Video game Bans

On 04-Jul-2007 super craig said:

Fair point, I hadn't thought of that, like when you have to show your passport at an airport, you knows its expected so it isn't annoying. It would just be a problem until it got to that point.

On 10-Jul-2007 Fwank said:

Is that how it works now? I mean I know the provider gets in trouble for offering it to minors, but do the minors themselves receive no punishment?

Good point I don't actually know if they punish the minors but I assume that if they do then it will still be worse for the provider just because it always is.

Its the same thing as like tobacco, it started out as:
-No selling tobacco to minors
and they didnt think about kids getting them from older sibblings ect. so they had to change the law so minors couldint smoke at all, if this bill passes it will eventualy wind up the same thing with is ridiculous becaus eits just parents and the governments way of blaming some1 else for violence in schools and in the communitys. parents need to step up and take responsibility! with all the drugs and teenage parents, they arent the fault of videogames, those are the parenting skills that the parents themselfs refuse to accept they always have to blame some1 else for their kids behaving badly, and the governors and mayors are meeting the requests of the parents to get re-elected. people need to put their kid before their pride.

Hm... that's a very good point. Or rather, two good points, the latter of which I've been saying for years. But you're right on the first one, too, and that's what will make this law not really work. I thought there would be something...

Any law would be far from fool proof but at least it may help to stop underage kids from getting games, even if it only helps slightly.

But the thing is, banning something often as not creates a black market for it. So if it's not working well anyway, overall it'll probably have a negative effect.

On 17-Jul-2007 Shadow_Lord said:

But the thing is, banning something often as not creates a black market for it. So if it's not working well anyway, overall it'll probably have a negative effect.

A very good point, not been able to get something makes you want it more. However I don't really see how much of a negative impact banning a game would do, its not like drugs and stuff like that.

Oh believe me, it'll happen. It always does. Never fails to.

Black market for games?

You mean the piracy industry?

The point is to convey a message; some games just aren't suitable for some kids. Passing such a bill legitimizes accusations on ill-parenting more than it stops kids from enjoying a good game.

Ha ha. Yes. I'm well aware of the piracy industry. How can I not be, when every DVD these days has some stupid anti-piracy advert at the beginning which you can't skip? My point is that it'll only make it worse.

And I believe the message has already been conveyed... games do have ratings, you know. Some are even already stricted to a certain age group. (Although curiously seem to come down when said game goes platinum. O_o )

This is so stupid! If you couldn't already tell, I'm a huge Devil May Cry fan. If I would have to present some ID to buy the next one, or any of the previous ones should (god-forbid) something happen to my discs or something, I would flip out. It's incredibly hard to influence a child to do something that they don't want to do anyway, so I have no idea what the government is talking about. For instance, it's impossible to get me to cut my lawn, and getting a game that involves mowing a lawn wouldn't get me any closer to that lawn mower. If a kid didn't already have a desire to kill somebody, then GTA: San Andreas wouldn't encourage them to do so. If the parents belive that the child is responsible enough to get a rated M or AO or whatever game, then thats even better. My mom got me DMC 3 for christmas, without even blinking an eye. Now, i understand it would be odd if a six year old got DMC for christmas, but I'm 14, so it's closer to the rating, but still. Maybe lowering the ratings a bit... for instance, T wouldn't be an issue, as most 10 year olds I know have played a Ratchet& Clank game or worse, but M being 17+? Come on! I think Australia has the right idea with it being 15 years old and over.

Scientific research has shown that video games, in most cases, actually reinforce that things like murder are wrong. They only make things go the other way if the kid in question's already mentally unstable.

Exactly and if they are unstable enough to kill because of a game, then they would probably do it for other reasons and probably be murderers anyway.

Which all relates back to my original point that video games are only bad if coupled with bad parenting.

Actually, I disagree with you there Shadow. Even bad parenting couldn't corupt videogames in my opinion, because they reinforce that killing and such is wrong. If a child had bad parents, they would spend more time with their videogames, which would reinforce the fact that murder is bad even more so. My theory is that videogames aren't bad, the desicions that mentally unstable people make are, and people are just blaming it on videogames, because they know that they can't do anything about it. Once all videogames are banned, then they will have to look for something else to blame it on.

On 19-Jul-2007 Shadow_Lord said:

Which all relates back to my original point that video games are only bad if coupled with bad parenting.

I agree with that, though the part the video game plays I think is bordering on insignificant, since bad parenting on its own has a massive impact on the child and I believe that the game wouldn't really have much of an large but I guess an effect none the less.

@King of Hell: I agree and as I mentioned a some point a while back its just a convient excuse for parents who don't want to admit that its their parenting at fault.


« Last edited by super craig on Jul 19th 2007 »

Sorry, I must have missed that part. I didn't mean to bump an idea.

On 19-Jul-2007 King of Hell said:

Sorry, I must have missed that part. I didn't mean to bump an idea.

Doesn't matter, I didn't mean for it too sound like that, just means that we agree.

If all of these surveys or whatever show that video games don't incite murder and stuff then why do they continue the blame them, I thought the Government would have been big on having evidence to back it up.

Governments only like evidence that points the finger away from themselves and the failings of their own society. They'd much rather believe a bunch of parents claiming that Pikachu is the Devil than a group of scientists proving that video games are beneficial to children.

On 19-Jul-2007 King of Hell said:

Actually, I disagree with you there Shadow. Even bad parenting couldn't corupt videogames in my opinion, because they reinforce that killing and such is wrong. If a child had bad parents, they would spend more time with their videogames, which would reinforce the fact that murder is bad even more so. My theory is that videogames aren't bad, the desicions that mentally unstable people make are, and people are just blaming it on videogames, because they know that they can't do anything about it. Once all videogames are banned, then they will have to look for something else to blame it on.

When I say "bad parenting", I mean bad parenting in the sense that these parents are too stupid or ignorant to realise they're childs a Class A pscho who's going to snap sooner or later anyway and kill some people, and that the video games are just accelerating the process somewhat. Also bad parenting in the sense of not realising what games may be too adult for their children (which, lets face it, isn't hard, provided you know your child well).