Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Indiana game bill moves forward

Subcommittee approves proposed law that would ban sales of games rated M or AO to minors.

Last year a bill proposing gaming regulations in the state of Indiana stalled before it could be voted on by legislators. Lawmakers are trying again, however, as last month state Senators David C. Ford (Republican) and Vi Simpson (Democrat) introduced a bill that would ban the sale of games rated M for Mature or AO for Adults Only to children.

The bill passed its first test this week, as the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Technology (which Ford chairs) voted 5-2 to recommend it be passed by the full Senate. According to an Associated Press article, the committee members were shown a video of objectionable material in games, including characters "urinating on victims and setting them on fire" and "gunning down people in a church." Another clip showed a game that rewarded players' achievements with footage of strippers.

A representative with the Entertainment Software Association argued before the committee that the law was unconstitutional like those struck down in other states, the Associated Press reported. Ford responded by saying he would continue to work on the bill to make it constitutional.

259 Comments

  • ControllerLord

    Posted Oct 29, 2007 2:47 am GMT

    I wonder what games they were shown, or if some of them were older games.

  • hellsfire007

    Posted Feb 26, 2007 10:04 am GMT

    While reading though the comments here is my two cents. Its true that parents need to raise their kids not have society do it for them. That is a given fact and is one often ignored by parents, sadly not the only fact about parenting this is ignored. I think the most the industry needs to do is provide parents a way to learn about the gmaes that thier kids are interested in. (To be blunt I don't think the whole T M AO BS ratings say much about a game.) Parents need to judge each game individually and (from what I always recommended) in order to ascertain whether the game is suitable or not they should sit down and play them. It only takes about a 1/2 hour to say what the game is essentially about. I say the same thing for movies. Watch 30 mins of it and you get an idea of what its about. Another comment was "I played wolf3d back when I was 12...it has a M rating now." Well we also need to realize that while games like wolf3d would be alright for a 10-12 year old if you revamped wolf3d with nextgen graphics of today then it probably wouldn't be. My point is simply this games are becomming much more realistic and the bottom line to it all is that kids need to know the difference about reality and fiction. Games are fiction. Reality is life. Plain and simple and thats something again that parents need to teach their kids.

  • markop2003

    Posted Feb 24, 2007 9:42 am GMT

    "gunning down people in a church."
    which part do you think ford hated the most, the fact that it was gunning someone down or that it was in a church???

  • jaredcrazy3232

    Posted Feb 22, 2007 10:47 pm GMT

    man its great being a Canadian... i mean yes we still have the CRTC but its not as bad as the stupid FCC!!!! plus our country isn't solely run by two conservative parties.... and yes i know the conservatives are in power in Canada right now but they still aren't nearly as conservative as the U.S.'s parties.. so i have less to worry about... and where can you even find AO games (excluding porn stores) plus are there even any games much less good games with this rating? not to say that this bill isn't an outrage but common who cares about the AO games anyway.... the M games are a little more touchy issue but that is assumed. i say get the parents to learn and make decisions game by game not by the rating. and non gamers to wise up and realize that games are not just for kids, and should be compared to movies not toys. oh and to those who say in canada ID must be checked for M games... well that store mandates not government.

  • Mortal_Medic

    Posted Feb 22, 2007 2:19 pm GMT

    Children will not magically learn how to fire a gun just by picking up a video game controller. If one really believes this then ban the sales of the little gun that comes with the Duck Hunt game. Children will not magically hit puberty and decide that sex is fun, nor will they get an opportunity to have sex just by playing a video game. If a child has a gun blame the parents, they most likely, bought them. A message for parents:
    If you dislike your child playing violent video games, take them away! You have the power, not us. Buy gun locks for your guns, and teach your kids that sex is for married couples. Remember, TAKE THE GAMES AWAY IN YOUR HOUSE, NOT THE STATE!

  • rarson

    Posted Feb 22, 2007 6:13 am GMT

    ""Sometimes people must be protected from themselves. " quote Neostar9. Keep thinking like that and you will GIVE away all of your freedoms."

    I am amazed that people in America, who typically appreciate their freedom, can make statements like that without realizing the MASSIVE perversion of our basic rights that is. Sure, someone is stupid and many people know better than them. We would be helping them by protecting them from themselves.

    But they have their own freedom, they have the right to be as dumb as they want. As long as they aren't harming other people. You take away THEIR right to decide what to do and then someone else will come along and decide that THEY know what's best for YOU. Then we're all forced into curfews and propaganda is blathered all across the country via TV and we're forced into violence and chaos to restore things to the way they should be, just like the movie V for Vendetta.

  • vhuynh67

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 11:56 pm GMT

    Sure kids can't play video game with fake guns but can learn how to shoot real riffle in school curriculum. This is Indiana. Remeber, "there is more than corn in Indiana" as the state's ads to attract tourism and businesses. Ultimately, politicians don't want to punish parents for the lack of engagement and participation in the development of their kids. These politicians are also parents, who among millions of their counterparts, don't have time to engage with their kids. Campaigning and spending time with lobbyists left them with little time. By holding parents accountable for the behaviors of their children, politicans would be accountable themselves for their children. Sadly, the world where politicians hold themselves accountable are only in video games. Hitting game studios and retailers provide a perfect diversion from their own weaknesses. Our representative government has broken down and betray the trust of its constituents a long time ago. They should vote to rewrite the preamble to our constitution as "we, the politicans and lobbyists of the United States of America, ..."

  • n8berman

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 9:51 pm GMT

    Why must we coddle our children so much? Hell, I recall playing Wolf 3d on the PC when I was 12 (It's currently rated M by the ESRB). A little blood, sex, and gore never hurt anyone. And even if it did, nothing like a little good ol' fashioned natural selection to thin out the herd a little bit. All we are doing is creating a bunch of sheltered wussies.
    And what's wrong with having a little comedy in your games..."urinating on victims and setting them on fire" and "gunning down people in a church." Fricking hilarious!!!

  • blueflamedino

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 9:24 pm GMT

    It would be better if we could just get a license or test o separate the mentally inferior and those who are stable, like driving a car, or becoming a surgeon, there are seriously people who need to be kept in check and thosewho doesn't, I always hated when a teacher punises a whole class by prohibition of something because one id**t decided to do something stupid

  • NinjaFoot

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 8:35 pm GMT

    This is no different than stores not selling R rated movies to minors, or theaters not letting minors in without an adult. I don't see the big deal. Its more up to the parents to guide their children anyway, and if a parent thinks its okay for their child to play the game, they can still get it for them.


    Umm, yes it is...because movie ratings are NOT laws, they are just like the current ESRB ratings, a voluntary system. They have simply had a lot more time then games have had to get stores to follow their guidelines, etc.

    Umm...no it's not. The spirit of the idea is the same. Semantics aside, of course.

  • DarthKalo

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 8:26 pm GMT

    "Sometimes people must be protected from themselves. " quote Neostar9. Keep thinking like that and you will GIVE away all of your freedoms.

  • spine90

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 8:18 pm GMT

    that is dumb law in which if just stop little kids to get games then what the point doing that syill little kids are going to see violnece on tys or movies vilonece and sexx is everywehre is not going to solve anything by passing that law

  • 123789986512

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 7:26 pm GMT

    I think that this kind of law is almost completely unconstitutional in the sense that the first amendment entices freedom of speech and that it is trampling all over that since KIDS ARE UNITED STATES CITIZENS not lesser people. In fact it only should be a ban on kids say 12 years in younger or something like that because with the world today you can't block everything, no matter how hard you try. I believe 12 and older because that was when I became aware of things already having a sense of morality, which should be installed before a child reaches kindergarten. More over the first amendment has been chopped, minced and filtered that we only see what the government wants us to.

    P.S. YAY Internet. I say this because the government has absolutely no jurisdiction over it because it is the World Wide Web not the United States Web.

  • Jimbokundesu

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 6:54 pm GMT

    Hooray activist Government! /sarcasm

  • Berserk_Gamer

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 3:21 pm GMT

    greystone227 said: "I don't really see the problem with this bill. It's only enforcing the fact that kids shouldn't be able to buy M and AO games. To me, it's no different than telling a kid he can't see an R rated movie without an adult. If a kid wants a M or AO game, they should get their parents to buy it, just like parents have to buy the tickets to an R rated movie."

    That's where the difference is though. When a kid can't see an R rated movie, its because the ticket taker and the company that owns the movie theater decided that they shouldn't be admitted. There is no government involvement in that case. I agree with video game ratings, and I agree that they should be followed. But who should enforce the ratings? The retailer AND the parents, not the government. If it is a company's policy not to sell video games to minors, and a clerk does, they should get in trouble for violating company policy. But when you allow the government to mandate what companies can do you get something.... starts with an f..... thinking about it..... ah yes, fascism. At last check, I didn't live in a fascist nation, and I don't want to. Thats why the government should keep their hands off of this, and leave it to retailers and parents. To lazy to account for your kids? Then you're accountable when they commit crimes.

  • rarson

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 3:03 pm GMT

    I think America in general is pretty prudish and a bit ass-backwards. I mean, there's violence in the news almost every day, yet I've never heard of legislation to stop that. And god forbid anyone THINK about showing nudity on TV. For some reason, a nipple is WAY worse than horrific violence.

    Let me backtrack though and say that I don't think there SHOULD be legislation against "violent news" or anything. It's my choice whether I watch that or not. Just like it's my choice if I want to play a game glorifying violence or not. Just because someone else feels that the level of violence is inappropriate doesn't mean that they can determine that for me as well.

  • wild_world_girl

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 2:58 pm GMT

    NeoStar9 :

    "Allow a minor into a strip club? Send a minor to war"

    "If a a game has so much violence, blood, and/or sex then minors should not be allowed to buy it"

    Your comparisons break down where it counts. You are comparing "dangerous weapons, physical objects, access to alcohol and sexual experiences" to "media"

    Apples and oranges, Constitutionally speaking. Sorry.

  • coolasj19

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 2:52 pm GMT

    they really looked hard for those clips im guessing
    those descriptions are brutal
    ive never seen anything that bad in my games

  • NeoStar9

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 2:48 pm GMT

    While I think its up to the parents to do actual parenting (god knows many don't, glad I was lucky an my parents actually did the job they accepted when I was conceived) I don't have a problem with this kind of bill. Yes people should take responsibility for their own actions however we all know that people don't. Sometimes people must be protected from themselves. Would one sell a gun to a minor? Allow a minor to buy alcohol (this should be 18 across the board I think, if you can fight in the military you should be able to drink I feel or change the age limit in the military)? Allow a minor into a strip club? Send a minor to war? If a a game has so much violence, blood, and/or sex then minors should not be allowed to buy it. Most games don't even need it yet developers keep pushing things. If they have a problem and worry about lack of sales then they shouldn't put so much of that content in their games. Have it part of the game yes but stop GLORIFYING violence, etc. That's the biggest problem and changing that would make a bill like this not even needed.

  • rarson

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 2:23 pm GMT

    The problem is that it's a good idea that people should follow without having to create a LAW for it.

    I don't understand why so many people seem to think that MORE LAWS are the solution to problems like this.

  • cbofthecs

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 2:21 pm GMT

    Now were can I get these videos that were shown? And I agree 100% with greystone227 thats because, like anti_xenomorph said, its up to the parent. But what I don't like is how they are making it illegal for a kid to even have the game. Even if there parents said they could.

  • greystone227

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 2:03 pm GMT

    I don't really see the problem with this bill. It's only enforcing the fact that kids shouldn't be able to buy M and AO games. To me, it's no different than telling a kid he can't see an R rated movie without an adult. If a kid wants a M or AO game, they should get their parents to buy it, just like parents have to buy the tickets to an R rated movie.

  • anti_xenomorph

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 1:17 pm GMT

    Well... its actually up to the parents and the mental maturity of the child in question but this would help quiet some people who always complain about these things.

  • rarson

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 12:11 pm GMT

    When I was 12, I was mature enough to play a game like GTA and still know the difference between right and wrong, and fantasy and reality... but then again, I was raised right. So shouldn't it be the parent's decision, not the state or a retail clerk, to choose what their kids can and cannot play?

    And I'm speaking strictly in the sense, as stated by wild_world_girl, that this is required by law. I have no qualms about a retailer choosing not to sell to minors. If a responsible parent knows that their child is mature enough to play the game, they can still buy it for their kids. However, what happens to this choice when a law like this gets passed?

    Some idiot parent buys their whiny brat GTA IV and then ends up doing something stupid. The parent blames the videogame. The state looks into the law and sees that it's the retailer who is at fault for allowing the game to fall into the kid's hands, regardless of the ignorance of the parent (because they'll surely argue that the rating system wasn't adequately explained to them), and we make criminals out of people that are trying to SELL VIDEOGAMES.

  • rarson

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 12:05 pm GMT

    "Who' s saying the blame will shift to retailers?"

    The penalties of breaking this law fall on the retailer, not the parent, whose job it is to decide what their kids should or shouldn't be playing in the first place, not some desk jockey. If a kid tries to buy a game and the retailer says no, what USUALLY happens? The kid whines to the parent, the clerk gets crap from the now angry parent, and then the parent pays for the game. That's usually how it's been working. This law won't do anything to change that at all. It doesn't involve the parents AT ALL. Most kids that aren't old enough to buy these games also aren't old enough to drive themselves to the store to attempt to buy the game in the first place.

    "but I'm 21 its not going to effect me"

    Right, THIS law won't affect you but the next one may. This complacency to crap laws because you aren't affected by them is the very mechanism used to introduce new laws. So what if they made a law that no one under 21 could buy them? Does that make sense? But you wouldn't care, because you're already 21.

    So then 50 years down the line, the age is raised to 40. But you don't care, you're already 71!

  • wild_world_girl

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 11:38 am GMT

    grocco :

    YOU need the lesson in Constitutional law. This *IS* a First Amendment issue. Just because the media is still allowed to be produced is not all that is required to satisfy the First Amendment.

    Barriers to citizens' access of the media, be it financial, distributive or political in nature, are considered to violate the First Amendment.

    U.S. born / naturalized minors here in the U.S. *are* citizens, and therefore cannot have barriers inflicted upon them *BY LAW* to prevent them from consuming any form of media.

    *BY LAW* is an important distinction, because self-regulatory agencies like the MPAA and the ESRB are not legally binding, and companies like Wal-Mart not selling games to minors is by their choice - not by law. They want to prevent a consumer backlash by angry parents and head off any legislative intervention. This is fine - it's a FREE COUNTRY.

    But if these measures are EVER PASSED AS LAW - it is a violation of a CITIZENS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS and is therefore unlawful, even if the CITIZEN is under 18 years of age.

  • wild_world_girl

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 11:30 am GMT

    BerzekGamer:

    I am happy to hear your viewpoint on this, but I am afraid to say, you are the exception that proves the rule. In general, the people working the hardest to be heard on issues of censorship in the name of family values (who aren't trying to be re/elected; READ: Hillary Clinton) are the religious right. They have in the past, and continue to presently, spit in the face of our constitutional rights.

  • GrayHalo

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 11:16 am GMT

    wait, so the bill only stops M and AO games from being sold to minors? whats wrong with that? I get giddy when I chainsaw someone in Gears but I'm 21 its not going to effect me, on the other hand, from my studies of psycology (which are not complete so its only my opinion) 12 year olds shouldn't play games with graphic violence such as M and AO games, AO should be discounted because I don't even know where you can buy AO games, not at any store atleast, so you need a credit card to buy them online I guess and how many minors have credit cards? as far as M goes, thats up to the parents to decide if its objectable to their kids. regardless game regulation is not unconstitutional. . .yet

  • grocco

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 11:10 am GMT

    "You think that parents are stupid and/or lazy so the government should make laws to shift the blame onto retailers??? How does that even make sense? So now, not only do the parents NOT have to be parents, but game stores can face legal issues for the parents not being parents."

    Who' s saying the blame will shift to retailers? If a retailer is by law not allowed to sell a game to minors, then he doesn't sell a game to minors, period. If said retailer then chooses to ignore the law and sell a game to a minor, then he is subject to the penalties for breaking that law. How is something so simple so hard to understand? In my opinion, this shifts more of the responsibility to the parents. With a law like this in place, the parent won't be able to send little Johnny down to the local store with $60 to buy GTA4. Instead, the parent will have to go with little Johnny, and may end up reading the back of the game case before purchasing it and then decide that little Johnny shouldn't be playing that game. Ignorant? Hardly. Try "responsible".

  • Keleboss

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:59 am GMT

    oboewan9999 "So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause." -Padme Amidala, Ep II

    Wait, wasn't that Episode 3? Yeah... I think it was. And yes... I am a nerd.

    As for the story, I'm sure the ESA will take care of the zealots like they always do

  • misterzeno225

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:52 am GMT

    Minors should not be buying games rated as such any way.

  • Jah_Glow

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:48 am GMT

    Mweh. They don't realize the irony of gunning down zombies in a cathedral because they're all blind enough to lead the blind.

    Let's hope this doesn't put any more dampers on the gaming industry down the road... and let's hope the Full Senate won't be biased by the footage... who knew people could be foolish as to follow their emotions?

  • oboewan9999

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:48 am GMT

    "So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause." -Padme Amidala, Ep II

  • Proust

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:43 am GMT

    I applaud the government in its endless efforts to help protect our purity. What a terrible place this country would be if people were actually allowed to look at life and think for themselves.

  • -HCMF-

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:42 am GMT

    so I guess its re-election time again...

  • jimbo102671

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:38 am GMT

    With the bickering on other comment / forum pages over which system is best, I'm glad we all basically agree on one thing: We don't need insane politicians doing the job that is supposed to be handled by the parents.

    Yes, I called the politicians "insane'. After all, isn't doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results a very example of insanity?

  • Dman4Life1217

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:27 am GMT

    I agree. Bills like these are being made because parents are too lazy to monitor what their kids are getting into. Do I agree with the bills? No I don't, because then you'll have to start banning books, and movies, and television shows that are not "acceptable" for minors to view. You cannot argue taste, which is what these local governments are trying to do. What may be perfectly acceptable for one person may not be for another. And if Parents would wake up and realize that video games are not substitutes for babysitters and them physically being there, maybe we wouldn't have these bills trying to be passed, nor would we have stupid politicians trying to pass the blame on everything that is wrong in society on video games. My mom said it best and I think I'll pass it along. "Parents are the first ones to take credit for when the kid does something good, but will blame everything else in the world and not themselves when the kid does something bad."

  • rarson

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:21 am GMT

    "Measures like these are meant to protect kids from parents that are either too stupid or too lazy to filter what their kids see."

    I wish I was as ignorant as you, because it really is bliss.

    You think that parents are stupid and/or lazy so the government should make laws to shift the blame onto retailers??? How does that even make sense? So now, not only do the parents NOT have to be parents, but game stores can face legal issues for the parents not being parents.

    Give government more power and they will use it, always. These stupid legislations make room for further legislations to come in and take our liberties away. First it's this law. Then it'll be a law banning AO games altogether. Then there'll be more restrictions placed on Mature games, etc.

    This is a censorship issue, and if you don't see that, then you don't get it.

  • Berserk_Gamer

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:19 am GMT

    Autolycus: "or start a political debate, but the concersatives(read republicans) have destroyed our constitutional rights and use of the first amendment."

    I don't really want to start a political debate either, but I'm willing to bet liberal democrats have done more constitutional rights destroying that conservatives. (and no, constitutional rights DO NOT apply to non-citizens trying to take advantage of the system).

    The worst the conservatives have done to take away your rights is a few nanny laws, which I disagree with because I believe in personal responsibility. Its the liberals which are pushing for the beauty of socialized health care (which has an ironic 10 month wait for expecting mothers), more government regulation, etc. etc. etc. I do agree with you that there's no government that has looked out completely for its people, which is why I want it to have as little power as possible. Once you give the government something (power, money especially) you will NEVER see it back again. As V so eloquently said: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

  • rarson

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:16 am GMT

    "But for what its worth, clinton headed ECHELON, which listens to every single email, cell phone call, lan line call, etc onin the us. Yes, its true and yes it exists."

    Sure, but the government is too stupid and inept to even efficiently monitor all that raw data, let alone actually do anything with it.

    Don't worry, the guy that's listening to your phone calls is asleep on the job. The real shame of programs like those are how much tax money they are wasting.

  • grocco

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:13 am GMT

    OMG, this has NOTHING to do with the First Ammendment. The games are still produced, and you can still buy them, provided you are an adult. Measures like these are meant to protect kids from parents that are either too stupid or too lazy to filter what their kids see. Tell me any of you think its appropriate for a 10 year old to play GTA or Saint's Row. I play all these games, but then, I'm 36 years old. Kids should not be playing a lot of these games, period, and if the parents can't be bothered to make sure that happens, then maybe the government will. The sad thing, of course, is that while the kids themselves may not be able to buy the games personally, one of their inbred parents will probably be more than happy to do it for them, which then defeats the purpose.

  • xxoblivion911xx

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:09 am GMT

    stinkin politicians always in our lives hope they get shanked >o

  • Autolycus

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 10:01 am GMT

    Beserk_Gamer:You know, as a self admitted religious conservative, I have to disagree with this. I have no interest in banning things that I find offensive, because I have a strong belief in the First Amendment (something liberals seem to be lacking with all their political correctness brouhaha) and as such

    not to shoot you down or start a political debate, but the concersatives(read republicans) have destroyed our constitutional rights and use of the first amendment. But for what its worth, clinton headed ECHELON, which listens to every single email, cell phone call, lan line call, etc onin the us. Yes, its true and yes it exists. There has never been a goverment tha thas looked out for the people, why do you htink the united states is any different. If you want to know something really weird, do you what the term CITIZEN actually implies? It means you are an employee of a company. And back in 1846 (or 1842) a company called the United States(which of course oversees banking and money) was created. So when you go to court and are asked if you are citizen of the united states(which was created after the 1st amendment) dont answer yes, but answer that you were born and raised in America...

  • rarson

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 9:59 am GMT

    Holy crap! Someone actually GETS the First Amendment! Bravo! Yes, the First Amendment is meant to teach us to be tolerant of things that we might not necessarily like.

    Another unnecessary law. Make criminals out of store clerks when it's the parents' job to be raising their kids. It's all good though, every stupid law like this that gets passed just makes people more and more complacent to give up their liberties.

    Jefferson was right, a violent overthrow of our government WILL be necessary to maintain our freedom. I just don't see enough people that are willing to do it.

  • devilnevercry9

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 9:45 am GMT

    too bad for Indiana

  • Berserk_Gamer

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 9:37 am GMT

    wild_world_girl said - religious conservatives to enact laws banning all sorts of game content that they disagree with

    You know, as a self admitted religious conservative, I have to disagree with this. I have no interest in banning things that I find offensive, because I have a strong belief in the First Amendment (something liberals seem to be lacking with all their political correctness brouhaha) and as such, I think that its not the government's responsibility to play nanny for irresponsible parents. It really is quite simple in the case of violent video games AND explicit music and movies (which, for some reason, the government sees no need to regulate the sale of like they do for video games): if you don't want your kids listening to 50 cent or playing GTA -- DON'T BUY IT FOR THEM! If they have it, you take it away and punish them! Parents these days have no constitution: if their kids are running around crazy, they blame it on everything they can find: TV, videogames, music, movies, peer pressure, school, blah blah blah. In reality, its their fault. Pretty much every time a kid has a problem, its the parents fault for wanting to be the kid's friend and be cool rather than step up and be a parent. So, its time for parents to step up and start taking responsibility for their kids, and stop blaming society for their kids problems, and start taking responsibility for their mistakes. It is NOT the government's role to regulate video game sales, much in the same way its not their place to regulate what people watch, listen to, eat, do and think. We have to get away from this nanny government that is killing Europe right now and start taking responsibility. Its as like cjcr_alexandru said: "if a kid wants a M game [he'll] ask his elder and mature friend to buy it." This is true, because I did it when I was a kid. You know what my parents did? Took it away and punished me. I'm happy they did. It taught me to be a responsible parent too, which is really a dying breed. In the end, if the parents don't want their kids playing video games, the government is powerless (unless Hillary's village becomes a reality), and the only hope you have to keep your kids from doing these things is to take responsibility and do it yourself.

  • sieg6529

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 9:35 am GMT

    This is going to cost a butt-load of money to implement, and I assure you that it won't do anything but put some well-meaning but misguided parents' minds at ease.

  • eddymunch

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 9:33 am GMT

    I think this is a losing battle. Unfortunately kids see it around them all over the place everyday. They see it on TV, hear it in music, see and interact with it on the internet. This is just sad. There is no innocence anymore in kids. I think they get exposed to it too early and it becomes overwhelming. The solution starts with the parents and the problem starts with the media. The people that bring us the music, the games, the movies etc are adults.

  • blamder-drag

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 9:31 am GMT

    Kenesu96-'the way i see it is, instead of the newly created E 10+ rating, the material that earns this rating should be T, then all T games bumped up to M and all M bumped up to AO, which is a little more accurate for the material and those trying to prevent it from getting everywhere. but of course that would mean stores would have to start carrying AO games, and that would lead to a whole new headache, much like how big video chains wont rent NC17 movies, despite that some are some quality cinema M rating is flawed because you cant buy it until your 17, but its ok if your parents approve, since most parents dont know, dont care, or actually think it is ok, then lil 12 year old johnny ends up playing M games, where as if theyre just AO like they should be thered be no question."
    That wouldn't help anything at all AO games are rated ao for a reason youre not going to get content that bad in any M rated game and T games are only rated T if they have a gun in them they defnatly dont deserve an M rating

  • LexLas

    Posted Feb 21, 2007 9:20 am GMT

    This is one of the best choices I've seen made and approved. They way it should have always been.

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!