Submitted by illspirit - February 7, 2008 at 8:52 pm -050072.84.87.200
@Canary Wundaboy
It’s the same principles as movie theatres. Films are age rated, and then if you are under that age you are banned from going to see it.
Except there is no law here banning underage kids from going to movies. Any attempt to do so would be unconstitutional.
As for the ‘wrapping kids up in cotton wool’ argument, how many parents will realistically refuse to purchase 18 rated games for their 15 year olds? At least with the restrictions the parents have an active role in vetting their kids gaming and media habits, this is far better for everyone IMO.
And, on the other side of that very same coin, you have taken parents out of the role of vetting their kids' entertainment because they can just let the state handle it for them. One does not promote parental (or personal) responsibility by legislatively absolving people of responsibility.
Furthermore, once a minor's right to view such games is taken away, it is gone forever. With this precedent in place, it is only a short, jurisprudential hop to making it illegal for parents to provide such games to their own children. As has been done with "pornography." We have to draw the line somewhere as soon as possible..
Posted 07/22/08 at 11:22pm PHOENIXZERO: Ugh, that CNBC program "Play to Win" is it? Is on again...
Posted 07/22/08 at 09:34pm ZippyDSM: todayin zippy land:after spending 8 hours working on my AC unit yesterday it finally died today. theres go 300$ I don't have...tin trailers are ovens in the summer >>
Posted 07/22/08 at 09:17pm Cheater87: http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/news/132121.20080723.Saints-Row-2-uncensored-in-Australia/
Posted 07/22/08 at 08:37pm GRIZZAM PRIME: Never had a Dreamcast. My first actual console was a Playstation.
Posted 07/22/08 at 05:43pm HarmlessBunny: My Dreamcast still has Soul Calibur in it...that used to be addictive *shivers* Must feed addiction....
Posted 07/22/08 at 05:11pm Austin_Lewis: My dreamcast is hooked up with Shenmue in it, but it hasn't been played in a long while.
Posted 07/22/08 at 04:45pm KayleL: My dreamcast is still hooked up to the TV, but since I was young when I got it, most discs are badly scratched
Posted 07/22/08 at 02:34pm SimonBob: Technically, you still got money for hit-n-runs, same as the modern GTAs. But you didn't have to leave the car to pick it up.
Posted 07/22/08 at 01:07pm GryphonOsiris: Dreamcast, man, now there is a blast from the past.
Posted 07/22/08 at 11:41am gamepolitics: i think the last one of those I played was on the Dreamcast...
Posted 07/22/08 at 11:17am gamepolitics: smiley, it's been so long since I've played those top-down versions. I'll take your word for it
Posted 07/22/08 at 10:26am M. Carusi: So is anyone writing to Governor Paterson about the law? I may be from CT but I'm going to. It's better than nothing.
Posted 07/22/08 at 09:11am Alteffor: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/17/2306153.htm
Posted 07/22/08 at 07:14am Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of : @Smiley: Told you.
Posted 07/22/08 at 07:06am gamepolitics: Hey, Lunatic (& everyone else) please don't be soliciting or posting anyone's personal info, incl. e-mail addresses. Thx
Posted 07/22/08 at 06:49am Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of : @Smiley: Uhh... I'm gonna assume you don't know about the Comments Section of each article and point it out to you
Posted 07/22/08 at 06:47am Smiley: Nah, just commenting on the article... GTA1 and GTA2 both give you points for killing people so the point isn't entirely right..
Posted 07/22/08 at 06:43am Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of : @Smiley: Uhh... Are you talking to me?
Posted 07/22/08 at 06:35am Smiley: Hang on... GP wrote that the GTA series has "no such points" Have you not played GTA1 or GTA2?
Posted 07/22/08 at 05:35am Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of : I happen to know it, but if I entered that particular bit of info, I could get banned.
Except there is no law here banning underage kids from going to movies. Any attempt to do so would be unconstitutional.
And, on the other side of that very same coin, you have taken parents out of the role of vetting their kids' entertainment because they can just let the state handle it for them. One does not promote parental (or personal) responsibility by legislatively absolving people of responsibility.
Furthermore, once a minor's right to view such games is taken away, it is gone forever. With this precedent in place, it is only a short, jurisprudential hop to making it illegal for parents to provide such games to their own children. As has been done with "pornography." We have to draw the line somewhere as soon as possible..