CT Considers Making Shoot 'Em Ups Adults Only 31
Adam writes: "Connecticut bans shooting arcade games. I dunno about you but I played these things all my life and have no will to go out and kill anyone. I think passing of a bill ike this inspires a hell of alot more anger then playing a game where I get to shoot animated villans.
Story Here" Actually, note that the governor of Connecticut has not yet signed (or declared an intention) to sign this bill, so right now it's not a law. If it's passed, offering arcade games in which fake guns shoot simulated people would not be banned per se, be they would be out of bounds for anyone under 18. (Considering arcade demographics, that might not be such a big difference, though.)
Think strategically. (Score:1)
Think strategically. Let CT pass this "anti-violent video game" law. Encourage the CT governor to sign it into law. Rejoice when the law is passed; make sure that everyone knows which politician proposed this law. Do everything in your power to get his/her name heard in relation to this law. Make CT and this politician's names household words.
And then sic the ACLU on the state of Connecticut. File a massive class-action lawsuit against CT claiming abridgement of First Amendment protections. Argue that all video games are art, and, though some may be considered obscene, they are all protected by the Constitution. Get the lawsuit to drag out as long as possible. Make it so horribly expensive for Connecticut that the state eventually has to declare bankruptcy.
And when CT loses the lawsuit before the US Supreme Court (which has historically protected many forms of speech and art, even obscene), launch a massive media campaign pointing all of Connecticut's woes at this stupid law, and the politician that originally proposed it.
The end result is that video games are declared a protected form of art, and no other state will be able to pass a similar anti-violent video game law. Oh, and that stupid politician's career will be over. He'll be lucky to get a job at "The Snappy Snack Shack" frying Cheez-o-ritos.
If Larry Flynt could win First Amendment protection for Hustler magazine, I'm sure we could do the same for video games.
Re:Any Game Designers quaking in their boots? (Score:1)
Re:Gaming industry needs ratings. (Score:1)
//rdj
Re:Gaming industry needs ratings. (Score:1)
I'm sorry, but i think you are missing something here. If I'm not mistaken, the Constitution was written by a large group of *adult* lawmakers, who wrote the document in hopes of protecting the freedoms of the peoples of the US, children included. Wether a child plays a game that allows them to *harmlessly* massacre moving pixels, or plays the Sesame street fun hour game is totally up to that child, or their parents, NOT the lawmakers of the US. The lawmakers job is to protect those rights, not remove them.
These violent games don't promote the outlash of physical violence in any way. If anything, they assist in preventing this. These games provide adolesents and children with an outlet for the anger and rage they feel. Often times this anger is rooted in pain their peers inflict on them, in such a case these games go as far as to prevent a physical retaliation. Like you mentioned, however, there are always exceptions to the "norm", there is always a select few who are deeply troubled, and simply will retaliate eventually. Though gaming is not the catalyst in this situation, rather the relentless torment by peers.
A rating system for games is already in place, but by the constitution, the rating system should not prevent the use of games, merely provide a means by which parents can descern questionable games from the sesame street play time hour.
Promoting violence? I think not (Score:1)
.
Re:I live in CT!! (Score:1)
Re:Any Game Designers quaking in their boots? (Score:1)
Basically you play the title character, a Theif, you have to glide around and try not to get caught. Its preferable that you don't actually kill anyone since if another guard were to come upon the blood trail, the alarm sounds and you are screwed.
Certainly makes for a more interesting game than one [planetquake.com] where the only three things you need are a Big gun, a fast net connection and a 1337 nickname
Of course I'm sure legislators would immediately whine about the less than honorable profession of the character and try to link it to all the new burglary cases...
[OT] Re: CT (Score:1)
At first glance I thought the title of this story was that CmdrTaco Considers...
--
Re:I live in CT too (Score:1)
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Re:Gaming industry needs ratings. (Score:1)
I equate the term common sense with the term lowest common denominator. A common-sense opinion represents the collective, uninformed, ill-considered opinion of a mob, rather than a carefully researched argument. You've spouted the popular picture of what you think this issue is about, but it's painfully clear you haven't put ten seconds of actual thought into it.
I live in CT too (Score:1)
Re:Gaming industry needs ratings. (Score:1)
Well, I still have to see the bodies of dead players. Although you could make a point about an alegory of war represented in sport games, by no means is an explicit association. In a video game the association is direct and explicit, too diferent in my opinion.
What about martial arts? They're definately violence based. but there is ONE big difference: the difference between violence and played violence.
You ignore the most important thing that makes martial arts acceptable for children : a context, even an educational context. Most reputable Martial Arts teachers will go to extreme pains to make you understand the discipline of the sport, and how you can hurt somebody with your skills. You know all the time you can hurt people and use of the art in an offensive rather than defensive fashion is dicouraged.
A game in the other hand happens out of context, you kill but nobody suffers, it reinforces a way of acting that can contribute to imbalance troubled minds.
Kids know the difference between playing and real.
Who is saying the contrary? What I say is that violent, descontextualized games promote an attitude towards finding violence fun. We adults know that descontextualized violence can be fun, either in a game, a film or a book, but most normal people understand that violence is not desirable.
Children, which in many ocassions are still finding a set of values, or that have none, can make more easily the wrong association and as we have seen, eventualy take that association to the real life. Not because they were playing games, but because many things around them (games included) coudl not convince them of the negative value of violence for violence sake in real life.
If violent games are outlawed there are a lot of things that shoulkd be outlawed:
-under 18, you cannot play a part in any play that contains violence/murder/whatever. (sorry kid, you can't be McBeth..)
-ballgames (most, not all. However I highly doubt kids will go: Yeah! Bowls! what a cool sport... ).
A play happens in a very specific context: a drama class, with peers from which you can receive input and a teacher that guides you and an audience that provides feedback. Unlike a game that usualy happens completely isolated and out of any context.
Ballgames have a disciplinary frame that makes very clear that violence will be punished (or at least is meant to be punished). A violent game is the exact opposite: violence will be rewarded and there are no rules. From a formative point of view I think there is no doubt what is more positive.
Re:Gaming industry needs ratings. (Score:1)
No, they should be encouraged, because they are real activities involving interaction with real people, and involve real failure and real injury.
For example, I spent yesterday doing theatrical broadsword training. It was great fun, but I'm covered with bruises and scrapes, and I have no illusions about my ability, or the consequences of my actions.
Similarly, I'd prefer kids to be given firing range training with real guns, with associated videos on gunshot wounds and stern lectures on responsibility and safety (note: training != access), rather than have them learn their skilz playing UnrealQuakeLife while hiding their actual guns (and booze and girlie mags and pot) at the back of their closet.
Not Surprised! (Score:1)
a teenagers view (Score:1)
Personaly I find the type of games in question to be somewhat stress relieving. I can take my mind off of things by letting myself go and relying on reflexes. This is something that is found in very few other game types. Could we do without these games? Of course we could. But that does not mean we should remove them for the reasons set forth at the current time. Personaly I do not think that shooter type games have desensitized me. Perhaps society as a whole as done that, but no one thing could do it alone.
I also do not think that teenagers are affected by these games anymore than young adults are, contrary to popular belief. I do think small children, on the other hand, are. But at that stage of their life it is their parents responsibilty to monitor them.
The problem is Close Source video games! (Score:2)
Heh, I'm foaming at the mouth.
Re:Think strategically. (Score:2)
The big difference here is that Larry Flynt doesn't sell his titty rags to kids. The CT government is trying to put the same kind of restrictions on games that already exist on Flynt's publications. I suspect that there really isn't much ground for a constitutional challenge to a law like this since children aren't protected under the first amendment in the same way that adults are.
________________________
Re:Gaming industry needs ratings. (Score:2)
No, football is based on the old British tradition of street-fighting with a ball in there somewhere, allegedly dating back to pre-Roman times when the game was played with a human head preserved in slaked lime and still played in that form (minus the head) in several English and Scots villages to this day. This doesn't challenge your basic point, but pedantry forbids I should let that one go by.
Gaming industry needs ratings. (Score:2)
I hear comming the crowd screaming "the Illiad, Shakespeare, read them, violence has always been with us", to what I say, no fscking way. Many of shoot-them-all games trivialize raw violence. Of course they don't make anybody a murderer, but what this enterteinment do is to associate violence and fun, which in my opinion can be only properly understood in all its implications by an adult, not a child.
If the COlumbine stuff showed something (yes, I know, here we go again) is that those youngsters found violence trivial. Games didn't make them what they were, but certainly violent games helped to reinforce their perception of a world in which violence is fun. For all the accounts we have of this an other massacres, the respective individuals were enjoying every moment of it. Tell me how it can be denied that a violent game does not reinforce this kind of perception.
Young people are denied many freedoms because they are not prepared to use that freedom in a responsible way. To put out of their reach entertainment that nobody can deny has such conflicting values is just common sense in my opinion.
Re:Any Game Designers quaking in their boots? (Score:2)
Perhaps someone should point out to him that a fair number of arcade shoot-em-ups are based on movies (either explicitely or rip offs), so the movie industry should be told to cool its jets. For extra giggles, ask him how much of his campaign funding comes (directly or indirectly) from the movie industry. :)
Just as an FYI, in the UK, arcades already have a statuatory mininum age limit of 18. Rumour is, there's an arcade (in Ipswich or Bolton, I forget) that actually enforces it. ;)
I live in CT!! (Score:2)
"We shouldn't be singling out one kind of video game, " said Rep. William Hamzy (R- Plymouth). He introduced an amendment to include all violent video games, which was defeated.
Oh man. Let's cut everything!! Let's put the arcades out of business! Fools. Anyone who is sick enough to go out and start shooting people is going to snap whether there are violent games or not. What games did Adolf Hitler play? What did he listen to?
Rep. Ronald San Angelo (R-Naugatuck) said the issue of youth violence needed more study and proposed a task force to examine the effects of violent movies and home video games on youth. That amendment was also defeated. "I don't think the underlying bill is going to do anything," San Angelo said.
These people have waaaaaay too much time
Besides those are the games I'm best at in arcades.
__________________
Re:Beware of legislators targeting morality (Score:2)
If little Billy still goes out and shoots someone, nobody will blame the congress critter for the failure of his bill.
Yeah instead everyone says this bill doesn't go far enough. Then they just ban all violent video games.
Re:Delusional (Score:3)
Thank You
Re:Gaming industry needs ratings. (Score:3)
should those be outlawed under 18 too?
What about martial arts? They're definately violence based. but there is ONE big difference: the difference between violence and played violence. Kids know the difference between playing and real. If violent games are outlawed there are a lot of things that shoulkd be outlawed:
-under 18, you cannot play a part in any play that contains violence/murder/whatever. (sorry kid, you can't be McBeth..)
-ballgames (most, not all. However I highly doubt kids will go: Yeah! Bowls! what a cool sport... )
//rdj
Music Man - Trouble (Ya Got Trouble) (Score:3)
ALBUM: The Music Man
Sad really when you think about it...ARTIST: Meredith Willson
Re:Any Game Designers quaking in their boots? (Score:3)
Most players don't understand that, but some actually know enough to repair destroyed pulse sensors and destroy enemy units.
Sometimes, I'll do a suicide run into an enemy-controlled zone just to figure out how their defences are set up -- then attack appropriately on respawn (one of the values of infinite lives).
Team Fortress has a spy character that can be used for intelligence gathering.Some people just use it to backstab. Others use it to full potential. Some Tribes mods (Renegades comes to mine) also have spy characters. Just because you don't use a capability doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It's far easier to stop an enemy if you know where they are/what they're doing. Ignore that point at your own peril.
--
Re:Gaming industry has ratings (No Text) (Score:3)
Re:Any Game Designers quaking in their boots? (Score:3)
The Lottery:
Delusional (Score:3)
I nearly died laughing when I read that one.
This Harp fellow has deluded himself pretty badly if he even remotely seriously thinks that passing this bill will prevent "youth shootings". mmmmm panacea.
Once again we see legislatures looking to offload personal responsibility from parents and law enforcement and instead scapegoat easy targets (namely, video games).
Also the first link is busticated.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Any Game Designers quaking in their boots? (Score:4)
"We hope these type of games disappear from the landscape," Lawlor said. "People that makes these kinds of things have gone too far."
Now, are any of you game designers deterred from creating yet another shoot-em-up game because of this (possible) CT law? Do you feel that you have gone "too far"? I thought not...
Now, here is an idea I'll toss out for you designers to consider. Robert Heinlein made a big deal about the role of intelligence-gathering scouts, yet I have yet to see any arcade or computer game that has the player perform in this role. Wouldn't it be a hoot if one or more of you were to design a game in which the goal is to not get shot while gathering and transmitting back information? Your only weapon would be your wits and the cover provided by the environment, as well as the med-kit on your belt as you get winged by "the bad guys."
Being a scout, you would be considerably lighter on your feet than the typical weapon-toting warrier. Oh, RAH allowed a knife in his stories, but the point was that the scout is the rabbit, not the lion. So design accordingly.
The game prizes would be microdots, but you get the points only when you successfully transmit them back to base. The survival of the scout is not the object, only the transmission of information. Dying well would be a winning move if the information you send back is valuable enough -- in other words, a sacrifice may well be the play that keeps you going, as the reward could be a new life or complete repair or something.
If you use this idea, all I ask is that you give me a little credit. No money required.
Beware of legislators targeting morality (Score:5)
This is an excellent substitute for doing real work. If the congresscritter tackles a real issue, he could certainly claim credit if he is successful, but there would be the risk of blame if he screws it up.
We (citizens collectively) fall for this old gag every single time.