Tories to clamp down on PC games

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Whereas in Britain, we're already banning games (Manhunter 2 has been refused an 18 certificate, which effectively bans it). However it seems that's not strict enough for the Tories.

Which begs the question- what is strict enough? Have an 18+ certificate which means adults can only play it if given a specific licence to do so by the police/doctors/clergy? Or just have a big old game-burning pyre in the streets?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by BeBro


Maybe they should sell those games only to 21+ people

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BeBro
Maybe they should sell those games only to 21+ people

Grumbles something about thier being a differnce between drugs and digital entertainment in between admitting it as a fair point

Damn you!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
How exactly do you want her to do that?

By declaring it is the parent and not the government that has the responsibility for keeping violent media out of the hands of thier own children. She could also take some moves to standardize the ratings between movies, video games, etc. to limit confusion on the part of the parent if she was a mind to.

Oh wait, I forgot, ...

You seem to have forgotten the fact that I've avoided those threads so I'd thank you if you could avoid bringing in irrelevent details to shore up your position.

[Lorizael]

Man. I'm shocked. On a web site for a video game, no one here supports banning them.

[Sandman]

Unfortunately, the UK has a hard core of loons who think that video games are for children only. Political parties, and especially the Conservatives, are a bastion of them.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by DinoDoc

By declaring it is the parent and not the government that has the responsibility for keeping violent media out of the hands of thier own children.

I think shes stated that parents should keep violent media out of the hand of their children. But I dont she sees any reason govt shouldnt help, as long as it interferes with no one elses legitimate rights. And you assume, as she does not, that the only relevant parties are the parents wrt to their own children, and govt. There are other forces that impact childrens exposure to violent media, including OTHER kids parents, retailers and publishers acting voluntarily, etc, etc. IE it takes a village

She could also take some moves to standardize the ratings between movies, video games, etc. to limit confusion on the part of the parent if she was a mind to.

Actually I think THAT would require especially heavy handed govt intervention to achieve, and the lobbies for the respective industries would oppose it violently, so to speak.

[General Ludd]

I agree with the sentiment behind the statement a "long-term generational change" is needed to fight crime, and video games are definately a major part of our culture, particularily for the youth and future generations.

However, the most important thing to remember on this subject is that you can not simply cut something out of a culture, or someone's life, without there being something to replace it. 'cracking down' on video games without doing anything to encourage other activities could vary well increase crime, as youth become dissatisfied and bored.

Indeed, if enough was being done to create a more healthy culture there would be no need to destroy the current one, as it would happen naturally.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Man. I'm shocked. On a web site for a video game, no one here supports banning them.

Personally I think that certain violent games bring gaming in general into disrepute, and are harmful to games we love like Civ. But im in the distinct minority here on that, and with 3 seconds of mentioning that someone will be going on about nukes in civ, or starving cities out, and how thats much worse than having a kid RP someone holding a gun and shooting it at a cop.

Whatever.

Id much rather discuss social policy in Georgian London.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I agree with the sentiment behind the statement a "long-term generational change" is needed to fight crime, and video games are definately a major part of our culture, particularily for the youth and future generations.

However, the most important thing to remember on this subject is that you can not simply cut something out of a culture, or someone's life, without there being something to replace it. 'cracking down' on video games without doing anything to encourage other activities could vary well increase crime, as youth become dissatisfied and bored.

Indeed, if enough was being done to create a more healthy culture there would be no need to destroy the current one, as it would happen naturally.

*Largely agrees with Ludd*

*goes into state of shock*

[East Street Trader]

Grimms' Fairy Stories are just as dark and violent as such computer games as I have seen - more so in fact.

But I guess when you read something, or have it read to you, you empathise with the characters in the story. Whereas that does not happen - or not very much anyway - when you play a computer game.

Were it to be established that constant exposure to the rather amoral world of computer gaming does undermine a sufficient number of people's ethical stance towards their fellows then I would be up for an attempt at control.

But I'd want pretty compelling evidence. My instinct is that computer games have nothing to do with the processes, whatever they are, which produce amoral people.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Grimms' Fairy Stories are just as dark and violent as such computer games as I have seen - more so in fact.

But I guess when you read something, or have it read to you, you empathise with the characters in the story. Whereas that does not happen - or not very much anyway - when you play a computer game.

Well, I'd say these are really different worlds. I'm no expert in that of course, but I'd imagine that experiencing a detailed depiction of extreme violence is something totally different than just reading about it. Esp. since in games you are the actor, not just a more passive reader. And esp. for kids who may - depending on age and general experience/education etc. - not be able to draw a clear distinction between depiction and reality.

I also would say violence for example in ego-shooters is something else than a rather abstract depiction of war in something like Civ.

Bottom line is I find a certain age limit to prevent kids from buying the most violent stuff ok, but not a general ban. Adults should decide in any way if they want to play something or not. That would also keep the key responsibilty with the parents, who can decide whether their kids can handle a certain game or not. Maybe I'm a fascist

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
*Largely agrees with Ludd*

*goes into state of shock*

Ditto.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Lorizael

Originally posted by lord of the mark
*Largely agrees with Ludd*

*goes into state of shock*

Ditto.

[C0ckney]

from the article in the OP.

Mr Cameron described Labour's approach to crime as "one-dimensional", instead of focussing on "broader" issues.

He told BBC1's Breakfast programme: "This is long-term generational change.

"Instead of the knee-jerk reactions we are seeing from the government, what we are producing today is a comprehensive substantial report about the things we need to change, whether it's frankly in the home, in the police station, on our streets or in the schools."

Society must not believe that rising crime was inevitable, he said later in a speech.

"We must fight back against the guns, the gangs and the graffiti. We must fight back against the drugs, the danger and the disorder.

"Above all we must fight back against the attitude that treats rising crime is inevitable, that treats social breakdown as some sort of irreversible fact of modern life and that despairs of ever making our streets safe and civilised places to be."

i think this part is more relevant and certainly far more interesting, if you wish to discuss social problems in the UK.