What do you think? Should Congress be more concerned with video games being a little graphic than a war, a failing economy, and rising gas prices?
I say no. It should be up to parents to monitor what their kids see. Too many parents are reliant on the Xbox to babysit their kids, however. The bureaucracy shouldn't ban sales of good video games because today's parents have checked out.People like Hilary Clinton and Jack Thompson wil come after us, however, and it's time for gamers and programmers alike to let our voices be heard!
Hey, besides even if they games aren't appropriate for kids, adults should still buy the games they want. If they want porno, torn limbs, and repulsive language, who is the U.S. government to stop them. If it's illegal for kids to get certain rated games, there will <b><i>ALWAYS</i></b> be ways to breach the law. Besides we need to pull the troops out of Iraq, create jobs, and get Bush out of office, before we need to be worrying about how 15 year old trouble makers spending their time. Besides if you buy a highly violent game like GTA, you're obviously mature enough to handle a little mature content. Besides, the people have clothing on, your not seeing innapropriate parts. It's your choice if you get hot coffee and choose to strip them. It'd be wrong to make a big deal about this, young boys have been sneaking dirty magazines for ages. That was never a problem, so why should this be. We have bigger concerns.
—Edit:By the way, <a href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy"><b>HERE</b></a>is a wikipedia entry on censorship in video games.—They shouldn't censor the devour ability in FFVIII
Adults should be able to buy what they want, definitely.
They don't censor games…. noone censors games. There is yet to be a game which was barred from release because of something in it.
What you are probably making reference to is the labeling of games as AO, such as in the hot coffee mod scandal. That isn't a ban. The government doesn't ban games, and never will. Hillary Clinton and Jack Thomson can not stop an art form (and yes, game creation is as much an art form such as painting or producing music). Every new art form has gone through its stages of fights against it, but they have always prevailed.You could make a game like Silent Scope, but where in the ending you killed someone who embodied or represented the current president (no, I am not making reference to George Bush… shutup, you aren't intelligent… Im saying whoever the current president is, whenever this game is made) and it would not be barred from shelves. It may be post-poned due to the fact that no game yet (even with hot coffee) has come CLOSE to stirring as much controversy as that, but it won't be banned (unless the character representing the president is close enough to be argued as copyright infringement on his likeness)I'm referring to labeling, yes. You have to admit the label AO doesn't exactly help sales. Too many people think video games are poisoning America's youth as well. That has more to do with the number of Cheetos consumed while playing them.
Rockstar Entertainment got the AO rating because their game deserved the AO rating. It had nudity in it, and so it needs arating that says "this game is not for children… don't let them play it…".
The problem with this whole case isn't that they had nudity in their game, its that they HID that nudity. They pretended their game was closer to wholesome entertainment than it actually was, and because of that, children saw sex in their games. That is completely unacceptable.Anyone incompetant enough to truely believe San Andreas is a well-designed and entertaining game in the first place is a moron, but that isn't the point. By hiding the nudity, Rockstar gave the entire gaming industry a bad name, and now everyone has to back off until the heat dies down.I don't even understand your argument. How could you think that a game with nudity in it not being given to children is a problem?oh and Mike, I was referring to the United States, and no, no games have ever been banned here. Nice try though….. remember, it's not pwnage unless you are right, and you were oh so wrong.
You are probably referrign to "The Guy Game" which is not bannedbut removed from sale due to the fact that the girl shown topless in it was under the age of 18. Therefore, the game wasn't banned, it was only removed. There is a difference. Wikipedia is incorrect.In fact, that game is still in stores, now with that girl cut out of it.PWNEDmoron
Wikipedia is incorrect? So I guess you are a much more reliable source then. I must be mistaken, but there is no difference between what you were saying and what was stated in wikpedia's article. The game was indeed banned.
Remember, it's not pwnage unless you are intelligent.CHOWNED