Ill. Senate OKs Video Game Restrictions - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

kutulu · 05-20-2005, 11:42 AM

Obviously I'm against this decision but it's not necessarily the law itself that caught my attention in this article:

Quote:

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - The Illinois Senate approved a version of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's proposed restrictions on the sales of violent and sexually explicit video games to children, even though some senators said the idea is unconstitutional.

The measure approved Thursday would require store owners to determine which games are too violent or sexually explicit for anyone under 18. Anyone selling them to a minor could be fined.

Both chambers have now approved the video game restrictions, but the Senate version removed the possibility of jail time for offenders. That means the revised bill now goes back to the House.

The sponsor, Sen. Deanna Demuzio, denied the measure would interfere with free speech rights.

"Video games are not art or media," she said. "They are simulations, not all that different from the simulations used by the U.S. military in preparation for war."

But other senators said the courts have already struck down similar laws elsewhere. They predicted the Senate-approved measure would never take effect and the state would end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Still, even some critics said they would not vote against the measure for fear it would be used against them politically.

"I'm going to vote for this bill, but I'm voting for it for one reason — because this is a political bill," said Sen. Mike Jacobs. "If I vote against it, it will show up in a campaign mail piece."

The bolded part is what concerned me. I'm sick of spineless people in government. What happened to doing what you think is right and accepting that the right choice may get you voted out of office?

Ustwo · 05-20-2005, 11:57 AM

I live in Ill.

The senate and gov are dems, just to prevent anyone from blaming those damn religious republicans

Right now the governor is in hot water, so ANYTHING to distract the public is good I guess.

the_marq · 05-20-2005, 11:58 AM

While I a disagree with them not classing video games as art. I whole-heartedly agree with keeping violent and sexual content out of the hands of children.

If we don't take steps to prevent these things from being played by kids, the next step will be to ban them entirely....and goddamnit, I want my violent and sexy games!

Oh and further to your comment about crappy gov't... such is life in the United States of Jesusland.

Borgs · 05-20-2005, 12:06 PM

I'm with marq, but that's probably because I can purchase them

Anyways, all the kids have to do to get a violent/sexual game is get thier parents to buy it for them, which makes the parent more aware of what the kid is playing (as if they shouldn't be already...)

liquidlight · 05-20-2005, 12:09 PM

I wouldn't disagree with something like this, they ID children to see R-rated movies, why not ID kids trying to buy M-rated games?

The system exists to satisfy many of the naysayers, though I don't necessarily like the implementation, or the waffling done around the bill. I especially don't like moronic garbage such as "Video games are not art" bullshit, I'd like to show this woman some screenshots and DARE her to create something even a fraction as complex or creative!

stevie667 · 05-20-2005, 01:35 PM

We have video game restrictions over here the same way we do on movies, i have nothing against it. I wouldn't want kids to get their hands on lots of blood and gore, especially if they were the ones causing it.

For a moment, i thought the thread was going to be about putting restrictions on the content of the games themselves. That i heavily object to.

TM875 · 05-20-2005, 04:41 PM

Once again, we're faced with another example of the pussification of society.

On both the part of the Senator and the fact that they want to age-restrict video games.

MSD · 05-20-2005, 06:02 PM

It's a sad reflection on society when we allow ourseves to be dominated by a nanny state simply because parents refuse to, are too incompetent to, raise their children in even a semi-responsible manner.

Gilda · 05-20-2005, 06:51 PM

Quote:

The sponsor, Sen. Deanna Demuzio, denied the measure would interfere with free speech rights.

"Video games are not art or media," she said. "They are simulations, not all that different from the simulations used by the U.S. military in preparation for war."

It's this bit of idiocy that had me rolling my eyes.

If she wants to make a fine distinction between art and graphics, I'd say she's using a decidedly non-mainstream definition of "art", but that does have different meanings for different people, so she has a little wiggle room there.

But media? Good god, thats moronic. It's not that I disagree with her opinion, this simply isn't a matter of opinion. Video games are media, she is factually wrong. Video games are delivered through the internet (a medium), on cd's (a medium) cell phones (a medium) cable tv (a medium) etc. Print media are just about the only ones that don't have video games.

The content of videogames includes graphic art, language, and music; they are, literally, media, and are delivered through a variety of electronic media. She's either an idiot or disingenuous.

How about this: let's label the video games as appropriate, and let parents police their children's gaming habits, and not start making retailers legally responsible for making value judgements regarding the products they sell. How would this work anyway? Are the retailers going to be required to play every game they sell? How else would they know the content in order to judge.

Good god, this is idiotic. First they start throwing comic shop owners in jail for selling comic books, and rappers for rapping, and now this. That it even had jail time in the bill at all is offensive and moronic.

Seeker · 05-20-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Still, even some critics said they would not vote against the measure for fear it would be used against them politically.

"I'm going to vote for this bill, but I'm voting for it for one reason — because this is a political bill," said Sen. Mike Jacobs. "If I vote against it, it will show up in a campaign mail piece."

I'm with kutulu on this.. weak, very weak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

It's a sad reflection on society when we allow ourseves to be dominated by a nanny state simply because parents refuse to, are too incompetent to, raise their children in even a semi-responsible manner.

And unfortunately I have to agree with MrSelfDestruct on this.

Take these two aspects and perpetuate that throughout society.. scarey stuff indeed.

spectre · 05-20-2005, 07:28 PM

Woo, score another bad move for Blago. He's almost as embarrassing as George Ryan was. At least his idiocy hasn't cost any lives... yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

It's a sad reflection on society when we allow ourseves to be dominated by a nanny state simply because parents refuse to, are too incompetent to, raise their children in even a semi-responsible manner.

Amen.

stevie667 · 05-21-2005, 03:15 AM

People are saying parents are behaving in irresponsible manners by not stopping their kids having access to video games that may not be suitable, but how often can the parents intervene firsthand?

When i was a little nipper, i was more than capable of popping down to my local games shop with my pocket money and buying a hideously gross and gory game, i could hide it from my parents and i wanted even more because they didn't want me to have it.

When my kids eventually realise the money i give them for toys and sweets can be spent on blowing things up, i don't want them going and buying a game that i feel isn't particulary suitable. I will have taught them that violence is wrong e.t.c, but they'll still want it.

A simple age guildline on the pack (U, PG, 12, 15, 18) set by a particular body will do fine. If someone walks into the shop to buy an 18 game when they're so obviously not, they can be refused in the same way you would be buying a porn or violent film. If the parents then decide that little johny can have his game, they can buy it for him.

Ustwo · 05-21-2005, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spectre

Woo, score another bad move for Blago. He's almost as embarrassing as George Ryan was. At least his idiocy hasn't cost any lives... yet.

Amen.

Ryan was most likely a crook but he wasn't embarassing until he was pressured to not run again. Then he got wacky. Very wacky. I'd like to give him a beating too.

boredom · 05-21-2005, 08:03 AM

Its not going to stop anyone. Look at music you put a parental advisory label no one cares. Most of the new AAA games coming out are all rated M. If people are really strict in not selling Mrated games to minors they'll just head over to p2p.

Redjake · 05-21-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

"Video games are not art or media," she said. "They are simulations, not all that different from the simulations used by the U.S. military in preparation for war."

this infuriated me to the point of wanting to strangle the bitch. what the hell? not art? not media? how are videogames not art or media? they are just as much "art" as a painting, drawing, sculpture, song, movie, or dance. it takes creativity to make videogames, they aren't just "simulations"......my God

and not media? I'm not touching that with a 10 ft. pole.......

CSflim · 05-21-2005, 03:15 PM

I don't understand why people are so against this. You don't allow kids to buy booze, or cigarettes, or very violent or sexually explict movies, what's wrong with classification of video games?

I am thoroughly and wholeheartedly against censorship - it always upsets me greatly when I hear of films being banned, or of cuts being made against the directors will. I feel that I am an adult, and I should be allowed to make up my own mind with regards to what I watch.
But I don't see it as being the same for children who have not yet reached that level of maturity and responsibility.

Gilda · 05-21-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSflim

I don't understand why people are so against this. You don't allow kids to buy booze, or cigarettes, or very violent or sexually explict movies, what's wrong with classification of video games?

Video games are already classified by their content. This bill goes much further than that, imposing criminal penalties on retailers for selling products that are perfectly legal to sell, and despite the idocy of some of those politicians, video games are protected by the first amendment to the constitution, freedom of speech and the press and all that.

Yes, retailers should be responsible for not selling games rated M to eight year olds, but such behavior shouldn't be criminallized.

Zeraph · 05-21-2005, 07:38 PM

Yeah they already check for ID. I remember a few times when I was 16 and I had to get one of my parents to get a game for me. This is just taking it one step further...for whatever reason, i guess they feel we need an even more complicated society. And IMO the more complicated a society gets, the higher the chance it will collapse sooner.

rainheart · 05-22-2005, 02:39 AM

Like preventing children from getting access to violent or sexually explicit videogames is gonna do ANYTHING, in fact it won't do JACK SHIT.

They will have access to it when they are 18 and it will not be all that different, because the PROBLEM doesn't start at videogames. But a politician isn't actually interested in curing problems ... just appeasing to voters. How depressing.

CSflim · 05-22-2005, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainheart

Like preventing children from getting access to violent or sexually explicit videogames is gonna do ANYTHING, in fact it won't do JACK SHIT.

They will have access to it when they are 18 and it will not be all that different, because the PROBLEM doesn't start at videogames. But a politician isn't actually interested in curing problems ... just appeasing to voters. How depressing.

You could say the same thing about restriction the access of children to movies, alcohol, ciagarettes and plenty of others. Just because they are ilegal doesn't prevent children from gaining access to them. Do you think that the restrictions around these items should be dropped as well?

maleficent · 05-22-2005, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Yes, retailers should be responsible for not selling games rated M to eight year olds, but such behavior shouldn't be criminallized.

A liquor store gets penalized for selling booze to an underage person, because it's not legal... it's probably what keeps them from doing it.. Doesn't putting a penalty, other than a slap on the wrist, make a retailer held accountable for what they are selling and making sure they comply with the law.

moot1337 · 05-22-2005, 11:24 AM

This is absolutely redundant. I've worked for a video game store. The ESRB was formed for a reason: to determine which video games aren't acceptable for children under a certain age to play. In Colorado, at the very LEAST, you can't buy a game rated M, for mature, if you're under 17 years of age. At the store, you've got to present ID for it, just like you have to do to get into a rated R movie, or to buy a pack of smokes, or to buy a can of beer. There is already a system in place to prevent underage kids from getting ahold of shit that could damage them, but if the parents say it's ok for their kid to get that game, then they better damn well have made a moral decision with regard to the well being of their young one, because it's just like buying them tickets to an R rated flic, or giving them a pack of smokes.

As to this satement: The sponsor, Sen. Deanna Demuzio, denied the measure would interfere with free speech rights.
"Video games are not art or media," she said. "They are simulations, not all that different from the simulations used by the U.S. military in preparation for war."

I call bullshit on video games not being art or media. Tell me, after looking at this, that there is no video game that is an artistic masterpiece.

...not only are video games art, they're art you can interact with and manipulate.... and I think that that's the best kind. I also had to search around quite a bit to find a pic small enough to post here... if you haven't already, go to ign.com and look at what's being shown at e3 this year, for current and next gen systems. Most of that is absolutely amazing.

Gilda · 05-22-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

A liquor store gets penalized for selling booze to an underage person, because it's not legal... it's probably what keeps them from doing it.. Doesn't putting a penalty, other than a slap on the wrist, make a retailer held accountable for what they are selling and making sure they comply with the law.

The difference here being that it's illegal for underage children to aquire, posess or consume alcohol regardless of who actually buys it, including parents. It's illegal to sell alcohol to underage children because it's illegal for them to have alcohol. Perfectly consistent.

It is legal for children to buy, posess, and play video games, even those rated M. It's legal for someone of appropriate age to buy it and give it to them, for parents to get it for their children, or for them to play the games that others own. Applying a criminal penalty to retailers who sell a prduct to a person who can legally buy, posess, and use that product makes no sense to me.

rainheart · 05-23-2005, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSflim

You could say the same thing about restriction the access of children to movies, alcohol, ciagarettes and plenty of others. Just because they are ilegal doesn't prevent children from gaining access to them. Do you think that the restrictions around these items should be dropped as well?

All these restrictions just make it more of a hassle to get the item.

There are some people who believe the restrictions mean that they will not get it, period- and they refrain from trying because of that.

There are some people who believe the restrictions make it too much of a
hassle to get it, and they refrain from trying because of that.

There are some people who will try and often succeed in getting the restricted items regardless- who will still be affected negatively by whatever the substance/item/game/etc is even though the restrictions are in place.

Of course my point is that we should be looking at why we are hampering the distribution of certain videogames. So I want to know, for what reasons are we hampering the distribution of certain videogames? And if you give me the reasons I was assuming were behind the idea of restricting videogame distribution, I will tell you why I thought the restrictions are moot.

kutulu · 05-25-2005, 11:40 AM

Another thing this does is set up the retailors as defendants the next time a nutty kid does something and the parents play the blame game.

Video games aren't art, what a jackass.

jaco · 05-25-2005, 02:53 PM

Yet again some fool trying to garner votes from the "concerned parent" crowd by placing redundent laws on the books when something is already in place. I concur with pretty much everyone here on the issues of art. mmm, one day I hope to see voting as something earned. It amazes me how out of touch with reality some elected people can be.

kutulu · 05-25-2005, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaco

one day I hope to see voting as something earned

We already tried that. It didn't go off so well.

Coppertop · 05-25-2005, 04:07 PM

http://www.esrb.org/

This is what Gilda is referring to, fyi.

Quote:

ESRB Rating Symbols

EARLY CHILDHOOD
Titles rated EC - (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.

EVERYONE
Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.

EVERYONE 10+
Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language, and/or minimal suggestive themes.

TEEN
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood and/or infrequent use of strong language.

MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.

ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

RATING PENDING
Titles listed as RP (Rating Pending) - have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)

ESRB Content Descriptors

* Alcohol Reference - Reference to and/or images of alcoholic beverages
* Animated Blood - Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of blood
* Blood - Depictions of blood
* Blood and Gore - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts
* Cartoon Violence - Violent actions involving cartoon-like situations and characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted
* Comic Mischief - Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor
* Crude Humor - Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including “bathroom” humor
* Drug Reference - Reference to and/or images of illegal drugs
* Edutainment - Content of product provides user with specific skills development or reinforcement learning within an entertainment setting. Skill development is an integral part of product
* Fantasy Violence - Violent actions of a fantasy nature, involving human or non-human characters in situations easily distinguishable from real life
* Informational - Overall content of product contains data, facts, resource information, reference materials or instructional text
* Intense Violence - Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons, and depictions of human injury and death
* Language - Mild to moderate use of profanity
* Lyrics - Mild references to profanity, sexuality, violence, alcohol, or drug use in music
* Mature Humor - Depictions or dialogue involving "adult" humor, including sexual references
* Mild Violence - Mild scenes depicting characters in unsafe and/or violent situations
* Nudity - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity
* Partial Nudity - Brief and/or mild depictions of nudity
* Real Gambling - Player can gamble, including betting or wagering real cash or currency
* Sexual Themes - Mild to moderate sexual references and/or depictions. May include partial nudity
* Sexual Violence - Depictions of rape or other sexual acts
* Simulated Gambling - Player can gamble without betting or wagering real cash or currency
* Some Adult Assistance May Be Needed - Intended for very young ages
* Strong Language - Explicit and/or frequent use of profanity
* Strong Lyrics - Explicit and/or frequent references to profanity, sex, violence, alcohol, or drug use in music
* Strong Sexual Content - Graphic references to and/or depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity
* Suggestive Themes - Mild provocative references or materials
* Tobacco Reference - Reference to and/or images of tobacco products
* Use of Drugs - The consumption or use of illegal drugs
* Use of Alcohol - The consumption of alcoholic beverages
* Use of Tobacco - The consumption of tobacco products
* Violence - Scenes involving aggressive conflict

Additionally, online games that include user-generated content (e.g., chat, maps, skins) carry the notice "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" to warn consumers that content created by players of the game has not been rated by the ESRB.

05-20-2005, 11:57 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I live in Ill. The senate and gov are dems, just to prevent anyone from blaming those damn religious republicans Right now the governor is in hot water, so ANYTHING to distract the public is good I guess. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

05-20-2005, 11:58 AM	#3 (permalink)
the_marq All hail the Mountain King Location: Black Mesa	While I a disagree with them not classing video games as art. I whole-heartedly agree with keeping violent and sexual content out of the hands of children. If we don't take steps to prevent these things from being played by kids, the next step will be to ban them entirely....and goddamnit, I want my violent and sexy games! Oh and further to your comment about crappy gov't... such is life in the United States of Jesusland. __________________ The Truth: Johnny Cash could have kicked Bruce Lee's ass if he wanted to. #3 in a series

05-20-2005, 12:09 PM	#5 (permalink)
liquidlight AHH! Custom Title!! Location: The twisted warpings of my brain.	I wouldn't disagree with something like this, they ID children to see R-rated movies, why not ID kids trying to buy M-rated games? The system exists to satisfy many of the naysayers, though I don't necessarily like the implementation, or the waffling done around the bill. I especially don't like moronic garbage such as "Video games are not art" bullshit, I'd like to show this woman some screenshots and DARE her to create something even a fraction as complex or creative! __________________ Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

05-20-2005, 01:35 PM	#6 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	We have video game restrictions over here the same way we do on movies, i have nothing against it. I wouldn't want kids to get their hands on lots of blood and gore, especially if they were the ones causing it. For a moment, i thought the thread was going to be about putting restrictions on the content of the games themselves. That i heavily object to. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

05-20-2005, 04:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
TM875 Addict Location: Amish-land, PA	Once again, we're faced with another example of the pussification of society. On both the part of the Senator and the fact that they want to age-restrict video games. __________________ "I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."

05-20-2005, 12:06 PM	#4 (permalink)
Borgs Tilted	I'm with marq, but that's probably because I can purchase them Anyways, all the kids have to do to get a violent/sexual game is get thier parents to buy it for them, which makes the parent more aware of what the kid is playing (as if they shouldn't be already...)

05-20-2005, 06:02 PM	#8 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	It's a sad reflection on society when we allow ourseves to be dominated by a nanny state simply because parents refuse to, are too incompetent to, raise their children in even a semi-responsible manner.

05-21-2005, 03:15 AM	#12 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	People are saying parents are behaving in irresponsible manners by not stopping their kids having access to video games that may not be suitable, but how often can the parents intervene firsthand? When i was a little nipper, i was more than capable of popping down to my local games shop with my pocket money and buying a hideously gross and gory game, i could hide it from my parents and i wanted even more because they didn't want me to have it. When my kids eventually realise the money i give them for toys and sweets can be spent on blowing things up, i don't want them going and buying a game that i feel isn't particulary suitable. I will have taught them that violence is wrong e.t.c, but they'll still want it. A simple age guildline on the pack (U, PG, 12, 15, 18) set by a particular body will do fine. If someone walks into the shop to buy an 18 game when they're so obviously not, they can be refused in the same way you would be buying a porn or violent film. If the parents then decide that little johny can have his game, they can buy it for him. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

05-21-2005, 08:03 AM	#14 (permalink)
boredom Insane Location: California	Its not going to stop anyone. Look at music you put a parental advisory label no one cares. Most of the new AAA games coming out are all rated M. If people are really strict in not selling Mrated games to minors they'll just head over to p2p. __________________ Wiggum: Find anything this time, boys? Cop: Uh, no sign of him, Chief. Wiggum: Princess Opal? Opal: I see nothing here, but I'm afraid it's splitsville for Delta Burke and Major Dad. Wiggum: But they seem so happy! -- ``Bart the Murderer''

05-21-2005, 03:15 PM	#16 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	I don't understand why people are so against this. You don't allow kids to buy booze, or cigarettes, or very violent or sexually explict movies, what's wrong with classification of video games? I am thoroughly and wholeheartedly against censorship - it always upsets me greatly when I hear of films being banned, or of cuts being made against the directors will. I feel that I am an adult, and I should be allowed to make up my own mind with regards to what I watch. But I don't see it as being the same for children who have not yet reached that level of maturity and responsibility. __________________

05-21-2005, 07:38 PM	#18 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Yeah they already check for ID. I remember a few times when I was 16 and I had to get one of my parents to get a game for me. This is just taking it one step further...for whatever reason, i guess they feel we need an even more complicated society. And IMO the more complicated a society gets, the higher the chance it will collapse sooner.

05-22-2005, 02:39 AM	#19 (permalink)
rainheart Psycho	Like preventing children from getting access to violent or sexually explicit videogames is gonna do ANYTHING, in fact it won't do JACK SHIT. They will have access to it when they are 18 and it will not be all that different, because the PROBLEM doesn't start at videogames. But a politician isn't actually interested in curing problems ... just appeasing to voters. How depressing.

05-22-2005, 11:24 AM	#22 (permalink)
moot1337 Insane Location: Learning to Fly...	This is absolutely redundant. I've worked for a video game store. The ESRB was formed for a reason: to determine which video games aren't acceptable for children under a certain age to play. In Colorado, at the very LEAST, you can't buy a game rated M, for mature, if you're under 17 years of age. At the store, you've got to present ID for it, just like you have to do to get into a rated R movie, or to buy a pack of smokes, or to buy a can of beer. There is already a system in place to prevent underage kids from getting ahold of shit that could damage them, but if the parents say it's ok for their kid to get that game, then they better damn well have made a moral decision with regard to the well being of their young one, because it's just like buying them tickets to an R rated flic, or giving them a pack of smokes. As to this satement: The sponsor, Sen. Deanna Demuzio, denied the measure would interfere with free speech rights. "Video games are not art or media," she said. "They are simulations, not all that different from the simulations used by the U.S. military in preparation for war." I call bullshit on video games not being art or media. Tell me, after looking at this, that there is no video game that is an artistic masterpiece. ...not only are video games art, they're art you can interact with and manipulate.... and I think that that's the best kind. I also had to search around quite a bit to find a pic small enough to post here... if you haven't already, go to ign.com and look at what's being shown at e3 this year, for current and next gen systems. Most of that is absolutely amazing. Last edited by moot1337; 05-22-2005 at 11:28 AM..

05-25-2005, 11:40 AM	#25 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Another thing this does is set up the retailors as defendants the next time a nutty kid does something and the parents play the blame game. Video games aren't art, what a jackass.

05-25-2005, 02:53 PM	#26 (permalink)
jaco Crazy	Yet again some fool trying to garner votes from the "concerned parent" crowd by placing redundent laws on the books when something is already in place. I concur with pretty much everyone here on the issues of art. mmm, one day I hope to see voting as something earned. It amazes me how out of touch with reality some elected people can be. __________________ "How soft your fields so green, Can whisper tales of gore" "Thou art god"