Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Of the Tabletop, and other, lesser varieties.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

maxh
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:14 am UTC

Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby maxh » Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:48 pm UTC

Arnold Schwarzenegger, '80s action star and governor of California, has passed a law banning the sale of "violent" video games to anyone under the age of 18.

This law has been challenged and is now on its way to being tested in the Supreme Court. The National Youth Rights Association is currently working on an amicus brief to oppose this law, and we need help from the rest of the gaming community. We are collecting testimonies that detail the social, artistic, and especially political value of video games to prove to the court that their distribution should be protected under the First Amendment.

The media has been demonizing gamers ever since someone decided that Doom caused Columbine. Getting the Supreme Court to strike down this law and admit the value of video games would be a huge step forward in fighting these misconceptions. This is our chance to clear the name of video games and protect the First Amendment rights of young gamers. This could be the first step in government regulation of video games that could affect all gamers, regardless of age. Our brief is coming along, but we really do need your help. The more testimonies we have, the better our chances of winning over the court.

For more information and to submit your testimony, visit:
http://blog.youthrights.org/2010/08/11/ ... ight_back/

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Glmclain » Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:59 am UTC

I hate to be the naysayer here, but I kind of agree with this, unless I'm reading it wrong.

A 13 year old boy should not be able to walk into a store and buy Manhunt 2.

If he's mature enough to play it his parents shouldn't have a problem buying it for him.

You have to have a parent to see R movies, you have to have a parent to play mature video games. I don't see the problem.
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

maxh
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:14 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby maxh » Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:26 am UTC

Glmclain wrote:You have to have a parent to see R movies, you have to have a parent to play mature video games. I don't see the problem.

It's not actually illegal to watch an R-rated movie without a parent, or to sell a ticket to one to someone without a parent. The problem is that this makes it a legal issue.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby TheAmazingRando » Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:35 am UTC

My problem is that ratings, be they for films or video games, aren't given out in a way that is fair, consistent, or transparent. It isn't "children under age X should not be exposed to Y without parental supervision or permission," which I find reasonable. It's "children under age X should not be exposed to anything deemed by this private organization as unsuitable for them without parental supervision or permission," and I don't like giving a private organization that sort of government-enforced power.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby nowfocus » Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:30 am UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:My problem is that ratings, be they for films or video games, aren't given out in a way that is fair, consistent, or transparent. It isn't "children under age X should not be exposed to Y without parental supervision or permission," which I find reasonable. It's "children under age X should not be exposed to anything deemed by this private organization as unsuitable for them without parental supervision or permission," and I don't like giving a private organization that sort of government-enforced power.

If you let such an organization be government controlled, imagine what will happen when some politicians are in power and want to score some easy points with the morality crowd.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
PatrickRsGhost
Posts: 2278
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:43 pm UTC
Location: ZZ9PluralZAlpha
Contact:

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby PatrickRsGhost » Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:38 am UTC

The only thing I see wrong with this is that if passed, kids will still find a way to buy the violent video games. They already have ways of acquiring other items that are otherwise illegal for someone their age to acquire, like cigarettes and alcohol.

For those they might use fake I.D. cards, showing they are 21. A lot of government agencies are cracking down on this by making the I.D. cards harder to duplicate or forge, including using holograms of the state or country seal, and in the state of Georgia, a hologram version of the picture.

Another way kids have been known to acquire illegal products for their age group is to do what some might call a "Hey Man" or "Hey Mister." They would come up to some stranger on the street, usually someone who looks older, and say "Hey, man, would you buy us some cigarettes/beer?" They give him the money, and hope he'd be stupid enough to do so. The problem here is even that action is illegal, because you would be arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

As for the violent video games, there is no full proof that they contribute to violence among kids. In most, if not all, cases, the children who enact or reenact the violence from the video games probably had violent tendencies in the first place.

If anyone should be blamed for kids becoming violent due to video game violence, it should be the kids themselves for not thinking too clearly, and the parents of those kids, for not explaining that the violence is not real in the games, or in the movies. It is also the parent that needs to decide what the kid can and cannot have, not the kid, not society. It doesn't take a village to raise a child; it takes at least one fucking parent who is not too fucking lazy and is willing to do their fucking job.

Children should not have the same freedoms adults have. They don't, if they have parents. It is the parents that should decide what is right and wrong for their kids. It is the parents' responsibility to decide what games a kid can play.

The reason why kids have these violent games is because the games are advertised all over the channels the kids watch, and the kids will ask their parents for that game. Not wanting to sound mean or unfair, the parents will give in, with the understanding that it will get the kids out of their hair, keep them occupied, while the parents sit back and do nothing. Hail the great babysitters of the 21st Century: Internet, video games, and TV.

As for the boys that killed all the students at Columbine: The only reason why the video game "Doom" was linked to their violent behavior was because at the time of the killings, video game violence was a big topic in the news, and even though the ESRB had been established a few years before Columbine occurred, many parent groups and child interest groups felt slapping some letter on a game title wasn't enough. When Columbine occurred, the anti-video game violence groups lapped up the fact that the boys loved playing "Doom" and other similar games. They fueled the fires, stating that they used the game as training.

For a couple of years in my early teens I had played "Doom"'s predecessor, "Wolfenstein 3D". Like "Doom", it's a FPS with some blood and carnage, some of it up close. I would spend hours during the Summer playing that game, and it didn't incite violent tendencies in me. I didn't go into my middle school or high school and shoot up the place. And yes, I was one of the ones that was bullied and picked on in middle and high school. During the school year my parents set limits as to how long I could play. On school nights it was usually 30 minutes at a time on games; weekends allowed for an hour at a time, with a wait of 4 hours between plays.
PRG

An important message for you:

010000100110010100100000011100110
111010101110010011001010010000001
110100011011110010000001100101011
000010111010000100000011110010110
111101110101011100100010000001100
010011000010110001101101111011011
1000101110

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:57 am UTC

If a parents biggest beef with videogames is their violent content, then applying a rating system to games is a means for parents to control which videogames their children are exposed to. That means censorship of videogames won't occur, because children won't be getting violent games, adults will. This is a good thing.

'Shoddy' ratings system aside (Oh no, sexual content and violence alike make for 'mature'? for shame!), this is actually a very good, and very wise move.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Texas_Ben
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:34 am UTC
Location: Not in Texas

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Texas_Ben » Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:07 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:If a parents biggest beef with videogames is their violent content, then applying a rating system to games is a means for parents to control which videogames their children are exposed to. That means censorship of videogames won't occur, because children won't be getting violent games, adults will. This is a good thing.

Except that there is already a ratings system in place, which every retailer I am aware of adheres to, and voluntarily refuses to sell games of certain ratings to people of certain ages. Would you be so kind as to explain what benefit anyone derives from taking away the industry self-regulation and making it a government thing?

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:43 am UTC

I'm going to just point out the parental elephant in the room that usually bought the M rated game and then complained later that the warning of extreme violence wasn't a warning for severe violence.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
psion
Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:33 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby psion » Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:59 am UTC

All that comes to mind.
PatrickRsGhost wrote:and the parents of those kids, for not explaining that the violence is not real in the games, or in the movies.

I find this insulting to kids. Any child who has developed the language skills to even comprehend such an explaination would already realize the difference. Otherwise it's a good thing anvils aren't household objects. There'd be an epidemic caused from the Warner Brothers.

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby headprogrammingczar » Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:24 pm UTC

I'm gonna have to go with this law being totally unhelpful. Trigger warning:
Spoiler:
Hell, high school English teachers assign us books containing deadly dog rape, a legislated culture of rape, and chapter-long descriptions of it, murder and cannibalism, among others. And these are only the books I had to read.

So as you can see, there are way worse things going on right now than children shooting aliens with rocket launchers.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Woopate » Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:35 pm UTC

I once worked electronics retail, like so many others. Our till prompted us every time an M rated game went through to check for ID, and required you to press a button to get through the prompt. Every clerk ignored it, even for little kids. Far too often, when talking to parents with 8-12 year olds in tow who asked me to open the cabinet and get Gran Theft Auto out, they had no idea what they were buying. Conversations usually went something like this:

"You are aware that this game is rated M and is not recommended for people younger than seventeen years old."

"It's fine, he says his friend has the game."

"You've seen news articles about video games where players can steal cars, pick up, use, and then execute prostitutes with a golf club?"

"Yes, why?"

"This is that game."

"Oh my, never mind. You can put that back."

I'm not sure a law would change much for the average sixteen year old behind a till who just skips through the "check ID" prompt when a mature video game is being sold, and requiring parents to be present won't help much either, because far too often they don't have one whit of wit about what they are purchasing.

Not that any of that matters until, you know, we can scientifically find reason to believe violent media is harmful by itself.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby nowfocus » Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:30 pm UTC

I think its funny how parents bitch about not being able to control what there kids play when there not around. I'm pretty sure all the major systems have parental controls - it would take them minutes to set up.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:19 pm UTC

Texas_Ben wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:If a parents biggest beef with videogames is their violent content, then applying a rating system to games is a means for parents to control which videogames their children are exposed to. That means censorship of videogames won't occur, because children won't be getting violent games, adults will. This is a good thing.

Except that there is already a ratings system in place, which every retailer I am aware of adheres to, and [b]voluntarily refuses to sell games of certain ratings to people of certain ages[/b]. Would you be so kind as to explain what benefit anyone derives from taking away the industry self-regulation and making it a government thing?

It should be given the same status as cinema. I'm curious how you view enforcing the regulation the same as 'taking away the industry self-regulation'? You realize I'm not agreeing with a state ban on M rated games, right? I'm not actually even that convinced that this needs to be a state matter, but the OP seems to be more about how videogames cause violent behavior, as opposed to whether or not states should have the right to ban sales of M rated games to minors. I have zero issue with a state banning the sale of M rated games to minors.

I would like to know where you live, because the above bolded is simply not true everywhere else I've ever been and purchased a videogame, and apparently, not the true for a couple other people in this thread.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Texas_Ben
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:34 am UTC
Location: Not in Texas

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Texas_Ben » Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:17 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:It should be given the same status as cinema. I'm curious how you view enforcing the regulation the same as 'taking away the industry self-regulation'? You realize I'm not agreeing with a state ban on M rated games, right? I'm not actually even that convinced that this needs to be a state matter, but the OP seems to be more about how videogames cause violent behavior, as opposed to whether or not states should have the right to ban sales of M rated games to minors. I have zero issue with a state banning the sale of M rated games to minors.

Yes, no one is talking about banning M-rated video games, that is correct, so I'm not sure where you're pulling that from. You say that you think it should be given the same status as cinema, but it isn't illegal for persons under 18 to view an R-rated movie. It's self-regulation by theatres. So if we don't feel the need to have the government enforce movie ratings, why should we have the government enforce games ratings?

I would like to know where you live, because the above bolded is simply not true everywhere else I've ever been and purchased a videogame, and apparently, not the true for a couple other people in this thread.

I would like to know where you all live, since I still get carded when I go to buy games. I've got some friends who work in retail-- Two at gamestop, one at Best Buy, and they have all told me that their managers make a huge deal about getting ID before selling M-rated games to young-looking folk.

User avatar
Kag
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:56 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Kag » Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:48 pm UTC

Ehhh, it doesn't seem like this supports a legitimate state interest, so it unfairly burdens the games industry.
The Great Hippo wrote:I am starting to regret having used 'goat-fucker' in this context.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Xanthir » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:22 pm UTC

This precise type of issue has been passed into law multiple times, and struck down by the courts *every single time*. This time won't be any different. It's unconstitutional, simple as that.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

Numquam
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:13 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Numquam » Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:18 pm UTC

admiror, o internet, te non cecidisse (ruinis)
qui tot scriptorum taedia sustineas

User avatar
Swivelguy
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:11 pm UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Swivelguy » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:18 am UTC

Last I checked, the supreme court was not an opinion poll. Nobody is going to influence a supreme court case by posting a comment on a blog.
EVE Online: Daesis Wrack
Starcraft 2 (US): CosmicOsmo #465
Anarchy Online (RK2): Azzamis

maxh
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:14 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby maxh » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:46 am UTC

Swivelguy wrote:Last I checked, the supreme court was not an opinion poll. Nobody is going to influence a supreme court case by posting a comment on a blog.

No, but you might influence the case by posting on the blog of a group that is using that blog to research an amicus brief they're writing.

User avatar
psion
Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:33 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby psion » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:18 am UTC


I didn't care for it, but what Henry Jenkins wrote linked from there was quite interesting. It seems most people who speak for or against violent video games always end up leaving logic behind for barraging each other with statistics and examples that are almost always false, negligible, or irrelevant. Jenkins laid out all the relevant framework of the issue in a concise manner, and then presented the logic issues and his opinion for everyone to see. It's sad that stubborn ignorance is a valid position in this argument.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Endless Mike » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:30 pm UTC

What people are missing here is that California's argument is that video games are not a protected form of speech. While allowing the law in and of itself might not seem like a bad idea, it creates a very bad precedent both for video games and other media in general since it suggests that violence is obscenity, and thus unprotected.

User avatar
Midnight
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:53 am UTC
Location: Twixt hither and thither. Ergo, Jupiter.

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Midnight » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:18 am UTC

headprogrammingczar wrote:I'm gonna have to go with this law being totally unhelpful. Trigger warning:
Spoiler:
Hell, high school English teachers assign us books containing deadly dog rape, a legislated culture of rape, and chapter-long descriptions of it, murder and cannibalism, among others. And these are only the books I had to read.

So as you can see, there are way worse things going on right now than children shooting aliens with rocket launchers.

... what high school did you go to?
There was sex in 1984 and brave new world, and some rape and murder in native son... but we read none of those books.


But yeah this shit should be up to parents in an open discussion with their kids, not up to private "moral organizations" cause we know that they're a crock of shit (and the reason that it's totally okay to have violence on TV but heaven forbid the words 'goddamn' or anything sexual. cause sex is so much worse than murder)
of course, there are plenty of parents that just go "oh there's sex/violence/language no way" without considering that their kids probably use foul language all the time and understand how babby is formed. there's the whole moral majority thing, too. i dunno.



...it's sort of a clusterfuck.
uhhhh fuck.

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Kizyr » Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:47 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:It should be given the same status as cinema. I'm curious how you view enforcing the regulation the same as 'taking away the industry self-regulation'? You realize I'm not agreeing with a state ban on M rated games, right? I'm not actually even that convinced that this needs to be a state matter, but the OP seems to be more about how videogames cause violent behavior, as opposed to whether or not states should have the right to ban sales of M rated games to minors. I have zero issue with a state banning the sale of M rated games to minors.

As far as what I know, ratings on cinema are something that the movie industry imposes on itself, in order to avoid the need for formal, legal regulation. However, that may just be nationally--state and local ordinances can impose legal enforcement of movie ratings.

In Nashville, for instance, "R" means 18-and-up, not 17-and-up, requires a parent/legal guardian with you if you're under 18, and some theaters have extra enforcement of this by checking ID at the screen instead of just the ticket counter. From what it sounds, this would effectively do the same thing for video games statewide in California.

So... it's not the end of free speech or anything. But I do think it's a wholly unnecessary law. The main problem is that parents either are aware of the ratings system and can use it to make good judgment, or they're completely ignorant of the ratings system and have no idea the extent to which the games that they're buying are, in fact, graphically violent. Legal enforcement won't fix the problem of people disregarding the ratings in the first place. KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Lucrece » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:29 am UTC

headprogrammingczar wrote:I'm gonna have to go with this law being totally unhelpful. Trigger warning:
Spoiler:
Hell, high school English teachers assign us books containing deadly dog rape, a legislated culture of rape, and chapter-long descriptions of it, murder and cannibalism, among others. And these are only the books I had to read.

So as you can see, there are way worse things going on right now than children shooting aliens with rocket launchers.


In the case with Allende's The House of the Spirits, such acts are never sympathetic. They are pretty blatant social commentary, and in no way does the book ever ask you to play Esteban, an unquestionably prepotent swine. He gets what's coming to him, if perhaps too little (then again, anything short of boiling him alive will be little to me).

This is different from a game where the entertainment comes from relating to and wanting to live vicariously through some questionable characters. God of War is a pretty recent example of a petty, murderous, rapist douchebag that the gamer is supposed to relate to.

My issue with the legislation is less about the drive to control content, but the range of the content and mediums controlled. If roleplayed violence us something that must be restricted, then how come wrestling, MMA are so accessible on TV. Boxing? Barbarism disguised under the name of sport. But somehow Resident Evil is more dangerous to a child than watching people cheering men into beating each other into bloody pulps.

In that sense, the legislation does become suspect, and it makes it feel like videogames are targeted not because of their potential impact but because they're the new kid on the block and gamers are socially stigmatized while TV entertainment is not.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26518
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:02 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:This is different from a game where the entertainment comes from relating to and wanting to live vicariously through some questionable characters. God of War is a pretty recent example of a petty, murderous, rapist douchebag that the gamer is supposed to relate to.
Because the protagonists of Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Lord of War, Predators, The Godfather, Kill Bill, Friday, and a crapload of movies I can't recall all have fine, upstanding members of society, not a single one of which would dare break the law or engage in any illicit or immoral behaviors?

We can also talk about Musicians if you'd like. I bet we'd be hard pressed to find a single song that glorifies a life of drugs, violence, or lots and lots of casual sex without a single thought towards protection from STIs or pregnancy prevention.

...

There's also Television. It's not like Oz or the Sopranos were at all important or watched by anyone. And it's not like they'd think of putting substance abuse, lying and adultery on the television in the middle of the day either.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby headprogrammingczar » Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:44 pm UTC

That wikipedia link made my week.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

User avatar
Kag
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:56 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Kag » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:18 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:This is different from a game where the entertainment comes from relating to and wanting to live vicariously through some questionable characters. God of War is a pretty recent example of a petty, murderous, rapist douchebag that the gamer is supposed to relate to.


How do you figure? With the exception of his heel-face turn at the very end, Kratos' actions consist pretty exclusively of murder and mass murder, sometimes both at the same time.
The Great Hippo wrote:I am starting to regret having used 'goat-fucker' in this context.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Lucrece » Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:02 am UTC

Kag wrote:
Lucrece wrote:This is different from a game where the entertainment comes from relating to and wanting to live vicariously through some questionable characters. God of War is a pretty recent example of a petty, murderous, rapist douchebag that the gamer is supposed to relate to.


How do you figure? With the exception of his heel-face turn at the very end, Kratos' actions consist pretty exclusively of murder and mass murder, sometimes both at the same time.


By making him the protagonist and giving him some tear-jerker background about his family that supposedly justifies his murderous rampage. Oh, and that little bit with Aphrodite, who conveniently was erotically frolicking with two other women before the cool he-man Kratos that every nerd wants to be gets her moaning with his admirable sexual vigor.

Some more on developer intent:
During the creative process, game director David Jaffe strived to create a character that looked "brutal", but still separated his appearance from what is considered to be the traditional Greek hero. Traditional armor was also removed from the character, in order to promote the character's "individualism". One of the early concepts was a fully masked character, but the idea was abandoned when such designs seemed "soulless", lacking a defined personality.

Some models included unconventional elements, including an infant being carried on Kratos' back,[6] while others were deemed to include excessive detail, such as hair and other "flowing things".

The double-chained blades were selected as Kratos' signature weapons as they emphasized the character's animalistic nature but still allowed combat to remain fluid.

Jaffe commented on the final version of Kratos stating while "...he (Kratos) may not totally feel at home in Ancient Greece from a costume standpoint, I think he achieves the greater purpose which is to give players a character who they can play who really does just let them go nuts and unleash the nasty fantasies that they have their head."


http://www.answers.com/topic/kratos-god ... ite_note-0

SecondTalon wrote:
Lucrece wrote:This is different from a game where the entertainment comes from relating to and wanting to live vicariously through some questionable characters. God of War is a pretty recent example of a petty, murderous, rapist douchebag that the gamer is supposed to relate to.
Because the protagonists of Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Lord of War, Predators, The Godfather, Kill Bill, Friday, and a crapload of movies I can't recall all have fine, upstanding members of society, not a single one of which would dare break the law or engage in any illicit or immoral behaviors?

We can also talk about Musicians if you'd like. I bet we'd be hard pressed to find a single song that glorifies a life of drugs, violence, or lots and lots of casual sex without a single thought towards protection from STIs or pregnancy prevention.

...

There's also Television. It's not like Oz or the Sopranos were at all important or watched by anyone. And it's not like they'd think of putting substance abuse, lying and adultery on the television in the middle of the day either.



You know, past that little trigger quote that set your smug-mode off, I made exact same point, and why that point made the law suspect in my view because it felt like cherry-picking on a socially stigmatized medium.

The quote you made simply questioned putting Allende's work on the same category of non-judgemental/sympathetic work like The Sopranos. Allende made very little effort to humanize rapists, and particularly Esteban, in her works. It can't be said that Allende fit into the mold of the work that "exposes children to appealing views of illicit/immoral works". The person I quoted seemed to think that you could argue against such parents by pointing out school reading lists at them that contained violence, but I replied that it wouldn't be effective given the qualitative difference between a work like Allende's and something like 50 Cent.

One moralizes, which seems to be what these parents want, while the other is written purely as a source of entertainment.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Kag
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:56 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Kag » Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:38 pm UTC

Wait, what? Yeah. Exactly. Kratos is infinitely beyond over the top manly wish fulfillment. That's pretty much the opposite of relatable.
The Great Hippo wrote:I am starting to regret having used 'goat-fucker' in this context.

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Glmclain » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:37 pm UTC

I think we should play a game!

Lets put a gamer in the Supreme Courtroom. Every time someone in the court makes a completely false or silly baseless claim about videogames, the gamer gets to punch that person in the face.

The first person to avoid blacking out wins!




Should be fun.
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Decker » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:39 pm UTC

Glmclain wrote:I think we should play a game!

Lets put a gamer in the Supreme Courtroom. Every time someone in the court makes a completely false or silly baseless claim about videogames, the gamer gets to punch that person in the face.

The first person to avoid blacking out wins!




Should be fun.

Man, with how weak my punches are now, that would take forever.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Glmclain » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:47 pm UTC

Given the er, track record, of this kind of thing with SCOTUS I think you'd win regardless...
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Lucrece » Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:28 pm UTC

Kag wrote:Wait, what? Yeah. Exactly. Kratos is infinitely beyond over the top manly wish fulfillment. That's pretty much the opposite of relatable.


His feats may be over the top, but his mentality is something that appeals to the audience. The player relates to his lust for vengeance (lost family, feeling powerless and tricked by some higher ups), his bravado, his need to prove "manliness".

He could be extraordinary yet alien, but the developers chose to cut that little part where Spartans wore long, long, curly hair in a knot. And they didn't have perfectly trimmed goatees. They grabbed the typical action hero ala Crank that the gamers can establish a connection with.

The character was basically another tragic hero that's meant to elicit sympathy and understanding on some level despite his murderous rampage. The parents who are trying to pass this legislation, however, would rather see a character like him killed off or meet some "judgement" for his transgressions, not "win" (which the player helps him achieve; his mission is in your hands).

Glmclain wrote:I think we should play a game!

Lets put a gamer in the Supreme Courtroom. Every time someone in the court makes a completely false or silly baseless claim about videogames, the gamer gets to punch that person in the face.

The first person to avoid blacking out wins!




Should be fun.


Punch in the face would be quite fitting, actually ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1bP-m_B ... r_embedded
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26518
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:54 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:The character was basically another tragic hero that's meant to elicit sympathy and understanding on some level despite his murderous rampage. The parents who are trying to pass this legislation, however, would rather see a character like him killed off or meet some "judgement" for his transgressions, not "win" (which the player helps him achieve; his mission is in your hands).
That sounds familiar for some reason.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Lucrece » Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:37 pm UTC

Yeah, but to them, it hasn't worked as they wanted, otherwise we wouldn't see lawsuits or the usual pundits on TV.

This will be a non-issue as we make videogames more mainstream, like TV. Then it will be plain old gratuitous violence that anyone can appreciate and not some Satanic agenda.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Decker » Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:57 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
Lucrece wrote:The character was basically another tragic hero that's meant to elicit sympathy and understanding on some level despite his murderous rampage. The parents who are trying to pass this legislation, however, would rather see a character like him killed off or meet some "judgement" for his transgressions, not "win" (which the player helps him achieve; his mission is in your hands).
That sounds familiar for some reason.

I actually think that Grand Theft Auto IV has some good examples of this.
Spoiler:
Several of the people you work for end up either dead or in jail and not getting out in the foreseeable future. You end up with either a dead cousin or a dead girlfriend. And...you're not really a powerful person at the end of the game like the other grand theft auto games. You're still just kind of a thug. Everyone is either dead or in jail or hates you.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

User avatar
superglucose
hermaj's new favourite
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:59 am UTC
Location: Domain of Azura
Contact:

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby superglucose » Tue Aug 24, 2010 5:59 am UTC

maxh wrote:Arnold Schwarzenegger, '80s action star and governor of California, has passed a law banning the sale of "violent" video games to anyone under the age of 18.

Let me put it this way:

For all of my life I have campaigned against this idea of "Oh me yarm bewbs = mature" because everyone has nipples, pretty much everyone has or wants to have sex, etc. etc. How are penises mature content if at least half of all people under the age of 2 have seen one?

But as for the violence issue, I believe Yahtzee said it correctly: it is obviously incorrect to say that Halo is turning our youth into gun-toting crazed-killing machines, but it's also somewhat... questionable... to say that a game like Manhunt won't have an effect on kids in terms of desensitizing them to violence.

My compromise with myself is this: don't let the kids buy M rated games in the same way you don't let the kids buy tickets to R rated movies. `ro. Oh, and also to campaign against the way a lot of games try to appear edgy by adding in gore. Dark games are not (necessarily) games in which everything is a headless zombie. Example: Morrowind was a very dark game, with a huge undercurrent of corruption, racism, hatred, etc. and it managed it all without gore. Games that use spectacle in place of actual quality drive me bonkers, and I feel like it's these games (Manhunt comes to mind) that belong to the class of games that make me feel it's ok to restrict the sale of violent games.
Image

User avatar
psion
Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:33 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby psion » Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:57 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:This will be a non-issue as we make videogames more mainstream, like TV. Then it will be plain old gratuitous violence that anyone can appreciate and not some Satanic agenda.

At least until holodecks. If holodecks are invented before we die, then we might feel, with our limited technical understanding, that it crosses the line.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

Postby Lucrece » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:14 am UTC

superglucose wrote:
maxh wrote:Arnold Schwarzenegger, '80s action star and governor of California, has passed a law banning the sale of "violent" video games to anyone under the age of 18.

Let me put it this way:

For all of my life I have campaigned against this idea of "Gee Willikers bewbs = mature" because everyone has nipples, pretty much everyone has or wants to have sex, etc. etc. How are penises mature content if at least half of all people under the age of 2 have seen one?

But as for the violence issue, I believe Yahtzee said it correctly: it is obviously incorrect to say that Halo is turning our youth into gun-toting crazed-killing machines, but it's also somewhat... questionable... to say that a game like Manhunt won't have an effect on kids in terms of desensitizing them to violence.

My compromise with myself is this: don't let the kids buy M rated games in the same way you don't let the kids buy tickets to R rated movies. `ro. Oh, and also to campaign against the way a lot of games try to appear edgy by adding in gore. Dark games are not (necessarily) games in which everything is a headless zombie. Example: Morrowind was a very dark game, with a huge undercurrent of corruption, racism, hatred, etc. and it managed it all without gore. Games that use spectacle in place of actual quality drive me bonkers, and I feel like it's these games (Manhunt comes to mind) that belong to the class of games that make me feel it's ok to restrict the sale of violent games.


More or less my view, but I understand when parents who have not grown up with these videogames might take it up a notch or two. It should be obvious, however, that legislating morality should be rejected. I personally would not buy my children, even at 15-- especially at 15-17-- games like these, explaining why they're not permitted in the household.

It either ends up on the extreme of parents not being involved at all with their children's upbringing and wanting some easy system to magically solve it for them, where on the other hand we have parents so overconfident with their abilities that they want to impose themselves upon everyone else without considering they might be wrong on this and someone else is taking the right approach.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.


Return to “Gaming”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests