REAL Debates on Games (hint: they don't include you-know-who)

[gamepolitics]

Comments

Dennis got a question

[yukimurasanada]

Was the GDC debate before or after the California Law was Injoined in court, casue if so, then it explains why yee was not pressed about his law being shot down in court.

Either way, great job on this, I really enjoyed the debate, and was very impressed with the seemingly intelligent, if misguided approach yee took to it. But it's clear that if this debate were held now, he'd probably be much more defensive, and the questions would be much much more vicious I think since his bill seems to be DOA.

Either way, thanks for the info.

Re: Dennis got a question

[andrew_eisen]

Was the GDC debate before or after the California Law was Injoined in court...

After.

http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/164566.html

The law was blocked in December and the debate was held the following March.

Andrew Eisen

[jesdk]

"Distrust ratings and do your own research on the appropriateness of a game or film"

While the ESRB ratings ARE rather good imho, she still makes a very valid (and good) statement. :)

After all, it doesn't hurt to look into what your kid is doing! ;)

[cecil475]

- Educational video games are no replacement for real live teachers

[monte924]

-Why? The ratings are about 98% effective. There are people who want to get rid of a good working rating system becuase they'd rather focus on the remaining 2% (Hot Coffee, and Oblivion re-rating). Then take that 2% and blow it out of proportion. Things she and other people like her should know is that

[jabrwock]

though i'll admit, "distrust" is a bit strong of a word; that makes it sound like the ratings are wrong...

I agree, although reading her reasoning why I can see why she said it. Stuff like KidScore being focused on negative reviews, and skipping over positive games like DDR (which has never gotten a KidScore review), or the fact that ratings can possibly be linked to real or imagined political pressuring. (she lists two movies, one is rated R but is suitable for teens with parental supervision, the other is listed as PG-13 but is unsuitable...)

Her wording was a little harsh, and I disagree with dismissing the ratings entirely, but I do think they offer a good "first glance" review for a parent perusing the title list on a store shelf...

[cecil475]

- they are 98% accurate but they are very vague. I mean, stating that a game is meant for 17+, contains lots of blood, lots of violence, etc. doesn't really tell you that much about the game itself. It does give out the things that the average parents wants to watch out for, but it doesn't give you anything like an in depth look. When it comes to understanding a game (or any media), nothing beats actually researching the game. A good game review will tell you everything the ESRB tells you and much, much more

[rhanlav]

So, Losh basically said that parents should be responsable adults and stuff? Wow. Its nice to hear someone say that instead of the usual banter you usually hear. See, I can dig that, because it makes sense. Too bad parents don't want to be responsable, but heck if they won't make condemnations and all that other stuff.

I can't say anything about what she said, and plus, thats a really cool scarf. I wonder where she got that scarf from.

[jabrwock]

9. As the parent, you are entitled to make the house rules. This means you can specify the equipment to which your children have access or the hours they spend in front of a computer screen.

YES!