to care about people trying to take away my mortal kombat when I was like, what 15?

 

This is no longer the case.

 

I'm 23.

 

You say kids will remember, but once you hit 18, it's hard to remember what 17 was like, let alone 15.

[AndrewTS 0]

I remembered Lieberman's antics when he was up for VP, and that was about a 7 year gap. It wasn't a factor, though. However, I remembered.

 

It's not the exact same situation, though.

 

Imagine if Tipper Gore had made her big stink over the music biz, like, last summer, and was up for nomination now.

 

Younger voters are going to view her as ridiculously out of touch.

[Ripper 0]

I think if you vote for people based on how they handled video game legislation, you don't need to have the ability to vote yet. I mean, goddamn, its video games.

 

 

And andrew, seriously, this ain't the 50's. Kids have means to the mall and they have money now. And they are not in the minority.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

Unfortunately, there are parents who are just plain apathetic out there, and while I agree that violent video games don't produce violent children(hey, I just finished playing Metal Gear Solid 2, and I've yet to snipe anyone and stuff them into a locker), I also don't like the concept of little kids going around shooting cops in the head. Actually, GTA brings up an interesting point about our culture, we accept violence way better than we accept sexuality. Weird, isn't it?

[AndrewTS 0]

I think if you vote for people based on how they handled video game legislation, you don't need to have the ability to vote yet.  I mean, goddamn, its video games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The majority of one of my political science courses couldn't name the Vice President. Probably most of the country couldn't until the Haliburton stuff got more press. Even now I have my doubts if they could.

 

Face it, most of the country bases its voting decisions on stupid bullshit, and if you only let intelligent, informed voters vote, hardly anyone would vote.

 

So, I'm not saying I would base a voting decision on it, but I don't believe it would help her case. It makes her look like a stupid old lady with a stick up her ass.

 

And andrew, seriously, this ain't the 50's.  Kids have means to the mall and they have money now.  And they are not in the minority.

 

The majority of 6-12 year olds have 50 bucks to blow on a game and can go to malls whenever they want? 8-10 year olds, to be fairer?

 

Source, please.

 

That sounds like a bigger problem than anything GTA-related, if so.

 

That's besides the point that I think the policies are being enforced, anyway.

 

hey, I just finished playing Metal Gear Solid 2, and I've yet to snipe anyone and stuff them into a locker),

 

MGS2 made me want to find Hideo Kojima and kick him square in the balls, however.

 

Actually, GTA brings up an interesting point about our culture, we accept violence way better than we accept sexuality. Weird, isn't it?

 

Please tell me that didn't just figure that out recently.

[Jericholic82 0]

seems dumb that ea would actually animate "naughty parts" instead of just having the blur over nothing.

 

 

anyhow another problem is some parents dont realize what the rating is they just buy the game.

 

however a few weeks ago I was at Target and went to buy Backyard Wrestling 2 which is rated M. The cashier actually asked me my birthday, but didnt actually check my ID though I offered to show him it.

 

I am 22 years old btw.

[AndrewTS 0]

I'm reminded of those video game websites that will only let you in if...you tell them your birthdate.

 

however a few weeks ago I was at Target and went to buy Backyard Wrestling 2 which is rated M.

 

Why?!

 

(would you buy BY2, that is )

 

Usually, female customers tend to not mind getting carded.

[Jericholic82 0]

I'm reminded of those video game websites that will only let you in if...you tell them your birthdate.

 

however a few weeks ago I was at Target and went to buy Backyard Wrestling 2 which is rated M.

 

Why?!

 

(would you buy BY2, that is )

 

Usually, female customers tend to not mind getting carded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I bought it cuz it was on sale for 14.99. Yea, I still overpaid. Oh well at least the long-ass career mode has kept me busy.

 

 

and I'm not a female, but I guess you werent talking to me.

[AndrewTS 0]

Just a general comment, yeah.

 

Didn't BYW2 have a DVD loaded with blood, boobies, and crappy wrestling as a preorder bonus?

 

Back on topic:

 

Words fail me.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/bully/news_6130128.html

 

Bully to blacken Rockstar's other eye?

 

 

Upcoming game could provide what critics of Take-Two are looking for--a knockout punch designed to push the publisher up against the ropes.

 

In the beginning, there was Hot Coffee. And it was hot.

 

The Hot Coffee fuss surrounded a dormant piece of hot-to-trot game code that was able to be unlocked on all versions of the best-selling, M-rated Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. That small gift to gamers put Take-Two in hot water with the industry's voluntary ratings board, the ESRB. Last month, the board revoked the game's M rating, rerated the product AO, and forced the game's parent company to pull existing copies (or supply retailers with AO stickers) and manufacture new game discs with the mod-induced sex games deleted.

 

Of course, stores could still sell the newly rated game, but few did, given long-standing policies of most major retailers not carrying AO-rated games.

 

Cost of the Hot Coffee episode? $40-50 million for Take-Two. Ditto that amount for the industry.

 

There are a few recent developments in the ongoing saga of Take-Two and its portfolio of M-rated products (although it's worth mentioning, this is a company that sells more than just M-rated games...Global Star Software, a publishing label of Take-Two publishes the E-rated Leaping Lizards!, among other games rated for all ages).

 

A day after one Florence Cohen dropped docs on the game publisher in US District Court, a second consumer did the same. Both complaints seek to establish a class of plaintiffs that charge Take-Two with a number of malevolent acts, including Consumer Deception, False Advertising, and Common Law Fraud (all based on New York State General Business Law statutes).

 

And the plot thickens. The company's upcoming game, Bully, has entered the overarching Take-Two narrative, now in the following two instances.

 

The first is from a statement by the Britain-based Bullying Online, an organization devoted to ending all forms of "bullying" on school grounds in the UK. Reportedly, that group is seeking a ban of the title on its home turf.

 

"This game should be banned," the organization's Liz Carnell has said. "I'm extremely worried that kids will play it and then act out what they've seen in the classroom.... Bullying is not a game by any stretch of the imagination. We have around four suicidal children contacting us every day."

 

Rockstar Games describes the upcoming title as one where gamers play as a "troublesome schoolboy" who "stands up to bullies, gets picked on by teachers, plays pranks on malicious kids, wins or loses the girl, and ultimately learns to navigate the obstacles of the fictitious reform school."

 

Closer to home, Florida attorney Jack Thompson, an active campaigner who has in the past targeted aggressive e-mail campaigns at politicians and company officers he hopes to influence, is himself mounting an effort against the game--specifically, against certain game retailers as well as the game's publisher.

 

"A check of Internet web sites today reveals that Wal-Mart, GameStop, ToysRUs, and Amazon.com are all presently pre-selling the game with no questions asked as to age of the buyers," Thompson said in a statement.

 

Bully is currently unrated, but based on previews, most industry sources expect it to ship with an M rating, meaning it should be sold only to those 17 and older.

 

In another statement, Thompson asks Take-Two president Paul Eibeler to reconsider the game's upcoming release. "I and others are today calling upon you to stop the release of Bully," the statement, in part, read.

 

Also contained in the statement from Thompson is a reference to a demonstration slated to take place tomorrow in lower Manhattan, outside the corporate headquarters of Take-Two Interactive. According to Thompson, two busloads of Washington, DC schoolchildren will protest the game's release, though it was not clear what organization was promoting or funding the demonstration.

 

Just as Hot Coffee cools down, another bully, it seems, lurks in the corners.

 

By Curt Feldman, GameSpot  POSTED: 08/01/05 01:02 PM

 

I bolded perhaps the one legitimate point to be made. However, since Thompson is known to be a complete liar, I can't really say if he's correct in this case.

[haws bah gawd 0]

Just wanted to add a quick note to this discussion. I work for Gamestop, and at least at my particular store, we are VERY strict on the sale of M-rated games to minors. If I see that a parent, big brother/sister, other relative is buying an M-rated game for a child, I take the time to educate them on it. Before it was banned from our stores, and many others, due to the rating change, you wouldnt believe how many parents came in wanting to get San Andreas for their kids. I always take the time to inform the person of the game's rating, and why it is rated that way. I've seen parents yell at their kids for even thinking that they would get the game, and I've seen a parent still insist that I sell the game to them. Not to mention my boss has made it abundantly clear that if we are caught selling an M-rated game to a minor, we will be fired on the spot.

 

My theory is as long as one knows fully what the difference between fantasy and reality is, the problems are greatly minimized. Little Billy doesn't go shoot up his school because a ficitional character in a video game told him to. Little Billy shoots up his school because he's a little bastard.

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

Well, which is it? "A simple mannequin-esque smooth body" or "nipples, penises, labia, and pubic hair?" Because there's a big difference.

 

EDIT: And about the GTA controversy in Australia: why don't they just re-classify it with an R18+ rating? As far as I know, that rating can be applied to video games, although it never actually has been.

[AndrewTS 0]

They banned Postal 2 as well--go figure.

 

Aussie gamers are continually screwed over, and the laws aren't exactly moving towards making things easier for them.

[Jericholic82 0]

OH WONT ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?