@diciple @briggsy10 It was never going to be a popular suggestion for the exact reason you just demonstrated - the constitution has become so ingrained and is such a convenient way of avoiding the tough decisions that nothing gets done.
Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the constitution as a concept, it just needs to evolve. Look at industry, technology, culture, society, ethics, law, etc. They all evolve and develop over time naturally. Politics and religion - two of the mightiest influences in the world - do the opposite and rely on old "traditional" values, increasingly to their and our own detriment.
Just because something is traditional doesn't make it right - it may well have been right then, but things change, to deny that is a frankly dangerous mentality to have.
In regards to your hostility to a perfectly valid (and as you pointed out, constitutionally supported) opinion - bear in mind I merely suggested that the people who wrote the constitution may not actually have had the forsight to allow for all those developments over the last 250 odd years.
If you think that's such a radical thought, I sincerely hope logic and reasoning aren't critcal to your success in life.
@redness19 To be fair - at least the "drive to Disneyland" in ME terms is pretty damn exceptional, there's nothing wrong with enjoying the ride. It's more like being the other way round, spending an entire day having fun at Disneyland, then having to suffer a frustrating drive home.
How many perfectly sensible pieces of legislation get thrown out by the US government purely because they're deemed incompatible with a list created and signed hundreds of years ago in a society that hasn't existed for generations?
Surely on the same basis laws punishing retailers who sell alcohol or cigarettes to underage shoppers are just as unconstitutional?
It'll take a brave government to finally re-write that damn constitution to make it relevant once more, or tear it down completely, but until someone does exactly that the US will always be its own worst enemy - and that's saying something!
So gamers - who play games, know the industry, know the CONTEXT (always conveniently missed by critics) - have absolutely no credibility, but some fanatical knee-jerk politician who has so obviously never played any of the games he's criticising so vehemently is totally credible in doing so.
Further, our BLOODLUST, combined with the industry's lust for MONEY and SELF-INTEREST is deplorable so we should shut up. Well, it's a good job he's got his facts straight, I mean it would be really embarrassing for him if any pro-gun organisations, politicians, or governments could be described in those exact 3 words so concisely like the game industry apparently can be.
I despise the politicians blindly jumping on the bandwagon blaming video games - forever the easy scapegoat it seems - but I have absolutely nothing against impartial scientific research being carried out - in any area.
What bothers me is not only people blaming the games in general, but that the people doing the blaming seem to completely miss the point that kids aren't supposed to be playing violent games anyway - that's the point of the FCC/ESRB, and of course, parents. I don't think any adult gamer has any objections to actually enforcing the ratings in order to prevent children being exposed to violence too early, but we all seem to be portrayed as promoting that exact thing by the frankly idiotic political fanatics.
Introducing a measure that actually enforces ratings and certification as a legal system is a great idea even disregarding the games-guns argument. We've already established things like alcohol and cigarettes are unsuitable for youngsters, and while I don't believe for a second games cause real world violence, I do believe children shouldn't be exposed to "adult" content so easily. So why not treat movie/music/games certification the same way alcohol and cigarette laws are enforced? Makes sense.
For those who only see in black and white ("Getting rid of guns won't stop ALL gun crime, so why bother): Nothing I or anyone else have suggested ever will cut crime out completely, but it can potentially drastically reduce crime, and that's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing at all.
Oh, and one more thought - the constitution was signed hundreds of years ago by people who'd just fought a brutal war for independence against a powerful nation, using guns that fired 1 round per minute if you were particularly skilled, and would struggle to hit a barn door from 20 yards without training. Something tells me both the world, and the guns, have moved on a loooooooong way since then, so how about we grow up and come up with something valid for the society we actually live in, not the one that existed so many generations ago.
@CptJohnnyRico I agree with you about education and parenting responsibilities being handed to the TV as an easy way out, but the rest is borderline conspiracy theorizing.
I've never denied that media influences people, and that those with pre-existing mental issues - be it from poor upbringing/parenting, or genuine medical issues - are more susceptible. But you have to realise people with these problems are a tiny tiny minority - to outlaw entire industries and and practices based on such small percentages makes no sense, not least because you could easily find a person who is negatively impacted by just about everything the world has to offer, in which case where do you draw the line?
I'd also point out that there is a major difference between impersonating the harmless walk, voice, or appearance of a character like Scarface, compared to actually going out doing the violent things he did. Again it brings us back to the minority of people who cannot see that line where it becomes wrong.
As for the tantrums and violent reactions to kids having consoles taken away, I think you'll find kids have that reaction to ANYTHING they like being taken away, and always have done. It's in no way specific to games or even modern media - I know for a fact one of my parents reacted the exact same way in the 50s when his mum took away his musical instrument! You're applying standard childish behaviour to a "new" technology, and claiming the whole reaction is new too.
You touched on faith and religion being viewed more and more negatively - I'd strongly question why that's a bad thing? Religions like Christianity wrote the book (literally!) on violence and intolerance, not to mention enforced influence even to the point of indoctrination - all the things you complain about modern media doing...
That video is a prediction from a guy that happened even before the concept of video games and mass produced media was even conceived! He may well have noticed a pattern in society, but it was evidently a pattern that pre-dated modern media - you just proved that yourself by posting the video.
One form of media I would totally like removed from TV is the "scripted reality" genre that's come in over the last 5 years or so. Just about everything else on TV, in films or games, is obviously either factual or fictional, and that is a clear line. Scripted reality blurs the line in such a way that it can be genuinely impressionable - people see fake things happening as if they were real (and not in a movie kind of way) - and therefore assume it's genuine, and therefore OK. It's the most perverse form of entertainment, and I think the most genuinely damaging - albeit still not influential enough to promote murder!
These are not new phenomena, far from it. I know it's a cliche, but the buck really does stop with parents, educators, and with people actually enforcing the rules they set (certification processes, etc).
@CptJohnnyRico @Darekin So it's not OK for you to be judged on your chosen username, but it is OK for you to judge based on assumptions you've made about someone else's mental state and playing habits?
I don't think anyone is denying that violent games are definitely unsuitable for kids, but as has already been pointed out - that's why there's a certification process. It needs to be enforced much more vigorously by both retailers and parents.
However, to say games or any other media promote violence and killing more so than actual, real life weaponry is just completed twisted. Given the sheer number of people who play games like COD, watch films like Saw, and listen to music like [insert any typical media-unfriendly rapper her], how is it that mass murderers are still very much a tiny tiny tiny minority? How is it that places like Japan and the UK - that both have huge entertainment and media markets - have so little gun crime compared to the US?
Either you're implying that the population of America are somehow inherently more impressionable and "sponge-like" (to the point of murder) or you're ignoring pretty damning information.
Some people certainly need better upbringing and education, but likewise it's much more difficult to shoot someone with an xbox controller instead of a rifle.
@SythisTaru I would honestly take back some criticism of the ending if anyone could explain it to me - if it's just too complex for me then fine, I could admit to that if it were true.
Unfortunately I don't think that's the case. I like a smart, sophisticated - even complex - ending as much as the next person, in fact i'd welcome it, but in this case I'm pretty certain it's just self-contradictory and non-sensical.
@calvinsora The way Mass Effect developed from one game to the next was in part due to consumer feedback. And I'm talking about core gameplay AND story here - Tali originally had quite a small part, but due to fan's positive reception she was given a bigger role and her story was fleshed out. Likewise gameplay mechanics were tweaked and refined, as well as new features introduced.
Whether you like it or not, fans already affect development. The only difference here is we are talking about developing a game post release, because there is no "next" game in the series to apply the new knowledge to.
briggsy10's comments