Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News

Parents Ask If Videogame Rating Bill Necessary? 73

Posted by simoniker from the refreshing-alternatives dept.
Thanks to the Zanesville Times-Recorder for its article discussing why some parents are questioning recent moves to legislate on the availability of violent videogames to minors. John Sellars, a local Ohio parent, says of his children: "I watch what they play and I decide what they play. I don't think it should be up to the lawmakers to decide, it should be up to the parents." A local videogame store owner is also quoted as arguing: "The game manufacturers rate each game, like they do movies, and parents will tell their children 'No, that game's not for you'", in a relatively rare counterpoint to recent violent gaming-related legislation attempts.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Parents Ask If Videogame Rating Bill Necessary? More

Parents Ask If Videogame Rating Bill Necessary?

Comments Filter:

  • Whats the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by profet ( 263203 ) on Friday February 06, 2004 @04:22AM (#8199169)
    "I watch what they play and I decide what they play"

    Um... Then buy the games for your children. This isn't about banning the sale of video games. It's about banning the sale of extremely graphic/violent/adult video games to minors.

    I'm all against censorship, but this is just a good idea plain and simple. Would you want 7 year olds being able to buy movie tickets to NC-17 movies?

    Ok...here come the 16 year old fan boys with mod points to mod me down...

    • Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fallout2man ( 689436 ) on Friday February 06, 2004 @04:50AM (#8199222)
      Most laws go much farther then just simply restricting sale to minors, as well there's also the fact that the majority of game purchases for minors are made by parents. In effect you'd be enacting a useless ban that'd take up taxpayer dollars just to give you that "warm and fuzzy feeling when you go to sleep at night." I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on something more useful, maybe enforcing existing laws that make sense.

      A parent is in charge of keeping track of their child and what their child does. If the parent lets their 16 or 17-year old have a job and have money of their own, then they should either keep track of what they're buying or realize the things they might get. A 7-year old isn't going to have cash to get into a movie or buy a game unless he/she stole it, or the parent was extremely irresponsible. If a parent isn't responsible, punish the parent, not everyone else.

      I also fail to see how seeing the human body or violence depicted on the screen will cause any real harm to anyone.

      • Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by krymsin01 ( 700838 ) on Friday February 06, 2004 @05:07AM (#8199281) Homepage Journal
        Also, any bill that a majority of the population is for gets lots of tagged on clauses on it that have nothing to do with the actual law. This makes it a lot easier to get your pet law passed if most people wouldn't support it. After all, it's not like the voting public actualy READS the bills, is it? It could say "u r teh small gas" in section 1.5.8.a.ii for all most people know.

    • Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rick the Red ( 307103 ) <Rick.The.Red@nOsPaM.gmail.com> on Friday February 06, 2004 @04:58AM (#8199239) Journal
      Some people fear that this is the camel's nose under the tent flap. What do you think the legislators who pass this will dream up for the next election year? "It's illegal for a minor to buy this game, therefore it should be illegal for a minor to play this game." Forget the legislature, all you need is a DA who feels this way and suddenly it sucks to live in your county.

      As for the movie ticket analogy, I have no problem with allowing seven-year-olds to waste their money buying movie tickets they can't use. That would teach them a lesson. Who cares how the kid gets the ticket; any theater that admits a seven-year-old to an NC-17 movie deserves to lose their business license.

    • Re:Whats the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Radius9 ( 588130 )
      Ummm, 7 year olds CAN buy tickets to NC-17 movies. Movie ratings aren't law, they are self-enforced by the movie theatres and movie companies.
      • Come on, the guy that doesn't understand that the movie ratings system isn't law is modded to +3 and yet someone who clears up the lie is left at 1? This is injustice.

        Many people who see legislation proposed for video game ratings try to use the argument that movies have it and it works fine there. But movies don't have this type of legislated system. The government shouldn't be involved in setting community decency guidelines because then you've got a situation where political speech can be labelled as off

    • "Would you want 7 year olds being able to buy movie tickets to NC-17 movies?"

      What NC-17 movies? There have only ever been 129 [imdb.com] of them. The NC-17 rating is useless because it kills the box office potential.

    • Would you want 7 year olds being able to buy movie tickets to NC-17 movies?

      No, but the responsibility lies with parents using social pressure on local movie theatres to voluntarily age restrict and watching their kids, rather than the all powerful hand of government using a hammer to fix a screw.

  • somebody is talking sense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Datasage ( 214357 ) <Datasage AT theworldisgrey DOT com> on Friday February 06, 2004 @04:23AM (#8199170) Homepage Journal
    But remember, parents are not responsible for what thier kids do. Its society in general.

    But seriously, parents should be a part of thier kids life, if they cant, they shouldnt have kids. It always seems to be the womans responsibility for birth control, but a box of condoms is much cheaper than 18 years of child support.

    I dont really care about the idea of censoring children from culture, but instead i much prefer using that as a learning opertunity. Then let them decide whats best for themselves. This applies to video games, violent movies, porn, etc.
  • Parents should be asking if videogames are necessary.
    • Necessary, no. But neither are computers, cars, airplanes, defibrillators, dialysis machines, etc. The human race could survive and breed just fine without all those. However, individual's lives are made better by some of these pieces of technology. There is always a balance that needs to be reached between simplicity and innovation, but in general technology allows us to advance as a race.

      Before I get flamed for comparing Grand Theft Auto to a lifesaving dialysis machine, let me say that I 'blame' vid
    • Are video games necessary? Maybe not.

      Are Books necessary? I would say no. Young kids are very unlikely to read anything that's really going to enrich their minds. They'll be stuck reading "See Spot Run" instead of reading some book with some actual information. And like it or not, don't say "The Classics", because for the most part those are just as unneeded as anything.

      Are computers necessary? Nah. There are plenty of jobs that you can get without any computer experience. If computer experience is necess
      • I was playing on the verbiage of Slashdot's subject line for this article. I meant "necessary" in the same sense that it was asked if videogame ratings were necessary.

        Let me get to the heart of the matter: Are videogames more helpful (beneficial, nurturing, elevating, productive) than unhelpful?

        Don't assume that you know what I think. The question is too complex for a simple answer. You should both analyze the broad ramifications of videogaming in general (possible considerations: wasting time that coul

  • Lack of Understanding ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by lake2112 ( 748837 ) on Friday February 06, 2004 @04:34AM (#8199195)
    These parents fail to realize that ratings are guidelines, not regulations. The ratings are provided for the purpose of helping the parents make informed decisions about what their kids are playing. It's like saying that there shouldn't be any movie critics, because I decide what movies I watch anyway.

    • Re:Lack of Understanding ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rick the Red ( 307103 ) <Rick.The.Red@nOsPaM.gmail.com> on Friday February 06, 2004 @05:11AM (#8199301) Journal
      The ratings are provided for the purpose of helping the parents make informed decisions about what their kids are playing.
      The ratings suck. We own several "E for Everyeone" games that are shockingly violent -- Spider-Man comes to mind (the point of the game is to kill the bad guys). As a parent, I've found I cannot trust the guidelines, and in fact my son uses them against me, saying it's not fair for me to ban the violent games because "it says on the box it's for Everyone." Further, I don't need the rating system to see that the "T" or "M" games are clearly not for a five-year-old. As a parent I can tell you the rating system adds no value for me. I really have to try a game to tell if it's OK for my kids, and suddenly video game rental makes a lot of sense.
      • As a parent I can tell you the rating system adds no value for me. I really have to try a game to tell if it's OK for my kids, and suddenly video game rental makes a lot of sense. You DO have to try a game to make sure it's OK for your kids. I would have thought that much was clear. Just because a movie (to take the popular analogy a bit furter) says it's "PG13," it still my have content that YOU may find personally offensive without giving the Ratings Board enough insentive to bump it to an "R" rating. So
        • If a parent has to watch the movies and play the games anyway, what's the point of having a rating system? That's the problem.
          • The rating system should be considered a starting point. If a game is rated 'AO' then you probably shouldn't even consider it for a 5 year old. So, it narrows down the posibilities. Afterall, would you watch an NC-17 movie, because you think you might actually want to allow your child to watch it? Maybe its OK if its just straight sex in the missionairy position, but cumshots are right out? Give me a break.
            Keep in mind that, what you find offensive another parent might not, and vice-versa. So, no rat
            • I don't need a "M" rating on the box to tell me games like Max Payne and Halo are not for kids - the cover art tells me that. Same with "NC-17" movies. When an "E" rating means it may not be suitable for kids, so I have to preview it anyway, it's worthless to me as a parent.

              OK, while we're going down this path, I have a further rant: What's the point of the TV ratings system and the so-called "V chip" if news and ads are not rated? I've seen ads for TV shows I don't want my kids to watch (shows that are on

              • I don't need a "M" rating on the box to tell me games like Max Payne and Halo are not for kids - the cover art tells me that. Same with "NC-17" movies. When an "E" rating means it may not be suitable for kids, so I have to preview it anyway, it's worthless to me as a parent.

                Consider for a moment, games like Conker's Bad Fur Day. The game box was rather innocuous, as far as I remember. But the game's content deserved the 'M' rating. The rating of games isn't always going to be apparent from the front
              • I don't need a "M" rating on the box to tell me games like Max Payne and Halo are not for kids - the cover art tells me that. Same with "NC-17" movies. When an "E" rating means it may not be suitable for kids, so I have to preview it anyway, it's worthless to me as a parent.

                You're obviously never going to have to preview stuff that you already is know is unsuitable, but you're obviously always going to have to preview stuff that claims to be suitable. That not uselessness, that's the best they can do; the
                • If a movie is rated "G" I know it's "safe" for my kid. Jack V. is so anal that a "G" really means "General audience." But the ESRB is not that uptight, so an "E" isn't nearly as safe as a movie "G". That makes it essentially worthless to me. Your milage may vary.

                  I'm having trouble seeing why you're up in arms about Spider-Man punching someone in the first place.

                  It's not the punching, it's the killing. You may say he doesn't kill the bad guys, but that's how it looks to my kid.

                  I've got this amazing new i

                  • It's not the punching, it's the killing. You may say he doesn't kill the bad guys, but that's how it looks to my kid.

                    If your kid thinks people disappear when they die, talk to your kid. And you didn't answer the question: What did you expect this Spider-Man game to be about? Why did you let a label do the thinking for you? If you're so concerned about violence, why did you ignore the fact that the descriptor [esrb.org] that went along with the rating on the Spider-Man game indicated that it contained violence?

                    Ah,
      • Spider-Man comes to mind (the point of the game is to kill the bad guys).
        Spider-Man doesn't kill people, so either the game isn't true to the license or you are misinterpreting what is happening.
        • The bad guys keep coming until you hit them hard/often enough, and once they're down they don't get back up again. They don't give up the fight and run away, they fall down and their bodies fade away. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but it sure looks like death to a five-year-old.
          • Well, normally in the comics they would be webbed up and delivered to the nearest convenient cop. This sounds like limitations of the console (or programmer) taking out what are considered (by him/her) unnecessary details. (Think of Space Invaders, for example, when you blow up the alian space ship, there's no wreckage, it just disappears. In this case the knocked out bad guys aren't a threat anymore, so they disappear.) Truthfully, it is rare that a game can live up to the comic book it is taken from.
      • Spider-Man comes to mind (the point of the game is to kill the bad guys).

        Since when did Spider-Man start killing people?

        Considering the many, many violent and older audience aimed games (any FPS game, some RTS games, and a good number of 3rd person shooters) I think the ESRB is doing a good job at rating games. If you think the game Spider-Man casts the player killing bad guys (he doesn't), you'll have to resort to pre-school educational games.

  • Thank Heaven for Politicians (Score:4, Insightful)

    by illuminata ( 668963 ) on Friday February 06, 2004 @04:42AM (#8199203) Journal
    While reading the article, I found this lovely excerpt:

    Washington state Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, who sponsored her state's bill, said bans like this aren't censorship.

    "There is a great deal of precedent for restricting dangerous things like alcohol and tobacco to minors," she said.

    The last time I checked, alcohol and tobacco are restricted to minors because they posed large physical health risks. A video game's content does not cause physical health problems. If you're worried about their mental health, don't be. Banning violent video game sales to minors imposes on a parent's right to choose what's best for their kids. Kids mature at different rates, therefore it should be up to the parent to decide what is best for them.

    Politicians like Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson should keep in mind that some people actually want to be parents of their own children, rather than have a whistle-stopper do it for them.

    • If you're worried about their mental health, don't be.

      Good to see such a well-reasoned argument! You've obviously researched the subject thoroughly and your in-depth answer will go a long way to assuage people's concerns.

      Banning violent video game sales to minors imposes on a parent's right to choose what's best for their kids. Kids mature at different rates, therefore it should be up to the parent to decide what is best for them.

      So why can't the parents just buy the games for the kids? Believe it or no

      • Good to see such a well-reasoned argument! You've obviously researched the subject thoroughly and your in-depth answer will go a long way to assuage people's concerns.

        My point is that it's not the government's place to do so, it's the parents'. That's what my last two sentences in that paragraph implied. Otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned maturation rates.

        So why can't the parents just buy the games for the kids? Believe it or not, and I know it's shocking but trust me on this, kids don't always obey t

    • Re:Thank Heaven for Politicians (Score:5, Insightful)

      by (trb001) ( 224998 ) on Friday February 06, 2004 @11:21AM (#8201354) Homepage
      Banning violent video game sales to minors imposes on a parent's right to choose what's best for their kids.

      How so? If a parent wants their kid exposed to something, they'll buy it for them. This is to prevent the use of inappropriate material by kids without their parent's permission or knowledge. If a parent thinks an R rated movie is appropriate for their kid, they'll rent/buy it for them, but the kid can't do it themselves. Likewise, if a parent thinks a kid is ready for pornography, they can buy that for them. We only make items illegal that have physical reprecussions associated with them...namely drugs and alcohol.

      I think your argument is flawed, a parent still has all his/her rights in this matter, it's the kids whose rights are being infringed. Since kids don't have all the same rights as adults anyway, I don't see the issue.

      --trb
      • Parents rights are indeed being infringed. If this was to be made into law, a parent wouldn't be allowed to decide whether or not their kid can pick up violent games on their own, thus imposing on their right to choose what's best for their kids. If a parent wants to let them buy a violent game on their own, that should be their choice. If a kid wasn't allowed to do so by their parent, then it's up to the parent to find out about it and punish them for it. The government should not be able to decide that fo
      • Parents can actually let their children drink alcohol, as long as they do so at home - at least in the UK. When my kid reaches 5, I'm buying him a bottle of Vodka.

  • I thought I felt a draft... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Undefined Parameter ( 726857 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .modeerf4leuf.> on Friday February 06, 2004 @05:14AM (#8199320)
    ... but it must've been the winds of change.

    I think some parents are starting to realize that legislation of restriction is not often needed. The store owner and parents in the article are correct; the kids don't purchase the games, the parents are the ones deciding what games their children get to buy, and violence does not spring from video games but from the roots of bad and inadequate parenting.

    Even when I was in my late teens, I stayed away from games which seemed morally offensive to me. I have avoided Carmageddon to this day because I don't like the idea of running over pedestrians for no reason at all. All of the 'good kids' I knew from childhood to my graduation from highschool either didn't partake in such things, played the games and watched the videos only sparingly, or moderately played and viewed but with the understanding that what they were looking at was not real, and retained both their sanity and morality.

    The two teenagers in Tennessee who shot people from a moving car after playing GTA weren't unbalanced because of the game; rather, they were not quite sane before they played the game, and the game only inspired them to their act of violence. That is, if they'd not been playing the game, they would have simply found some other inspiration and acted in violence from it.

    Some parents have begun to realize this, and have refused the sensationalist fear presented by news outlets which seek only ratings and readership. They're right to use this common sense, and those of us who have understood video games and their effects are relieved and delighted.

    Good parenting is and always has been the duty and responsibility of the parent(s); if I ever have one or more children, I will be a parent with this reality in mind. Guides and the like (such as ratings) are good and accepted, though they are not always needed. (Who would expect a Mario game to involve sex, drugs, and grotesque amounts of gore?) Restrictions on youth, on the other hand, take away a part of a parent's ability to be a parent, and therefore not only restrict the rights of the youth but the rights of the aged, as well.

    Thank you for either patiently reading through my rant of the hour or skipping to the end.

    ~UP

    • Re:I thought I felt a draft... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Who would expect a Mario game to involve sex, drugs, and grotesque amounts of gore?"

      I anxiously await the release of "Mario & Luigi: The Brooklyn Years" and "Koopa Syndicate: Streets of Mushroom Kingdom" :)
    • "Who would expect a Mario game to involve sex, drugs, and grotesque amounts of gore?" They aren't too far from it now. Stepping on turtles, blasting things with fireballs, popping mushrooms, and have you seen the way Mario and the princess look at eachother? I'd say its borderline at best.
      • "Who would expect a Mario game to involve sex, drugs, and grotesque amounts of gore?" They aren't too far from it now. Stepping on turtles, blasting things with fireballs, popping mushrooms, and have you seen the way Mario and the princess look at eachother? I'd say its borderline at best. Stepping on turtles and blasting things with fireballs = grotesque amounts of gore? Maybe in real life, but not the way they are depicted in mario.....I grew up playing mario and this is the very first time ive ever tho
  • Legislated ratings on video games ...on TV ...on books ...on radio ...on websites (ok, mebbe el tubgirl)

    Or how about parents actually do some parenting?

    If you let your 8 year old child play GTA, I'm willing to bet you're a horrible parent and your child is going to end up fux0red whether they play video games or not.

  • He's a freak (Score:3, Interesting)

    by R2P2 ( 193577 ) on Friday February 06, 2004 @07:37AM (#8199799)
    "I watch what they play and I decide what they play." If the rest of the parents in the US were like him, legislation wouldn't be necessary to keep nasty games away from kids. Unfortunately, lots of parents are lazy and/or stupid, and they need the government to do what they can't be bothered with.
    • Of course, a lot of parents also think that it's ok for their kids to kill each other in various max gore modes.

    • Re:He's a freak (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shadowcabbit ( 466253 ) * <cx AT thefurryone DOT net> on Friday February 06, 2004 @08:56AM (#8200112) Journal
      Exactly. "I watch what they play and I decide what they play"? No, you didn't. If he did this law wouldn't be necessary. This whole goddamn discussion wouldn't be happening if parents hadn't abdicated their duties to television and pop media twenty years ago.
    • Frankly, we have no one to blame but ourselves. At some point in our history, the US as a country became very self-centered. You can argue it's always been that way, since the first white guys (technically the second, since I actually give the Norse some mad props for exploration, but they're routinely left out of American history) stepped on America's soil and proudly proclaimed "Mine!". However, it's become more obvious, IMHO, that in the last century American's are self-centered. At some point, I wou

  • My opinion (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AtlanticGiraffe ( 749719 )
    The government should never take on the role of rating products or services of any kind. Independent organisations will always do a better job at that. It is then up to each retailer to choose their products, with or without an independent rating system, and each consumer chooses a retailer.
  • This isn't about banning sales and to argue that parents should monitor instead of having ratings is a false dichotomy. Many responsible parents give 'pocket money' to children to help teach them about responsible spending, and without having age restrictions this takes away the possibility of parents to prevent purchases. Minors can't buy pornography or watch violent films on their own, why should games be treated any differently? If a parent wants to let their child have a game then they can get it for t
    • Minors can't buy pornography or watch violent films on their own, why should games be treated any differently?

      I don't think you realize it, but by making a law which prohibits the sale of 'M' rated video games to minors, you would be treating video games differently. There is no law which prohibits the sale of R rated movies (NC-17, movies, and Playboy for that matter) to minors. The only reason no one does is because, if the MPAA found out about it, that store would never be allowed to carry movies ag
  • I wonder if anyone here has a problem with the fact that the government restricts the sale of Alcohol and Tobacco to minors... I mean, afterall, I want to choose what my kids smoke or drink, not the government.

    To this, I would just like to ask one question.

    Is there a time when enough parents are not policing themselves or their children in where society is forced to react?

    There are numerous studies proving the effect of violent videogames on minors. There are, to my knowledge, no ligitimate studies prov
    • It's funny how you go on about the numerous studies that prove the horrible effects violent videogames have on minors, yet you don't mention a single one. Where's your sources? I don't recall hearing about any study that concluded violent videogames will turn your children into depraved killing machines. You say that "we know" it's bad, but you've offered no more proof than anyone who says it isn't bad.

      There's definitely a problem with parents not monitoring their children enough. However, I don't thin
    • "There are numerous studies proving the effect of violent videogames on minors. There are, to my knowledge, no ligitimate studies proving the opposite... however, untold millions of kids have games like Grand Theft Auto, BloodRayne, Manhunt and what not. If we know it's bad... if society can be harmed by it (not just the child themselves), and if WE KNOW that many parents are not restricting their kids from these purchases, what else can we do?"

      Care to back that up with some statistics? Here's some sayin

    • I wonder if anyone here has a problem with the fact that the government restricts the sale of Alcohol and Tobacco to minors... I mean, afterall, I want to choose what my kids smoke or drink, not the government.

      Well, maybe I do. Let me explain why.

      I am 20 years old. I work and support myself, pay my own rent, buy my own food. My parents pay for my cell phone and that is it (its a slightly funny story but best left for another time).

      On my way home to my apartment maybe I want to stop and get a beer.
  • Slashdot doesn't even trust us to judge posts without moderation, so I guess rating video games isn't any worse.

  • From the article (yes, I read it):

    These days, some parents and lawmakers are taking aim at the video game industry by trying to ban sales of violently or sexually graphic games to minors. Since there are varying degrees of violence in the games, lawmakers are targeting only the most graphic -- where players vulgarly target and kill human beings.

    Gosh, there's no loaded language here, is there? Let's try that last sentence again:

    ...where players vulgarly target and kill computer-generated replicas of

  • I watch what they play and I decide what they play. I don't think it should be up to the lawmakers to decide, it should be up to the parents.

    It should be up to the parents? Is that right? Well then, it's pretty hilarious that you're complaining when that's exactly what's going on. A parent can choose exactly what their kids should be exposed to. If it weren't for this ban, the kid could go buy something the parent wouldn't want. This is one of the most non-sensical arguments I can recall seeing.

  • Yes, I know that this isn't a popular opinion here, but I really think that there are two types of games that should be banned.

    1) Bad, boring, unfun games. Nobody likes these, not even me.

    2) Satanic/sinful/sexual games. OK, stick with me here. A lot of games today touch on these themes, which I see some people defend staunchly. But, I would argue that these types of games are harmful in their effect on society. If something is readily available in society, it's difficult for a parent to keep their kids aw
    • What... who... where... is Zanesville. I live there, and I'd never in my life think to see anything like this from there. I'm truly surprised that they didn't mention the "Y Bridge" in their article. Seriously though, parents are ultimately responsible for what their kids watch, play, say, and do. We all know that once the hammer comes down once, it will surely be followed by more restrictions and regulations. fyi: :) Zanesville is located in South Eastern Ohio, and is a very small city that is made fun
      • fyi: Can't you write a sentence? "Zanesville is located in South Eastern Ohio, and is a very small city that is made fun of by all, including it's on residents, and me" try: made fun of by all, including it's OWN residents...
    • As for the first kind: while I wouldn't care if they were banned, what's the point? If they're so boring, no one will buy/play them anyway.

      Concerning satanic/sinful/sexual games: you dislike these, probably based on your religion if your .sig is anything to go by. But what about people who don't share your opinion because those subjects might actually be a positive thing for some people? Personally, I'm fascinated by fantasy/horror/eroticism-related art (movies, music, fine art). What makes your personal pr

      • I don't call for the banning of things I don't agree with, why do you?

        Because these are the things that will send you to hell. You seem not to care, but I do.

        • I'm not going to try and convince you of my point of view on this matter since I know from experience in this kind of discussion that the chances of one "side" convincing the other are practically zero. I do however ask you to consider this: In any discussion, trying to silence the other side by any means other than a well-funded counter-argument is not very convincing (consider some totalitarian governments you'll find in many history books).

          Banning a certain form of speech (which any form of art is) will

    • We're not all bloody Christians. In fact, I should be able to worship Satan and be treated no differently than those who pray to God, Allah, Jesus or Buddha. I'll find Super Monkey Ball "satanic" and "sinful" if I like.

      As for "sexual" games - isn't reproducing one of the major things that almost every organism on this planet strives to "do"?

  • The parents quoted in the article the the right idea. Prevent clearly unconstitutional laws that mandate who can sell or buy games for the mature gamer (read: old like me).

    To the parents that control the video games in your house, that's a very good idea. But it's only a starting point. You clearly can't ask your kid not to play games at his friend's, because that's indirectly imposing your will on other people's children--possibly contradictory influence. You have to accept they'll be out of your dire

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close