Violent Game Bill Passes in CA

[Ultrawolf]

[Girkon]

I had thought such games were labeled pretty obviously. But now it's more or less up to the Governator.

[ScrumYummy]

Labels don't mean crap. I remember once, this lady came in with her son (when I was working at Waldenbooks) and he was demanding that she buy all of the Halo books for him. This boy couldn't have been more than 8 years old. I showed her where the books were, then politely took her aside and explained that Halo was somewhat of a violent series of video games, and while I hadn't read the books, I wouldn't recommend them for children his age. She replied "Oh, well, he plays the video games all the time. It's okay." So I didn't say anything, but I could just imagine that she bought the games for her son because he told her to, without any idea that they had a Mature rating.

My husband used to work for hastings, which is an entertainment/books/video/music/gaming store. He's told me stories about trying to explain to parents why they shouldn't buy Grand Theft Auto for their 10-year-old boys, and what "M" and "AO" ratings mean. But you see, parents are giving in to their children too much. It doesn't matter what rating the game has, or that only adults can buy them (where I used to live, in Arkansas, they had that law, too). The parents buy them for their children anyway.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's the fault of the parents. You can clearly mark and restrict the sales of video games all you want, but in the end, when an adult is forking out the cash, it doesn't matter.

[Girkon]

Well what this bill is pointing out is that apparently the labels are not clear enough, which is crazy because you can only use so many synonyms for blood, violence, and gore without the people just saying it plain to their face.

Your point especially true, if even if this bill passes and parents still allow it, the store could still suffer the penalty if the parent decides to flip flop at the last minute. Not only is this flawed but very dangerous for people just trying to run a business without a mob of parents foaming at the mouth with their fingers on the sue button.

[ScrumYummy]

[Ultrawolf]

Those were my thoughts exactly.
It doesn't really matter if they make it a law or not,
seeing as how the parent will still be buying it.
All it really does is prevent the Parents from being able to complain I guess, since they were warned beforehand.

[Nogrick]

We've had these laws in Illinois for a while now. I particularly don't mind it because I'd rather explain to someone why they shouldn't be buying a game. I've already had parents put games back because I described the content to them.

But the thing is that there will be some parents who won't care, that is until mentally unstable Timmy starts cappin' his classmates. They keep making excuses for their bad parenting. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "Well if I don't get it for him, he'll play it at a friends house anyway." I even "got in trouble" the other day because I refused to sell this lady Bad Boys Miami Takedown (Which everyone should try to stop people from buying by the way) for her obviously underage child. This kid was six or seven.

Somebody in politics needs to step up for the game industry and the ESRB to tell everyone that they need to pay more attention to their kids. Oh wait, the ESRB is already filing a suit against the Illinois Law, so I expect them to do the same with this one as well.

[Silver Adept]

There are content warnings on the backs of the game covers. There's the age-rating marking on the front of the cover. How much clearer can you get about what's in the game, aside from describing in a verbose manner the specific sorts of violence, adult situations, and language that happens in the game?

As for "restricted sales", the R rating on the movie industry says "Under 17 requires parent or guardian" - they effectively say that if a kid goes to see an R-rated movie legally, his parents approved the decision and saw the film with him.

Why not the same for games? M means "Under 17 requires accompanying parent or guardian." It won't stop the people who just buy things for their children, but it will prevent stupid lawsuits about "I didn't know, I swear, that there was OMGsex in that game!"

Grah. It's just that some people who think the idea of people enjoying themselves with violent games is so very anathema that nobody should be able to enjoy them without the proper scarlet letters applied. It's rather aggravating.

[ScrumYummy]

*nods* Personally, I think that there's only so much that the game industry can do, including retail outlets. Kids are still going to end up with the games because their parents are morons, and the ESRB needs to get this into their heads. I mean, while I think it's a good thing that the ESRB has labels put onto games concerning the content, I think they need to quit joining these lawsuits.

I blame everything on the parents, seriously. Come on, I don't remember a single instance from my childhood where I said "I want this!" and my parents gave in. I asked my mom's opinion once (she is a liscenced British nanny) and her reply was "Parents should never just buy things for their children whenever they want it. It puts the child in a position of power and the parent loses control."

I seriously think that's part of what has happened here. Parents have lost control of their children, if they're just buying them whatever they want without a second thought. Maybe the ESRB should start suing the parents.

[Yunni]

Remember:

Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are wise you will listen to me

Who do you blame when your kid is a brat
Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese cat?
Blaming the kids is a lion of shame
You know exactly who's to blame:
The mother and the father!

Oompa Loompa doompadee dah
If you're not spoiled then you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa doompadee do