Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Is it really that much of a stretch to say that violent video games are in the same category as tobacco/alcohol/porn? I mean, if you want your kid to have access to these things, then you can always buy it for them.
But, in general, such a law tries to prevent these things from being too readily-accessible to kids. Perhaps a law isn't the best way to do it--and some industry self-policing would certainly be preferable, I think. But, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that anything put together by the industry won't be a little self-serving. After all, who wants to hurt their own sales?
Good point about self-serving. Take a look at what qualifies as PG-13 these days and compare it to earlier movies that had an R rating. It's pretty ridiculous. PG-13 is basically the new R. Unless you use certain curse words, then you get an R. But not if it's grotesque and violent, unless it's grotesquely violent. Even then it may be ok as long as it is fantasy or science fiction violence and not real violence.
Even if it does get an R rating, R is really the new PG-13 in parents' minds these days. How many 12-18 year olds wouldn't be allowed to see the matrix films? Put 2 and 2 together there.. PG-13 is as bad as an R rating from before, and parents now take their kids to R movies... hmmm.
Still, the totally FUBAR PG-13 / R rating is still better than the ESRB system now, where no one reads them and the only way I personally ever know what rating was given is from watching the TV commercials for the game.
I wasn't allowed to see Matrix Reloaded, and I had my 50 year old uncle with me (he was dressed like a schauffer and they didn't believe me 😛). Sometimes laws really are taken to the extremes 😛.