U.K.'s Vaz Wants Larger Rating Labels on Games
U.K.'s Vaz Wants Larger Rating Labels on Games
July 28, 2007
Speaking in the House of Commons on Thursday, British Parliamentarian Keith Vaz, a frequent critic of violent video games, called for larger ratings on video game packaging. Said Vaz:A partnership between the retailers, the producers of the video games and the Government is therefore important to ensure, first, that labelling is clear. It is still about the size of a 10p piece, which is far too small.
The content of some games is so serious that a warning should be splashed on the bottom that clearly states the age limit so that those games will not pass the retailers who sometimes sell them because inexperienced people operate cash registers and do not know that they should not sell them to someone who is under 18. Such labelling also means that, if such a game is lying around a house, people can see that it is inappropriate.
Vaz made his remarks concerning the recent banning of Manhunt 2 in the U.K., adding:
I was delighted when the BBFC decided to ban it... A huge amount of money is made out of the production of such games, for which we have become the center of Europe, but there is a wider social responsibility, too.
Comments
It has been like this for ages. The rating system is a failure....
And hey Vaz, they should ban your head... Fucker
Second, it's inconsistent. I love the posts above showing the various sizes and placement of labels, indicating that video games are by far the most prominently placed.
Where are the labels on books? Or on the Bible, which contains genocide, threats of homosexual gang rape, underage drinking, and father-daughter incest. And that's in a single story (Lot's story).
What about comic books? There used to be a labeling code in the US, but it was largely abandoned in the 80s...and we've had an explosion of incredible works ever since (Watchmen, Sandman, etc.).
Third, it's a slippery slope. The industry gave in to these labels. Now politicians want more and more, largely because it's an easy stance to take that costs them nothing.
in case you want to see American ratings. I'm surprised he hasn't just moved here and ranted...
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2076/p1010001wk7.jpg
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/keith_vaz/leicester_east
And movies? They have the same ratings as games but their 18 (the oldest rating. means for 18 years or older ) rating label size is smaller than a 5p coin (the smallest coin in the UK, the 10p coin is
either the 2nd or 3rd biggest coin).
What does this b@wb@g want the size of the rating labels be? The size of Jupiter?
Most of these are English problems, maybe independnce (of Scotland) seems like a great idea now if all of us seem like idiots who can't see a large ratings label.
The ratings are big enough as they are (and farking ugly to boot). Now, those mysterious little icons on the back of some European games...
What, in this case, does Vaz want? Cigarette-style warning labels?
@ Matthew
That's not unusual - you would never find a BBFC 18 certificate *and* a PEGI label. It's one or the other.
I wonder if this has become Vaz's new target after someone quietly told him that his old stated goal (ensuring that it was illegal to sell games to underage kids) was already legally enforcible over here, and trying to bring in an already-existing law was making him look silly.
Vaz is just attention whoring, nobody but the News of The World and their ilk pay any real attention to him, other politicians certainly don't. The man's a moron who was 'so concerned' about games that he asked about European-wide legislation several months after it had already been discussed, and dismissed by Euro-MP's. Seems he's only 'on the ball' when there's some kind of exposure involved.
My wife and I have this theory that if video game stores organized their shelves the way a library, music store, or movie store did, then 90% of the confusion about video game purchases would be alleviated.
We consider ourselves hard-core gamers but even we have trouble finding what we want at the local EB, or worse, any chain store that puts the games behind locked glass. I can imagine what non-gamer parents or gift givers have to go through to figure out what is appropriate for the game playing kids in their life.
The question shouldn't be about size, it should be about whether or not it is noticable. The SH4 cover is a high-contrast B+W image with the bottom left quarter of the box pretty much black. The 18 certificate is hardly concealed there. For anyone curious as to what the game contains, we flip it over and find: "scenes of graphic violence", "gruesome sights and shocking images", "horrifying alternate reality." Of the six screenshots composited into the back cover art, three contain blood and two more contain SH's classic Jacob's Ladder imagery. (Actually, crikey. The one screenshot is a stupidly big spoiler.) The 18 sticker and "not to be sold..." description are also present. Unusually, no PEGI or other content advisory stickers are present.
"If such a game is lying around a house, people can see that it is inappropriate."
Solution: Don't leave violent games lying around near unsupervised kids!
Learn something new everyday, then.
Like the blood on Kratos's weapons weren't enough!
Second off, this idea won't work. Adults buy the games(90% of the time?) anyway, and it won't really account for parents who simply don't care.
Vaz should just "shut the f*** up, he's out of his element."
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/B000FN9OEA/sr=8-1/qid=11856398...
Thats Genji for the PS3 btw.
Meanwhile heres a movie dvd (Casino Royale)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/B000FIGHNQ/sr=8-1/qid=11856398...
A lot smaller. Even BBFC rated games have a larger age rating symbol -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/B000FNA30Y/ref=dp_image_0/202-...
^_^
I think Vaz is talking about a 10 pound piece(pound is the currency in the U.K.).
A 10p is not "too small". Its much bigger than the equivalent ratings on movies for example.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/Tarnsyn/ratingspot.jpg
hey JT, actually, we gamers have already read the trials and tribulations of said former RS employee, it was front page news LAST WEEK. We follow stuff like that you see because we care about video games and such. You will be hard pressed to find any real gamer sympathetic with the corporate practices of RockStar or some of the games they create that are so obviously geared to "shock & awe" for no other reason than to try to ca$h in on our short attention spans and in some cases, stupidity...
Frankly, if you'd just shut up about those games they'd wither away within weeks of their release instead of becoming best sellers because you and folks like Sen. Leiberman, et al draw undue attention to these crappy titles. [Night Trap anyone?]
There seems to me to be so many more important battles to wage when it comes to protecting children, most notably EDUCATION & HEALTHCARE.
JT: In all seriousness, do you own or play any video games? Tetris on the cell phone perhaps? Spend any time in the arcades during the big arcade boom in the late 70s early 80s?
You have nothing to add to the conversation other than to bitch and moan like a lunatic and continue to try and pick fights with someone who's already made you look like a fool when he responded to your bullshit comments on that piss ant little known site interview you had. Find something to do with yourself, you know something you might actually be good at, because it's obvious you're no good at what you currently do and are pretty much just a nut job who chases tragedies and feeds off of the misery of suffering family members just to blame video games for everything that's wrong with society.
You know what's wrong with society? People like you. People like you who are just insane idiots who have nothing better to do than to push their own agenda for money and some sort of notoriety. People like you who try and force everyone to conform to your way of thinking and what you think is right and wrong under the guise of some bullshit claim that you're trying to protect something. It's people like you who keep people from accepting the fact that maybe, when shit happens, it's actually the person who did wrong that is responsible for their actions.
You Jack Thompson are garbage, a pathetic fool of a man who's lost touch with reality long ago and should be checked directly into the nearest loony bin.
Dude, it's Saturday. Go spend time with your family or something. Turn off your day-job mentality on the weekend. Gaming's our hobby, release valve, and past time. What the hell's your excuse? Seriously, go play some baseball or a video game or something.
It's kind of odd how, apparently, we are the ones who have the problem with dealing with reality and yet Thompson has still to come to terms with the fact that he is not involved any more.
First off, if you and Keith "Dumbass" Vaz would quit looking and acting like goofballs, he wouldn't use goofy photos of you two jabronis.
Secondly, that wouldn't be the same case you got yourself thrown off of(therefore you wouldn't be able to subpeona him), the very same case that, if history is any indicator, that is destined to be a victory for Take-Two, as that lawsuit is no different than past suits against Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest over kids alledgedly committing suicide because of "subliminal messages" in the songs(which Ozzy and Judas Priest won) or against Oliver Stone alledging that a couple from Oklahoma were inspired to shoot a convenience store clerk in Louisiana by the movie Natural Born Killers(which Stone won).
What is a worse "poor show" putting up goofy pictures of goofy bastards, or taking advantage of massacres for your own political and financial gain?
Oh, and this is the person being represented here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1216410.stm
It is and he does. That’s what GP & readers endured for many, many months. Welcome to my world"….
:-)
Lmao Yep us Gp Veterans are just use to jack's crap now that its usually just a normal day on gp when he trolls along
As for Vaz, we've got 3, could always get more, but we don't cover him all that often. Search for Vaz and see what we've used.
By the way, the pic you cited comes from a video: http://gamepolitics.com/2006/10/27/jack-thompson-courthouse-interview-video/ ...
Point number two: yes, if GP thinks they're ridiculous they shouldn't report on them. Personally, I do think they're newsworthy, and I never said otherwise. My point is that using uncomplimentary photos presents these people as figures of fun rather than as subjects of a formal news piece, and is in my opinion unprofessional.
(1) I quoted from your other post where that implication came from in my first paragraph of the previous post.
(2) In response to the second paragraph, I refer to the previous post I had replied to:
"If GP really thinks these people are so ridiculous then they should just stop reporting on them."
Nightwng2000
NW2K software
??
I said, very clearly I thought, that it's a BAD thing when people accept arguments without question. I'm not sure where you're going with those first few paragraphs.
I did not in any way, shape or form imply that GP shouldn't report on what these people are up to. I said that if they're going to report on them then they shouldn't use what seem to me like blatantly uncomplimentary photos. Maybe they don't seem that way to others, and maybe as some people have said there are no others available. That seems unlikely, but ok. Maybe Thompson and Vaz need to release a press kit.
"You run your mouth about “professionalism”, yet call us “shitheads”. How “professional”, hypocrite. So why don’t you practice what you preach and “Grow up”."
Two things. One - if you don't think you're a shithead, then go right ahead and assume I wasn't talking about you. Two - in posting a comment on this blog I am not acting or claiming to act in a professional capacity, but as a private citizen.
@hayabusa75
I agree that GP is an extremely good and well-run site, and that it's reasonable to accept that people will say things in a spirit of passion. I think my post demonstrates that fairly concisely. I would maintain however , and have done consistently on this site, that gamers are straying too far from reasonable debate and are being too dismissive of contrary positions.
As far as backing up the claim about pictures, just go back through the GP archive. This:
http://gamepolitics.com/2007/07/24/jack-thompson-projects-drug-cartel-di...
would be a decent place to start. Compare with the picture on the PopZart interview. (Which also looks kind of goofy...but still.)
You've pretty much answered how we see your argument:
"Every time someone says anything critical about a person who’s criticised gaming, no matter how off the wall it is, every gamer on the planet ignores reason and greets it with dumbass fratboy enthusiasm."
So, when someone comes in, makes a statement that is off the wall without reason, we should blindly accept it as being reasonable?
Aliens of superior technology created humanity as an experiment in Unified Diversity and that experiment is a failure and should be terminated.
Now, according to your own writing, you don't have the right to disagree with it, no matter how off the wall it may be to your beliefs. You MUST accept it blindly and move on. Let me keep spreading this claim to others without challenge. And since you're not challenging it, it MUST be true. But if you challenge it, you're doing a "bad" thing.
And, yes, our arguments ARE relevant, just as much as yours is.
You imply that GP shouldn't report on such individuals as John Bruce or Vaz if GP doesn't see their actions as rational or sees them as ridiculous. I submit that it is BECAUSE they act so ridiculous and irrational when they are in public making their comments. The same was done when the Peaceaholics did their protest last year. They're protesting about something being "bad", yet acting so irrationally and ridiculous that you have to wonder WHY you would ever follow in their footsteps.
As to "massacre chaser", when one earns such a title, one needs to live with it. Antics during the Robida case, the Cody Posey case, the Canadian university shooting, the Utah mall shooting, the VTech shooting, Columbine shootings, the kid in TN at Riverton, and the multitude of other cases where the overall FACTS of the cases were ignored in favor of blaming video games. So what if Cody was verbally, mentally, physically, and nearly sexually abused? So what if Robida had a room full of Nazi propaganda and a reported (preceived?) relationship with the woman he killed? So what if there was mental illness in a number of the cases reported? So what if there had been abuse in or out of the schools in a number of the cases? All that matters is they (may) have played video games. THAT gets you "massacre chaser" and "agenda seeker" titles.
John Bruce has absolutely no problem bragging about being on TV interview after TV interview or radio interview or newspaper interview. You know what? Good for him. I, frankly, am exceedingly PROUD that I've never been on TV or the radio simply because I want to use, abuse, or misuse the tragedies of individuals, families, and/or communities just to push my personal, religious, and/or political agendas.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
I don't think you read ALL the people's entries here very carefully. If you did, you would see that while some do exhibit the traits you have an issue with, for the most part the debate here is thoughtful and fair. You cannot tell all the posters here to grow up, and in the same breath resort to name-calling and prejudicial blanket statements without looking like a total "shithead" yourself.
Concerning your comment to nightwng2000...personally, JT and Vaz will always look stupid to me because of my low opinion of both of them. Objectively, most of the pics I see of them here don't automatically imply anything negative. If you're going to say GP ALWAYS posts silly-looking photos, put your money where your mouth is and link the stories you've seen. Unless, like Jack, you just can't be bothered to back up the things you say.
The whole massacre chaser thing definitely has merit; Jack has shown he deserves the title many times over. Virginia Tech, for example. Or what about when he tried to get Devin Moore's lawyer to use the video game defense in the criminal trial to acquit Moore, and then turned around and played the sympathetic lawyer to the families of his victims for the civil suit? It is NOT a "glib dismissal", as you put it.
I read GamePolitics over Joystiq, Kotaku, etc. because I find the coverage to be fair and balanced, and the posters to be generally intelligent and articulate. Still, this is a pro-gamer forum at heart, and many here are quite passionate about their hobby, me included, and with that you will not always find calm, reasoned commentary.
If that's not good enough for you, go help Jack with his blog. While this site isn't perfect, most of us feel that it's still pretty damn good.
So what if the pics are "awful"? Maybe those are the only ones available? GP himself in the letters to GP section:
"Regarding the pix we use to accompany articles, I’ve got 3 of Vaz and probably a dozen of Thompson that I try to rotate. Although I must say, I rather like the Vaz pic that accompanied the latest article. I don’t think it makes him look like an idiot. He looks kind of contemplative, perhaps frustrated."
Besides that, the site is called "Game Politics" for a reason. Vaz is a politician and Thompson involves himself in the political process. A lot of people here have asked GP not to report on Thompson anymore, but as long as they're still involved in the process regarding video games, they're still going to be covered by the site.
Calling Jack a massacre chaser: Just because Jack Thompson believes in his cause doesn't make it right for him to be blaming video games before all the facts in the case(like the Virginia Tech massacre) are known and before the authorities have even investigated and drawn their own conclusions. The fact that he went on television within hours of the Virginia Tech massacre and blamed video games accurately shows him to be a massacre chaser.
Killing prostitutes in GTA: Possible reasons are irrelevant, as it a choice for the player to do so, regardless of the fundamental element of the game.
It's easy to pick holes in anything Thompson says, as just about everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. And it isn't our fault that everyone who's criticized video games refuse to listen to reason.
You run your mouth about "professionalism", yet call us "shitheads". How "professional", hypocrite. So why don't you practice what you preach and "Grow up".
And he doesn't even provide good pictures of himself to be used, so what else could Gamepolitics do?
Other than that, you ARE right on many accounts. JT's form of "debate" has poisoned many gamers to the extent that if someone actually DOES provide reasonable criticism against game, they'll lash it out as nonsense, unwittingly using JT's EXACT same tactics that they loathe.
It's irrelevant how often he complains, it's just a fact that GP always puts up awful pictures of Thompson and Vaz. It's unprofessional. If GP really thinks these people are so ridiculous then they should just stop reporting on them.
@Erik
"What is a worse “poor show” putting up goofy pictures of goofy bastards, or taking advantage of massacres for your own political and financial gain?"
Again, irrelevant...if GP is supposedly protecting my rights, then I want them to be professional about it regardless of how other people conduct themselves. Anyway, your line of reasoning is terrible - you could use it to justify pretty much anything.
I've got a beef with this whole "massacre chaser" thing. It's a glib way of dismissing someone we disagree with, and it's innacurate (in that it has barely any correlation with the idea of an "ambulance chaser", which it's clearly supposed to be an analogue of). It's cheap spin, pure and simple. Whatever about politicians - opportunism is by necessity part and parcel of the job - it's naive to think someone like Jack Thompson doesn't believe in what he's doing.
@Sigma 7
Possible reasons for killing a civilian/prostitute/drug dealer/whatever in GTA: you get whatever money and/or weaponry they were carrying; your skills go up (in SA); killin' folk in a computer game is entertaining; it "causes every policeman within running distance to pull out their heavy weaponry" (you mean...pistols and nightsticks?), thus leading to a chase/shootout with the police, by far one of the most fun elements of the game.
Doing illegal things is fundamental to the GTA series, and the source of its main entertainment value. Stop pretending otherwise.
--
I am sick to the gills of the way cultural debates run. Jack Thompson could come on here and say black was black and you shitheads would jump all over him and try to pick holes in the argument. Every time someone says anything critical about a person who's criticised gaming, no matter how off the wall it is, every gamer on the planet ignores reason and greets it with dumbass fratboy enthusiasm. As a result the "debate" is nothing but psychotic fucking partisanship from both sides. Grow up.
"Right, and the cutting off of the heads of the female prostitutes is punishing the bad guys, right?"
Yes, since it causes every policeman within running distance to pull out their heavy weaponry - thus punishing the bad guy that killed the prostitute.
BTW, why would you want to decapitate a prostitute? GTA doesn't require it to advance the plot, nor does the player gain any advantage on doing overkill.
And on the subject of the complaint regarding the photograph of Vaz, it's not as if GP used an exactly flattering picture of Mr Gallagher for his article on Joystiq ;) Let's face it, this is the Internet, and a picture of Vaz looking like 'Harry the Happy Hampster' is just as tempting as 'My Pokemans', I'll show them to you' ;)
BTW - it's amusing to see the comments from newer readers saying things like "That can't really be him. No real attorney would ever talk like that."
It is and he does. That's what GP & readers endured for many, many months. Welcome to my world....
:-)
At least with games it is promptly written on the front of the package and easy to notice.
-Stephy Wolf
Do you have anything to contribute that isn't just smack-talk? Your language may be relatively devoid of profanity, but the tone of your comments would put any XBOX Live smack-talking kiddy to shame.
I make probably 1/4 of what you do a year, but if I were to act as unproffesionally in my job as you do while representing yourself, your interests and in the performance of your duties I'd be out of work faster than you can imagine.
I can't, but I can tell that God of War isn't suitable for under 18s! :D
Sorry I couldn't resist
If you can't tell from this image...
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JGFN5PH7L._AA280_.jpg
...that 50Cent Bulletproof isn't suitable for those under the age of 18, then there's something wrong with your eyesight.
Vaz is a joke, an embarrassment to his party, nothing more
I see you do not understand the "sandbox" design of game design. Now first you must understand that no mission requires you to decapitate or harm a prostitute in any way. Now the option of decapitating a prostitute is there, much as in the real world, but you don't have to act on that impulse.
Or should I take it that you have decapitated prostitutes in real life Jack because "you could"? The more and more your lips flap the more and more I think you are just projecting your own mental illnesses onto us.
Nothing but the occasional Tylenol for sinus headaches.
Based on your actions, I can ask the same "What kind of drugs are you on?" of you.
Practice what you preach, jabroni: Grow up and get a life.
@ Kincyr
Jacky Boy has made prostitution a more noble profession than his own, and an opinion can be made that based on his actions, he's really no different than one.
The GTA world contains swords and it contains prostitutes with necks. What, if your infinite wisdom, should happen if you swing one at the other? The solution to the problem would therefore be to remove either pedestrians or weapons from the game entirely, because if they're both present then you *will* be able to kill people if you so desire.
It's possible with the katana weapon as well as the sniper rifle.
By the way, I'm not a huge fan of GTA, but from what I've played of all GTA's to date I've yet to "cut off a hooker's head", so I'm not sure what he's going on about. It might be possible to do it, but it doesn't mean everyone who's played the game has or will do it. Besides, as pointed out many times now, there is a huge difference between the real world and the fictional ones we're provided in video games. Maybe you need to learn how to differentiate between real and fiction yourself Jack. Not everyone who plays video games thinks what happening is real, not everyone who plays a violent video game are violent people, etc. Even my 9 year old niece thinks your stupid for believing that people who play video games become psychopathic murders.
Jack Thompson, you need help, fast. Seek psychiatric help immediately as Nightwng2000 suggested. It's pretty sad really. I started off pissed of and angry with the insane ways you act. But now I'm starting to feel bad for you, pity you even. I'm seeing your insane outbursts of conspiracy theories as cries for help.
Though, come to think of it, only Jack and Politicians use the Jamboree bag technique of mixing aspects of every computer game ever written to create 'Teh U1tim8te Violent Compootah Game' that kids are allegedly playing.
Still not big enough. No one should be able to tell what the game is underneath the rating.
They're just digital people, not really flesh and bone but polygons and lines of code.
If you can't tell the difference, then that psych evaluation might not be a bad idea. I know I'd take one if I started seeing a heads up display when I wasn't gaming.
And what's this crap about decapitating prostitutes? You're making even less sense than usual there, slappy.
Anything is probable. But my interest isn't in speculating what he will or won't do.
I've seen vehemence and ignorance come from him. That would make him ignorant and hateful. Certainly, these ideas have an effect on individuals. And there are many in the world who are ignorant and hateful who do nothing to themselves or others.
It is, however, this lack of being able to tell the difference between fictional activities and real ones in association with those other personality traits and others not mentioned that should be of concern. Many individuals have been witnessed with similar traits and though most don't act out, a goodly many do seek psychological help. And on rare occassions, some individuals act out, even if they've had psychological help.
How many times have we heard people showing signs of problems, online and offline, that could have been reported or dealt with before something worse, to themselves or others, happened?
Anyone can even preceive my stance as a form of malice against John Bruce. I merely remain consistant: If someone appears to be showing signs of psychological problems, ask them to seek help and if they fail that, report your legitimate concerns. Doesn't matter who it is.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
By the way, Jackie boy, religion is responsible for far more crimes than video games, that's for sure. Why not go on some tirade about getting religion banned? Oh, yeah, that's right. You're already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Clear, sir, you have a problem distinguishing reality from ficition. I highly recommend a psychological evaluation for possible sociopathic damage to your brain.
This speculation is backed up by your inability to tell the difference between the interaction between a fictional character (interactive or not) and another fictional character (interactive or not) and the acts commited by real individuals against other real individuals.
This speculation is also backed up by your prior comparison of saying that the "art" of creating the fictional setting (ie story, interactive or not) that allows acts commited by a fictional character against fictional victims to the acts of real individuals against real victims by claiming those acts as "art" as well.
Clearly, sir, you are incapable of telling the difference acts commited by and against fictional characters and the acts commited by and against real individuals.
Irregardless of what has caused this damage, you alone are responsible for your actions that you may commit due to this damage. Whether it is you or anyone here, I have no desire to place blame for your damaged mental state on anything other than yourself. No video game, no movie, no TV show, no music, no religious belief, nothing will be used to jusify the damage you appear to have suffered.
In addition, as many have pointed out in the past, people have seen the signs of mental distress in others and ignored them, only find that individual causing harm to themselves or others.
I will, however, allow you to voluntarily seek psychological help. Understand, however, that it is truly my obligation to protect the community and those around you, as well as protect you from yourself. If you continue to show signs that I feel may endanger youself or others, I will take appropriate action by contacting the appropriate authorities. You may complain all you wish using whatever conspiracy theory you wish. Nevertheless, as I stated, it is my obligation to take appropriate action where required.
Do not seek help and then fake all is well just to claim there is nothing wrong. Those observing you will know better, including myself, and will take appropriate action to protect you from yourself or others from whatever harm you may bring them.
Ignore this all you will. The evidence mentioned above is a mere fraction of the evidence I have witnessed. And I will take appropriate action with or without your censent or knowledge. That action is noted above.
Seek help, John Bruce, before you do something that cannot be taken back. Unlike a video game, Life has no Reset button.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
What are you talking about? Who has mentioned anything about "punishing the bad guys" or anything to do with moral choices at all? This is an article about Vaz wanting bigger labels on games, followed by a discussion about ratings and content descriptions.
Who are these prostitutes anyway? Can you name a game in which you cut their heads off? I'm going to assume you're talking about GTA, a series in which you play a criminal and if you see a prostitute, you could kill her if you wanted to. Get this through your head, please: Your actions in GTA are your own. It is a sandbox game. It gives you the freedom to do whatever you want, however illegal, and then the world responds to your actions.
For the record, killing a prostitute in GTA involves moving your mouse to point the target reticule on her and then clicking. Her model then falls over and stops moving, and the nearby AI peds scream and run away. Nobody mourns for her deallocated memory. When you turn off the game, *everyone* in the city suffers the same fate.
Would that make people notice that he IS one before they speak to him? No..of course it wouldn't. People can see that just by looking at him and its the same with games.
I can see what a game is rated already..Is vaz saying that i am stupid or that i am blind to not see it?
Can't polish a turd jack.
Actually, John Bruce isn't satisfied with ANY photo that isn't his own.
I don't know if you've seen the articles with Patricia Vance that include her picture, but John Bruce has actually complained in the past along the lines of Ms. Vance doing photo shoots.
So if photos that aren't John Bruce don't look good, then they are "bad".
If photos that aren't John Bruce do look good, then they are glamour shots.
If photos of John Bruce aren't specifically approved by him, then they must be "bad", even if they are just simple public photos.
Talk about vanity. (That's one of the seven deadly sins, by the way, John Bruce. But I guess the seven deadly sins are approved acts by that Demon pretender to the throne of Heaven that you worship.)
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
People just need to get over themselves and learn that the sound of their own voices is not music in anyone else's ears.
People like Vaz will not be happy with the size of the rating unless it is the size of the whole case and has a 500 word essay that explains who the game is for and why it is for that age group.
Regardless, Jacko says that he is going to be deposing the guy who wrote about working at Rockstar. Why? What in that guy's very interesting post would help in a lawsuit implying that playing Grand Theft Auto made someone kill people? Rockstar was poorly ran? That he personally didn't like Manhunt -- which doesn't have any bearing on GTA, the game in question? That he doesn't think that Rockstar wanted people to find the Hot Coffee game?
That's some pretty condemning evidence there Jacko...
PS: Gotta love the stuff on Manhunt!!! "
Oh yes. And I'm sure it will be just as effective as your cases to prevent Bully from coming out and getting Grant Theft Auto confiscated from stores. Oh, gee I forgot you lost those cases. Face it Jack, you lose because you're a loser.
Yeah, I noticed that too. Poor show GP, poor show.
The whole thing for needing warning labels bigger is a joke. People can't seem to get it through their head that games are no longer just for kids and that parents need to put effort into finding out what the game is rated. Its not like the label is the size of a fingernail and impossible to see, they're fairly large and should be obvious what they mean.
The US has AO, M, T, E 10+, E, and EC. Those should be easy to figure out what they are except maybe AO and EC (the least common ones). The UK uses numbers, which in a way are better because then there is no excuse as to not knowing what age the game is intended for.
Even if you don't know what a game is rated or what the ratings mean, it should be your individual responsibility to find the rating and figure out what it means. A giant label won't make up for peoples ignorance.
I know. I'm not saying that parents shouldn't let their kids play stupidly violent games if that's their desire. Mine did. My point is that a number of parents simply don't care what their kids are getting up to, and aren't making the judgement about whether they think the chosen game is suitable.
A really big label to stick on direct articles where people like Vaz, John Bruce "Jack" Thompson, the governor of NY, Dave Grossman, and so many others which says in nice, bright letters:
WARNING! THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS COMMENTS WHICH EXPLOIT CHILDREN FOR PERSONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND/OR POLITICAL AGENDAS! SUCH COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DEEMED OBSCENE AND ABUSIVE AND SHOULD BE READ ONLY BY THOSE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO DISMISS SUCH COMMENTS AS THE EXPLOITATIVE AND ABUSIVE USE OF CHILDREN THAT THEY REALLY ARE.
Sounds good to me anyway.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
"A number of people simply *don’t care* about the labels and are quite happy to let their kids play the most violent of games if it keeps them quiet."
Then there are the parents that let their kids play violent games because they know their kids can handle it.
Ahmen, my parents didn't care and look at me! Looking at death row cause Doom made me kill thousands of people! Jack, where were you for my case? I was young enough then to be influance me.
Doom had a UK rating of 15, I played it when I was 5, and most people will say I couldn't hurt a fly.
Thats cause A) I'm too nice a guy and B) Well, lets just say typing on a keyboard or using a controller is the most exersise I get :D
If I have kids, I won't care if they play 18 (or whatever), as long as they know what I knew when I first started. Games arn't real and it's not nice to playing real doom with other people (unless you replace bullets\rockets\hot plasma with paint, or lasers, or other haarmless shooting game, though I learned that myself later in life).
@Jack
And Jack Thompson, stay away from British Affairs, anyone here who knows you(and not a lot do), hates you\laughs at you. Remember Manhunt 1 nearly got banned here, but gaming prevailed when it turned out the anti gamers lied about it (it was the victim that played it, not the killer, like the victims mother said). GAMES DON'T KILL PEOPLE, IDIOTS DO.
As for the bigger ratings, I am actually OK with this. The common misconception that games are for children needs to be overcome, so that Granny McDepends isn't buying M games for her little seven year old gamer - it's just not age appropriate. Bigger ratings labels would do the industry more good in the long run. And after a few years, if it has had the desired effect, THEN the labels can shrink.
And... to Jack (Whether or not he's actually the Thompson we all love to hate): These story here is about the UK's Keith Vaz. It's nice to see that you want attention, but at least make a vague attempt to stay on topic, wil you? Maybe if you acted like an adult rather than a senile fool pining for the limelighht, we might treat you with some measure of respect.
The worst lawyer ever.
And even if (that's a big if) you get this guy, what then? You've been thrown off the case and nothing he's said can add to it. It does nothing to verify their complicity, if any, in the Moore case. At best, it's character assassination.
Tick...tick...tick...
You hear that sound, Jack? It's the clock ticking down to the end of your career.
Guess you need to learn comprehension skills I think it would help you right about here.
However, this is not a trick: http://badasscat.blogspot.com/2007/07/rockstar.html
We'll be deposing this guy rather soon for our Alabama case against Take-Two/Rockstar. Sweet! Jack Thompson
PS: Gotta love the stuff on Manhunt!!!
I think that's what Vaz has in mind.
Hey, whaddya know. I never noticed that before. Stands to reason though.
@Vaz:
Bigger labels won't help. Clearer labels won't help. Attaching a booklet with flashing lights to the box won't help. Making the boxes out of jagged glass and only allowing adults to wear gloves won't help. A number of people simply *don't care* about the labels and are quite happy to let their kids play the most violent of games if it keeps them quiet. You aren't going to change them by making anything 25% bigger.
However as a compromise i wouldnt be opposed to large ratings info on a removable sticker keeping the current sized rating printed label as it is.
That said, if he were to move to Canada or the US, he'd have a sh*tfit over the MPAA ratings, which as chadachada pointed out, usually only appear on the back of a box, in 40% transparent print, smaller than the rest of the text.
the ESRB ratings, however.. eh, just to appease, I could see them going up to the size of a dollar coin, and maybe