The British Government Doesn't Like Ao Titles

[andywg]

And to respond to your accusation that religion breeds intolerance, yes I've seen it happen all too often.

So you and I both accept that religion can cause lots of problems in young people, yet no one does anything about it. Why is this? Perhaps because Religion has a better hold over those in power than video games? I asked for one instance where video games cause problems to the target audience and you find none. I state that religion can corrupt its target audience and you agree.

But again you have a personal issue with religion so your viewpoint is clouded as well in that regard. I've seen plenty of instances where religion promotes acceptance and peace, christianity in it's true sense is a good example, but too many have used it's influence over people to get personal gain and cause suffering.

So let me get this right:

If a video game can be at all shown to be a part in one single event that led to death, you think huge controls bordering on, and moving into, banning should occur; across the board too, just in case.

When the same thing happens with religion you choose to just say "but it does good as well". Well I would far rather angry stable people vent their anger by blowing off steam nuking whole worlds in a computer game than carry that anger around. So computer games do good too as far as I am concerned.

My viewpoint is not clouded, I can just see how you are applying one set of rules to video games, and another to religion.

But to promote tolerance doesn't have to mean that a group of people accepts a lifestyle and doesn't object to it's practice. Just that they don't condemn it and intentionally cause trouble for it.

So why not tolerate video games that are adult themed and only aimed at, and restricted on sale to, adults being played by...adults?

I'm a religious person (you probably already assumed that), and my organization condemns the practice of homosexuality. But the condemnation of the practice is where it ends! We are taught to love accept and befriend all people, and not to judge, but we also have guidelines for personal conduct that we hold for ourselves. We don't expect others to adhere to our standards, but we do expect others of our faith to. That's where it ends!

And I, as a member of society, expect other people to respect the values of law and not let violent games fall into the hands of minors (especially those likely to be affected by them).

To put your views on violent video games into homosexuals, you are essentially calling for homosexuality to either be taxed heavily, or banned, purely because it doesn't fit your values. How would you like it if I called for your religion to be taxed or banned because it doesn't fit my values (never mind that other things that don't agree with my values are tolerated fine)?

Your claim that religion causes violence is false, it is the misinterpretation of religion that causes violence. There is no way to misinterpret the intention of GTA3 or other games.

Wrong. It is perfectly possible to misinterpret GTA3. You have. You misinterpret it as something to try and influence people that in the real world killing is ok. GTA3 is a FICTIONAL game where one can make pixels move in such a way as to look like someone dying. It's purpose is merely to entertain one with a fictional storyline.

However, the Bible clearly says that killing people who don't believe in God is ok, after all God does it enough times and praises others that do it for them. Indeed, many mass murderers are rewarded in the bible, just like in GTA3, except we are told that the bible is the truth and really happened, so we are actually saying that mass murdere of real people a few years ago was cool, but pretending to kill people now is bad.

But like you, I feel you have a personal vendetta for religious belief so a discussion on the subject will be of little value. You my friend are just as biased as I am.

Wrong, I do not call for religions to be banned for anyone to enjoy them just because it causes some people to become mentally unstable, just that their influence into political and legal systems to be stemmed. I would also like them treated the same as any product which intends to distort that person's view of the world, and have them severely restricted in their interaction with minors. Check out the violence in the Old Testament; put that in a video game and you have a guaranteed 18 game. If anyone else wants to see just how much violence there is in the bible, check out this link of 859 incidents of bloodshedding, violence or threats thereof in the "good" book.

And my views on religion are not biased in the same prejudiced ways that you are to homosexuals and violent games; I have experienced religion as I attended a religious school as well as sunday school lessons. I have experienced religion and do read of it (I have dipped in and out of the bible on many an occasion).

I also fully understand that in the vast majority of cases there is no issue with people worshipping whatever faith they choose. I have no problems with adults expressing themselves that way. You on the other hand would like to ban or place heavy restraints on video games because it doesn't fit your views. What ever happened to the tolerence of christianity?

Let's be honest, drinking and smoking kill far more people than these games ever will. Until I see some real concerted campagin agaqinst these I shall ignore the selfish mutterings of those that want everyone else to have the same values as them bleating on about computer games.

Well move on over to the USA, we've been fighting Tobacco for years now. The Tobacco companies have been saddled with the responsibility to help pay to keep their products out of the hands of youngsters, they can not advertise anywhere but in printed magazines, and they are paying huge penalties for targeting youth with harmful materials in the past. This program is actually what I modeled my idea about requiring the video game manufacturers to pay after.

Still, nothing there on actually banning its sale to adults I notice. I have no problem with restricting the advertising of adult games (though people like yourself calling for them to be banned outright provide the best advertising for them of all). The hypocrisy charge stands howewver that no one is doing anything to restrict the sale of tobacco to adults but people are calling for the restriction of sale of video games to adults.

Also, the tobacco companies knew a long time ago of the damage that their products did to their intended audience, a point made more relevant below.

Furthermore, the tobacco companies previously targetted children, the video games like GTA3 have only ever been adult only.

I think it's a good thing and your ramblings about my "religious blinders" don't change a thing! As a matureish adult, surely you recognize that sometimes you have to give up something you enjoy to benefit those in your care!

And surely you have to admit that some people will always do things you would really rather they weren't. Until you can show that hte majority use of something is perfectly fine (such as how many adults play GTA3 and don't become psychotic killers) then you have to allow that practice.

And exposing children to violent entertainment can have nothing but a negative effect on them. You still haven't come up with anything to refute that! Until you do, I think it is your stance that is invalid. Bringing in other things that you have a problem with doesn't somehow make the original point of this thread any less valid!

Wrong. This thread is about Adult Only titles, those aimed solely at adults. The games in queswtion was refused a certificate on grounds of the sadistic violence of the game and had nothing at all to do with its possible effects on children who play video games. The board couldn't mention children as it would then have just given it the 18 certificate it deserves. Other people brought in the children element to support why some games should be banned.

I have agreed the whole time that minors shouldn't be exposed to adult games. What I also say is that the target audience (adults) should be allowed to enjoy them, especially as there is no evidence I have seen that the target audience is in any way affected by the violence in video games. I note you still have come up with nothing to show that letting adults play adult games causes issues.

You stated previously that they should be banned if we can even find one instance (in your example, Columbine) where the games were a part in leading the people to kill. I pointed out that religion has played just such a part many many times (and you agreed in such a way as to infer you had firswt hand experience of these sorts of events), but it is exempt from these sort of allegations as everyone says "he was crazy anyway". For some reason that is never said about those watching/playing movies/video games.

The tobacco companies knew for some time that tobacco was a health risk but choose to continue saying that fags and cigars were fine. There is open research into video games and as I keep stating, there is no evidence brought here to show that adult video games have a huge corrupting influence on adults. Evidence shows that some minors are affected by video games, so for that reason we have a classification system.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I never made a claim that homosexuality should be taxed or banned, and I don't think I made the claim that adults should not be able to enjoy adult games, just that there should be stiffer regulations to keep them out of the hands of minors (who are still ultimately the largest contingency of consumers). It's a shame if you or anyone else thinks that I might have that view toward homosexuality, and I don't appreciate your insinuation of it.

Here's my take on the whole thing, I'm going to outline it one last time for you Andy, let's see if you can get it right this time around.

1} I think that violent video games can and do have a corrupting influence on Children.
2} I think that not enough is being done to keep those games from the hands of children. Parents buy them and give them to their kids all the time without fear of any sort of penalty. In reality we've only illegalized their sale to minors, not their use by minors.
3} I think that the best and most feasible way to prevent parents from allowing their children to be exposed to these games is to have a more intensive public awareness campaign, which should be paid for in large part by those who hope to turn a profit from their sales.
4} Perhaps requiring a higher price to be charged would also be in order, keeping parents from unwittingly buying the games for their youth.

I know you will have a problem with the verbage "prevent parents from allowing their children" but sometimes you've got to do the right thing. It's been done with other harmful materials as Danno already pointed out ie: pornography, or tobacco/alcohol. It is quite clear that a large percentage of modern parents aren't very interested in the lives of their children. It's a shame that money has to be spent to keep them in line, but as you said it's a part of living in society. I've presented an idea to keep the cost of enforcement from those who wish to have no contact with the games in the first place.

SLC

 

[andywg]

I never made a claim that homosexuality should be taxed or banned, and I don't think I made the claim that adults should not be able to enjoy adult games, just that there should be stiffer regulations to keep them out of the hands of minors (who are still ultimately the largest contingency of consumers). It's a shame if you or anyone else thinks that I might have that view toward homosexuality, and I don't appreciate your insinuation of it.

And if you read my post clearly you will see I said "To put your views on violent video games into homosexuals," thus showing how you are tolerating one of them (homosexuality) but treating video games without tolerence.

Here's my take on the whole thing, I'm going to outline it one last time for you Andy, let's see if you can get it right this time around.

1} I think that violent video games can and do have a corrupting influence on Children.
2} I think that not enough is being done to keep those games from the hands of children. Parents buy them and give them to their kids all the time without fear of any sort of penalty. In reality we've only illegalized their sale to minors, not their use by minors.
3} I think that the best and most feasible way to prevent parents from allowing their children to be exposed to these games is to have a more intensive public awareness campaign, which should be paid for in large part by those who hope to turn a profit from their sales.
4} Perhaps requiring a higher price to be charged would also be in order, keeping parents from unwittingly buying the games for their youth.

So what happened to I think they should ban it here as well.? That doesn't sound you letting adults play adult games to me? That sounds like you want to stop anyone playing it. My problem is that your position has changed and you seem reluctant to admit that you are very selective about which products that can cause detriment to children you want to control (still no word on the bible being controlled).

Your selective tax is decided by your prejudice against the games you don't like and probably won't buy. Your hope that it will stop parents buying the games and giving them to their children just because the price is a bit more (just how much do you plan to increase the price?) is naive at best. These are parents who don't care what their children are playing and are happy to buy an 18 certificate game and hand it to their parent and wander off, do you really think that a couple of dollars, or a poster in a shop, is really going to reduce these instances?

I know you will have a problem with the verbage "prevent parents from allowing their children" but sometimes you've got to do the right thing. It's been done with other harmful materials as Danno already pointed out ie: pornography, or tobacco/alcohol.

So, since you admit that the bible can have problems and plat a part in murders, will you happily allow someone to restrict how parents are allowed to have their children interact with the "good" book, yes?

It is quite clear that a large percentage of modern parents aren't very interested in the lives of their children. It's a shame that money has to be spent to keep them in line, but as you said it's a part of living in society.

So shouldn't we all spend money on these families rather than just those that play a certain type of game? Remember, your own link showed that cartoon, non graphic violence has just as much effect on children as the graphic stuff. Why should the graphic ones bear the brunt when the evidence suggests many games have that effect?

I've presented an idea to keep the cost of enforcement from those who wish to have no contact with the games in the first place.

But your own link stated that tests show non graphic violence has the same effect. For you to claim this is anything other than a tax on games you don't like you would have to put the price of almost all games up. Are you prepared to stand by that?

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

For you to claim this is anything other than a tax on games you don't like you would have to put the price of almost all games up. Are you prepared to stand by that?

If it serves the greater good then yes!

SLC

 

[andywg]

For you to claim this is anything other than a tax on games you don't like you would have to put the price of almost all games up. Are you prepared to stand by that?

If it serves the greater good then yes!

SLC

Then how will you address the point below?

These are parents who don't care what their children are playing and are happy to buy an 18 certificate game and hand it to their parent and wander off, do you really think that a couple of dollars, or a poster in a shop, is really going to reduce these instances?

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Well...

I don't think that parents handing games to their parents is really that much of a problem Andy! The elderly population is not that well versed in the X-box or the Wii.



SLC

 

[andywg]

Indeed.

But how is your video game tax going to stop uncaring 'rents handing 18 cert games to kids?

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I don't know about what it's like in the UK, but over here most of the parents who behave this way can't even afford to dress their children properly for the weather outside, they'll still fork over money for something to keep their kids from actually requiring that they be parents. I'd strongly suspect that if M rated games cost more, they'd be passed over for something cheaper.

SLC

 

[andywg]

I don't know about what it's like in the UK, but over here most of the parents who behave this way can't even afford to dress their children properly for the weather outside, they'll still fork over money for something to keep their kids from actually requiring that they be parents. I'd strongly suspect that if M rated games cost more, they'd be passed over for something cheaper.

SLC

But how much will that require?

Look at the cost of the games consoles and games as they are. Hell, over here games are nigh on £40 a go. If they will pay $80 a game, surely you are going to have to put some large increases in the price, which is likely to have some serious side effects on a massive (multi billion dollar) industry.

I just cannot see price alone stopping bad parents buying the games to keep their kids happy, especially if they have forked out for an XBox 360 or PS3.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

You're probably right, but it'd be a start! And over here games are $50 each, and if they don't sell well they go down to about $20 in a hurry.

SLC

 

[Danno]

You're probably right, but it'd be a start! And over here games are $50 each, and if they don't sell well they go down to about $20 in a hurry.

SLC

yea...video game prices are insaine

$59.99 - Xbox 360 & PS3
$49.99 - Wii
$34.99 - DS
$29.99 - $39.99 - PSP

These figures, as mentioned, has a big role in the video game MA/AO problem, but, I don't think it has to do with the parents. I think that these prices hit harder when the kid is purchasing the game.