Leave a comment

Comments 108

One for the UK Members to field I think..... goodrobotus March 2 2006, 15:26:47 UTC
In 2004 there were 590 Deaths through drink driving and over 17,000 injuries, Road Rage is a growing problem, yet cars are still legal.

There were over half a million incidents of Domestic violence in the UK in 2002-3 and it is rising.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/20/1095532183569.html?from=storylhs

A Serial attacker who uses a Hammer and doesn't appear to play computer games. At least 6 attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3674479.stm

Another Hammer murderer with multiple victims and no computer games.

I will try to find the correct address to contact to point out that simply because 1 murderer who used a Hammer had Manhunt proves absolutely nothing, as tragic as the Murder is.

(Good job I copied that lot ;) )

Reply

Re: One for the UK Members to field I think..... jdmdsp911 March 2 2006, 18:17:00 UTC
Actually, wasn't the victim in that murder the owner of the game, not the murderer? If it is the same murder that I am thinking of.

Reply

Re: One for the UK Members to field I think..... catch_33 March 2 2006, 18:34:07 UTC
Yes, the game belonged to the victim.

Reply


Ironic. anticron March 2 2006, 15:27:31 UTC
"parents perceive age ratings as a guide but not as a definitive prohibition".

[...]

This is not about adult censorship; it is about protecting our children. We need to act now before it is too late.

Ironic that in order to protect the children, GB finds it necessary to remove the children from the parental discretion. Will they also supply childcare on the government's bill, or will they simply take away all parental rights one by one?

It is, effectively, adult censorship.

It would seem that China is the New Role Model™ in which the government decides everything for the inhabitants.

Reply


Hrm. fedule March 2 2006, 15:31:27 UTC
Didn't the courts find that Manhunt WASN'T responsible for the Stefan Pakeerah? In fact, didn't they find that the game belonged to Stefan, rather than his murderer? And that the whole thing was over money or something stupid like that?

Reply

Re: Hrm. ace_ofspade March 2 2006, 15:46:28 UTC
I'm not good with names... are the The-Guy-Who-Got-Murdered-Owned-The Game-Manhunt case and the one Vaz is talking about the same one?

Reply

Re: Hrm. catch_33 March 2 2006, 15:52:22 UTC
Yes they are. It seems JT's friend is just as stupid as he is.

Reply


Oops. fedule March 2 2006, 15:32:34 UTC
I mean "the murder of Stefan Pakeerah". Damn.

Reply


I don't see what's so wrong with forcing game companies to make better labels skemodan March 2 2006, 15:34:10 UTC
Not that I think there's any problem with the ESRB, but just forcing them to make more informative ratings labels seems harmless to me. They aren't limiting the sale in any way, they're just enforcing a more harsh ratings system. All ratings systems are enforced by the law already...I think.

Reply

Re: I don't see what's so wrong with forcing game companies to make better labels galin March 2 2006, 16:18:23 UTC
More informative how? They already tell you in general terms why they got the rating "intense violence, strong language, blood, mature sexual themes" (from the Max Payne 2 box sitting next to me).

Should the rating tell exactly what is in the game? "800 incidents of gun violence". That is impossible due to the very nature of a game.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US there are no ratings systems that are enforced by law. And enforcing the ratings system DOES limit sales, as retailers will be less likely to carry M/AO rated games if they think they might possibly get fined for an accidental sale to a minor.

Reply

Re: I don't see what's so wrong with forcing game companies to make better labels catch_33 March 2 2006, 16:34:52 UTC
I don't know about the UK, but in the US there are no ratings systems that are enforced by law. And enforcing the ratings system DOES limit sales, as retailers will be less likely to carry M/AO rated games if they think they might possibly get fined for an accidental sale to a minor.

This is true.

Most politicians don't seem to be really aiming for this effect though. Most don't care if their measures get through. They just want to look good for having proposed them.

I'm not sure if Vaz is one of them.

Reply

Re: I don't see what's so wrong with forcing game companies to make better labels tollwutig March 2 2006, 16:22:29 UTC
but just forcing them to make more informative ratings labels seems harmless to me

I don't either, how about forcing the MPAA and RIAA to do the same thing while you're at it. Oh wait thise 2 have sued the pants off every legislative body in the U.S that has tried, and their content descriptors are not even half of the ESRB or PEGI systems.

They aren't limiting the sale in any way, they're just enforcing a more harsh ratings system. All ratings systems are enforced by the law already...I think.

Maybe in the UK ratings are enforced, but not in the US. Again see the MPAA and RIAA.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up