It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)U.S. bill proposes tobacco-style warning labels for games(59 posts)(59 posts)
(59 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted March 20, 2012
avatar
michaelleung: Most sex leads to disappointment.
avatar
orcishgamer: I thought that was most marriage (which implies a lack of sex).
Married individuals actually have more sex... until children come into the picture, that is.
Posted March 20, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: I thought that was most marriage (which implies a lack of sex).
avatar
DeadPoolX: Married individuals actually have more sex... until children come into the picture, that is.
Orly? How long between marriage and the first kid in most cases?:)
Posted March 20, 2012
"WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior"
avatar
michaelleung: But that's not true. There's no concrete evidence showing that's the case. Any proof that there is any link is anecdotal at best.
"Not proven to be causal" does not mean "anecdotal". Only evidence of a causal link with a high degree of accuracy would ever be considered proof, and you're never going to get it with psychology. Whether there is a causal link or not is therefore irrelevant.

There is an equally valid argument against people like John Carmack saying that it helps reduce anger, yet these statements are pounced on as gospel truth and people feel they are vindicated by the statement.

It is ironic that you should make such a comment in this thread. Cigarettes were protected by the same argument for a very long time. For a long time they hid behind the lack of a causal link between smoking and lung cancer to allow them to just carry on advertising and selling tabacco products as they wished. They argued along the lines that any such evidence of a link between smoking and lung cancer was anecdotal at best.

I don't care about taking sides in this, tried that before. I've played violent games since about 8, and unfortunately possess the cold dark rage of a serial killer. So what does that all mean? Just that I'm insane.
Posted March 20, 2012
avatar
Fomalhaut30: A 60 year old at this point probably bought a NES or Atari 2600 for their kids.
And that's probably the extent of the knowledge that even the majority of people who'd be half that age have about video games.

We're not just fighting the impression that all people who play video games are obese, socially awkward "nerds" living in their parent's basement; we're fighting the much more widespread and heavily entrenched belief that video games started and ended with Pac-Man, Super Mario Bros., and Space Invaders. (And the belief carried with that, that that is how video games *should* be.)

Try to have a conversation about theme, narrative and character development with respect to Deus Ex or Mass Effect, and watch their eyes glaze over.
Posted March 20, 2012
"Warning, this game may cause brain damage" on some games would be cool. ;)
"WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior"
avatar
michaelleung: But that's not true. There's no concrete evidence showing that's the case. Any proof that there is any link is anecdotal at best.
Then again, so was the case of second hand smoke causing cancer and yet, i still see that info on boxes. Just because it's not proven, doesn't mean it can't be on the box. ;)
Posted March 20, 2012
The real question is, who still buys physical copies of games anymore?

What do they propose online, annoying pop-ups with warnings?
Posted March 20, 2012
When I first saw this I thought, "Why in the hell would they put a warning on taco's?"... Yes, it's been a long day.
Posted March 20, 2012
avatar
DeadPoolX: Married individuals actually have more sex... until children come into the picture, that is.
avatar
orcishgamer: Orly? How long between marriage and the first kid in most cases?:)
Don't know. It varies on the couple. Some might wait years while others could have a kid or two before ever getting hitched.
Posted March 20, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: Orly? How long between marriage and the first kid in most cases?:)
avatar
DeadPoolX: Don't know. It varies on the couple. Some might wait years while others could have a kid or two before ever getting hitched.
Don't know about Canada but I'm pretty sure in the US it's under 2 years. Kids take 18+ years to raise. It's fair to say married couples simply have less sex (since the majority do reproduce and in such a short timeframe, at least in the US). Your caveat, while technically correct, doesn't affect much in the larger picture.
Posted March 20, 2012
*sighs* Don't these people have other things they need to worry about? I wasn't aware that congress had so much free time on their hands that they would be sooo concerned about video games of all things.
Attachments:
618px-jeanlucpic.jpg (16 Kb)
Posted March 21, 2012
avatar
Fomalhaut30: A 60 year old at this point probably bought a NES or Atari 2600 for their kids.
avatar
rampancy: And that's probably the extent of the knowledge that even the majority of people who'd be half that age have about video games.
And after they bought the NES, they'd buy the SNES for the kid and then the N64. When the kid moves off to college, they in turn probably end up buying an Xbox or a PS1, which they in turn would bring home during vacations. Kids who grew up with video games are now parents watching their own kids grow up with games.

It takes a lot of willpower to ignore and choose to not learn what your kid is interested in and doing. They treat their kids as something to deal with until they turn 18 rather than actually acting as a parent and being involved.
Posted March 21, 2012
avatar
jefequeso: But that's neither here nor there, because it's possible to get psychologically addicted to just about anything, and thus it's nearly impossible to have warning labels for all possible "threats." This does bring up an interesting question about how Blizzard's games should be treated, however. Because they use very calculated psychological manipulation to keep players "addicted" to their games. Facebook games do the same thing, if much less subtly. It's not like this should be illegal, or even that it's a bad thing (that's half of what makes things like Diablo so much fun). But then again, it's something that people really should be aware of (perhaps not through ham-handed warning labels, though). It's been proven that just as there are some people who can't use alcohol responsibly, there are some people that don't play WoW responsibly--sometimes to a very severe extent.
Even beyond the "level grind" or "one more turn" addiction, a micropayment system in general as seen in MMO, Facebook, mobile, and increasingly in PC/console games as well encourages a gambling-like distribution in revenue sources where a very small percentage of people contribute a very large amount of revenue as it hits their psychological reward-center. I agree that we shouldn't outlaw games that utilize this other such addictive mechanics (after all we don't outlaw gambling or other sources of psychological addiction). There are recognition systems for people with gambling addictions and I think there needs to be the same sort of recognition systems as exist for people with video game addiction. Video game addiction should be treated and covered as a psychological addiction just like gambling and the other behaviors similar to it as it has the potential to have disastrous financial as well as quality-of-life ramifications.
Post edited March 21, 2012 by crazy_dave
Posted March 21, 2012
"WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior"
avatar
michaelleung: But that's not true. There's no concrete evidence showing that's the case. Any proof that there is any link is anecdotal at best.
Right... and wrong.

New evidence is showing an increase in aggression behavior while and shortly after playing violent games. Not at all unlike the behavior after you've watched a violent movie... or played some football... or engaged in almost any aggressive behavior.

But there is ZERO cause and effect relationship demonstrating that people become violent because of playing games. That is, you don't play GTA then go out and rob a liqueur store.

All the old truths we know about games not causing violence is true. These senators simply don't understand the data... or more likely, are pandering to the concerns of the ignorant non-gaming parent constituency.

But ultimately, who cares? The warning label will more likely help sell games than hinder it... so I say let them do it.
Posted March 21, 2012
avatar
jefequeso: But that's neither here nor there, because it's possible to get psychologically addicted to just about anything, and thus it's nearly impossible to have warning labels for all possible "threats." This does bring up an interesting question about how Blizzard's games should be treated, however. Because they use very calculated psychological manipulation to keep players "addicted" to their games. Facebook games do the same thing, if much less subtly. It's not like this should be illegal, or even that it's a bad thing (that's half of what makes things like Diablo so much fun). But then again, it's something that people really should be aware of (perhaps not through ham-handed warning labels, though). It's been proven that just as there are some people who can't use alcohol responsibly, there are some people that don't play WoW responsibly--sometimes to a very severe extent.
avatar
crazy_dave: Even beyond the "level grind" or "one more turn" addiction, a micropayment system in general as seen in MMO, Facebook, mobile, and increasingly in PC/console games as well encourages a gambling-like distribution in revenue sources where a very small percentage of people contribute a very large amount of revenue as it hits their psychological reward-center. I agree that we shouldn't outlaw games that utilize this other such addictive mechanics (after all we don't outlaw gambling or other sources of psychological addiction). There are recognition systems for people with gambling addictions and I think there needs to be the same sort of recognition systems as exist for people with video game addiction. Video game addiction should be treated and covered as a psychological addiction just like gambling and the other behaviors similar to it as it has the potential to have disastrous financial as well as quality-of-life ramifications.
agreed 100%
Posted March 21, 2012
Speaking as a European, I realise that our age classification/censorship authorities do go overboard a lot of the time (especially the USK), but at the same time, most Europeans do recognise the need to enforce some kind of age restriction system. I've done my part-time work in Gamestop and I know how many parents try to buy games for their kids with their kids present - a lot of them don't realise that the age restrictions are binding, not a recommendation, and most of them had no idea of the type of stuff that's in these games.

There are plenty of games that are just not suitable for kids and even the ESRB recognises this. It would be an ideal world where all parents raise their kids properly and allow them to play games that are suitable for them, but unfortunately a lot of them just buy their kids these games to keep them quiet and absolve themselves of all responsibility for raising them.

Of course, common sense is demanded and I don't strictly adhere to the age ratings - my girlfriend's goddaughter was 4 when she came to see us last and she enjoys playing Ridge Racer - which is rated 6 but is harmless. What I won't do is subject her - or my children in the future - to something like Counterstrike or CoD. I was horrified a couple of years ago when my sister bought my then 10-year-old nephew Black Ops for his Xbox.

I personally find the uproar on Gamespot hilarious every time someone tries to restrict the sale of M-rated and AO-rated games to adults by means of legislation - it's a typical sign of the average demographic there. Why should people over 18 care?

I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone in finding it disturbing when 11-year-olds play Mortal Kombat, revelling in the numerous dismemberments and decapitations, and are spewing out all kinds of nasty shit when they play Call of Duty online...
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)U.S. bill proposes tobacco-style warning labels for games(59 posts)(59 posts)
(59 posts)