Video game violence to be bagged and tagged

[Warboy]

THE GOVERNMENT has floated plans to bolster the system for rating video games because it fears children could be deranged by virtual violence. Details of the plans were leaked to The Guardian newspaper today, a month before tasty TV psychologist Tanya Byron is due to publish her government review of violent video games.

According to this teaser, children are to be protected from "damaging games ", though the debate over whether video game violence does cause harm is still raging. The government line was that 90 per cent of computer games, "many of which portray weapons, martial arts and extreme combat" were not legally rated.

The current system requires distributors to submit their games to the British Board of Film Classification for rating if they depict virtual acts of "gross violence towards humans or animals, human sexual or excretory activity*," or scenes that would show people how to commit a crime.

Retailers can already be sent to prison if they sell games to people below the age specified in its BBFC rating. About 10 per cent of games are typically required to be controlled in this way. The other 90 per cent being highlighted by the government are also already policed by law: video games producers can be prosecuted if they fail to get a BBFC rating for a game that should have been adult rated. The others should therefore not matter, at least in theory. They are still rated, however: by the voluntary PEGI system.

Implicit in the government proposal is the idea that this voluntary system is failing. But a spokeswoman for BBFC told The INQUIRER that she was unaware of any game that had not been BBFC rated that should have been.

"No-one is suggesting that distributors are not sending games to us when they should," she said. Yet she conceded it might be possible that some slip through the net. Research published by the BBFC last month found that parents thought the PEGI rating system indicated not whether a game was suitable for children, but how difficult it was to play. Parents were therefore buying PEGI-rated games for below age children unwittingly.

One possible way to patch the rating system might therefore be to merely launch an awareness campaign for PEGI. But the BBFC also criticised PEGI for being too complicated. The indication is also that since the video games classification was introduced as part of the Video Recordings Act in 1984, a time when video games violence was so primitively animated that it did not raise many hackles, it might be time to bring it up to date. Giving all games to the BBFC might be a simple solution.

Though the BBFC was shy in its submission to the Byron review to suggest such a thing, it did say it would be honoured to take on the added responsibility should the good sirs in their wisdom and munificence, etc.

Nevertheless, said the censor's spokeswoman, such a solution would be very simple: "To amend the Video Recordings Act to require all games to be sent to the BBFC, you would simply remove the line that says video games are exempt". Job done. That would stave off a possibly insoluble debate about whether computer game violence causes harm and if so how realistic and how violent must the action be for it to deemed unsuitable for teenagers.

Ministers told The Guardian that the debate had become " increasingly polarised and based on prejudice" and that they hoped the Byron review would calm things down. Quite.

Opponents of the cartoon violence seen in video games - including MPs - tend to cite examples of games that already receive a legal BBFC classification when they talk about the need for violent video games to be given a legally binding classification. Which PEGI-rated games are deranging our kids though? µ

* Emphasis added for purely puerile reasons


Source - TheInquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/02/09/video-game-violence-bagged)

[gillll]

wake up and smell the houmus.

it's about time.

it reminds me of f.e.a.r which was abolutly not for children and well was available for everyone to buy.

[Warboy]

wake up and smell the houmus.

it's about time.

it reminds me of f.e.a.r which was abolutly not for children and well was available for everyone to buy.

I still think its a Bad Choice by the US.
1) Look at how many games the BBFC has screened out completely
2) The Gaming Community will never sad for such a thing being allowed.


My younger brother was playing Halo at age 3 (and completely owned 2 of my friends at the same time), He wasn't effected at all by the "violence" he is a good game player now(he is now 9). Ofcoures Halo isn't that violence to begin with. But still. Com'on people.

[Omastar]

Yes, let's have mother hold our hands, make our beds, and shield us from anything 'impure'. That's progress. That's real life.

:shakes:

[gallardo]

OH MY GOD. That is some f*cked up logic right there! They blame video game violence for violence on the streets (when in fact violence has decreased in the last decade or two) and yet they CONSTANTLY bombard the citizens with news from the war and everything and have this big campaign for riling up kids to join the army.

How's that for hypocricy? "Don't play video games or you'll become violent! Come join the army instead and we'll give you a gun and let you shoot some towel heads."


Bleah. Bleah in so many ways.

[Cobalt]

Warboy;2761823']I still think its a Bad Choice by the US.
1) Look at how many games the BBFC has screened out completely
2) The Gaming Community will never sad for such a thing being allowed.

This isn't a choice by the US. BBFC is the British ratings board.

And yes, lets look at how many games they have screened out completely: 1. Which was later given a rating anyway and it was a minister who stopped it being allowed on the shelves.

I'd endorse the BBFC system. It would provide clarity and conformity with the movie rating system and avoid the confusion of having two systems. If a parent thinks the game is suitable for their children then it will still get into their hands but this way parents should know what the ratings mean.

There is so much prejudice here that its palpable. The BBFC has been praised for being one of the best ratings boards on the planet and its certainly no MPAA. The attitude towards ratings is different here as well. 18 rated films and games are still readily available unlike NC-17 content in the US.

This would actually be helpful for gamers. If there is a legally enforced rating system in place then you can't blame game developers when some kid goes whacko because that child was playing the game illegally. Would you blame a knife manufacture because a kid cut himself with one when he wasn't allowed to buy it in the first place?

[gillll]

a bad rating system is better then no rating system.

something should be done and if it's British org that responsible then it's good indeed.

[XS Janus]

I think their logic is this: Why do you need so graphic violence in games?
When you put it this way it makes sense somewhat.
Games are supposed to a passtime activity and therefore fun and light in its intent.
Some of todays games take to much of a persons normal life for them and making a person counterproductive in the future.

[saaya]

limiting violence in games in movies will never work, it will only create more demand for it and then it slides into semi legal or illegal markets and is even harder to control :stick:

instead they should enforce an age check before you can play a game or something like this to prevent minors from seeing too much violence.

[DeathReborn]

This isn't a choice by the US. BBFC is the British ratings board.

And yes, lets look at how many games they have screened out completely: 1. Which was later given a rating anyway and it was a minister who stopped it being allowed on the shelves.

I'd endorse the BBFC system. It would provide clarity and conformity with the movie rating system and avoid the confusion of having two systems. If a parent thinks the game is suitable for their children then it will still get into their hands but this way parents should know what the ratings mean.

There is so much prejudice here that its palpable. The BBFC has been praised for being one of the best ratings boards on the planet and its certainly no MPAA. The attitude towards ratings is different here as well. 18 rated films and games are still readily available unlike NC-17 content in the US.

This would actually be helpful for gamers. If there is a legally enforced rating system in place then you can't blame game developers when some kid goes whacko because that child was playing the game illegally. Would you blame a knife manufacture because a kid cut himself with one when he wasn't allowed to buy it in the first place?

They need to create a British Board of Gaming Classification instead of letting the Film censors decide. That's the biggest problem we have, people not qualified to rate games into the correct groups.

[Warboy]

limiting violence in games in movies will never work, it will only create more demand for it and then it slides into semi legal or illegal markets and is even harder to control :stick:

instead they should enforce an age check before you can play a game or something like this to prevent minors from seeing too much violence.

But such a system would be easy to bypass. I think. Well....Anyway you think about it, Its easily bypassable.

"Please Enter your Social Security Number to Verify your 18 for this Adult Rated game"

*kid enters hit dad's or mom's SSN*

[Swatrecon_]

Warboy;2762123']But such a system would be easy to bypass. I think. Well....Anyway you think about it, Its easily bypassable.

"Please Enter your Social Security Number to Verify your 18 for this Adult Rated game"

*kid enters hit dad's or mom's SSN*

they'd never, ever use SSN's first because no one would trust anyone who's not employing them with it, and second because kids wouldn't know theirs.

on a different note, GOD DAMN YOU ROCKSTAR AND GTA!!!!

That :banana::banana::banana::banana:in game brought on all the trouble. Well, i guess there was Doom before it, and to a lighter degree CS, but GTA really set people off. "You mean you can kill anyone whenever you want?!? OMG, this is disgusting!!!" Chill the :banana::banana::banana::banana: out people, it's a game.

[Systemcepe]

Well this is a very interesting article:

This is your brain on violent media
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206093014.htm

[[XC] leviathan18]

parents are the only way to enforce this if you dont want your kid to play violent game dont buy violent games... i never been violent in any way (just want to kill people that isnt crunching in the wcg team) and my mom bought me golden eye for the n64 but for example she never liked mortal kombat for snes she told me it was just a game and that i never should be violent and that those moves were impossible to make and then she let me play the game

[D4rkn3ss]

they'd never, ever use SSN's first because no one would trust anyone who's not employing them with it, and second because kids wouldn't know theirs.

on a different note, GOD DAMN YOU ROCKSTAR AND GTA!!!!

That :banana::banana::banana::banana:in game brought on all the trouble. Well, i guess there was Doom before it, and to a lighter degree CS, but GTA really set people off. "You mean you can kill anyone whenever you want?!? OMG, this is disgusting!!!" Chill the :banana::banana::banana::banana: out people, it's a game.

pfff.. God save rockstar games and my beloved GTA :up:

and :banana::banana::banana::banana: that Hillary "Hilarious" :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: for starting all this nonsense :down:

[Cobalt]

They need to create a British Board of Gaming Classification instead of letting the Film censors decide. That's the biggest problem we have, people not qualified to rate games into the correct groups.

*Smacks forehead*

They have been rating games for a long time and doing it well. It isn't the same people doing both but its the actual classifications that are important. At the moment films have U, PG, 12a, 15 and 18. Thats worked well as a legally enforced system and I've never seen a film and thought the rating was undeserved. On the other hand game have either the PEGI 3+, 7+, 12+ and 16+ or the 15 and 18 BBFC rating. PEGI isn't binding although most shops will follow these and not sell to underaged buyers.

The difficultly it seems, is that while parents are used to the red logo BBFC ratings describing the suitability of the content, they do not understand that the PEGI rating means basically the same thing.

So the proposal is to get rid of the dual system and have BBFC rate every game and give it a rating in line with the widely recognised film classifications. I don't see why there is opposition to clarity.

EDIT: there is an advantage to PEGI in that it gives content descriptors as well as an age rating, but seeing as this isn't the USA and there is less of a "oh noes the titties" attitude, the ratings speak for themselves and are much more balanced.

[Serra]

This isn't a choice by the US. BBFC is the British ratings board.

And yes, lets look at how many games they have screened out completely: 1. Which was later given a rating anyway and it was a minister who stopped it being allowed on the shelves.

I'd endorse the BBFC system. It would provide clarity and conformity with the movie rating system and avoid the confusion of having two systems. If a parent thinks the game is suitable for their children then it will still get into their hands but this way parents should know what the ratings mean.

There is so much prejudice here that its palpable. The BBFC has been praised for being one of the best ratings boards on the planet and its certainly no MPAA. The attitude towards ratings is different here as well. 18 rated films and games are still readily available unlike NC-17 content in the US.

This would actually be helpful for gamers. If there is a legally enforced rating system in place then you can't blame game developers when some kid goes whacko because that child was playing the game illegally. Would you blame a knife manufacture because a kid cut himself with one when he wasn't allowed to buy it in the first place?

QFT.


To people who think movies/games don't have any tendency bearings on us homo sapiens, I offer a real life example. Way back in the day when The Fast and the Furious came out, I was working in a movie theater. Before that movie, the area didn't have any noticeable issues with speeding/donuts in the parking lot etc... but just a few days after the release, the movie house had to petition the police to set up a 24/7 traffic enforcement in the area for the duration of the movie because it got *that bad*. Even with cops stopping 2-3 cars after every feature, it was still pretty well guaranteed that every Fri/Sat night there would be a speed-related incident in the *parking lot*, drag racing, and people generally being idiots. People are impressionable, end of story.

Edit: Yes, once the movie left theaters the problem went away.

[XS Janus]

I think that scannable implants are the solution. :D

Resistance is futile. Our kids will have them cause by then THEY will convince us into them wit some cool feature that will make your life easier and forget the negative connotations. :D

[DangeR!]

This isn't a choice by the US. BBFC is the British ratings board.

And yes, lets look at how many games they have screened out completely: 1. Which was later given a rating anyway and it was a minister who stopped it being allowed on the shelves.

I'd endorse the BBFC system. It would provide clarity and conformity with the movie rating system and avoid the confusion of having two systems. If a parent thinks the game is suitable for their children then it will still get into their hands but this way parents should know what the ratings mean.

There is so much prejudice here that its palpable. The BBFC has been praised for being one of the best ratings boards on the planet and its certainly no MPAA. The attitude towards ratings is different here as well. 18 rated films and games are still readily available unlike NC-17 content in the US.

This would actually be helpful for gamers. If there is a legally enforced rating system in place then you can't blame game developers when some kid goes whacko because that child was playing the game illegally. Would you blame a knife manufacture because a kid cut himself with one when he wasn't allowed to buy it in the first place?
QFT:
Couldn't of put it better myself. :up:

Now at least parents will have a guide to go on.

The ONLY problem I have is the "banning" of a game deemed to violent or offensive.

Then again, I will just download it... OMG! there going to fuel copy right lol.

[JacKz5o]

And this will most likely to lead to more piracy if kids are not allowed to buy their games..

[Jimmer411]

I dont care if kids cant buy the games. Im almost 25, as long as they dont try to regulate my ability to purchase the games then I have no problem.

[Polizei]

OH MY GOD. That is some f*cked up logic right there! They blame video game violence for violence on the streets (when in fact violence has decreased in the last decade or two) and yet they CONSTANTLY bombard the citizens with news from the war and everything and have this big campaign for riling up kids to join the army.

How's that for hypocricy? "Don't play video games or you'll become violent! Come join the army instead and we'll give you a gun and let you shoot some towel heads."


Bleah. Bleah in so many ways.

The flaw in your logic is that the Army doesnt show you videos of someone getting shot. Doesnt show you men laying on the ground bleeding, crying for their mother. Doesnt let you listen to the screams and see the blood. Video games do. Army commercials do not. CNN does not.

Do I think video games are the cause of violence? Maybe. Let the kids buy the games, let the parents do their JOB as parents and stop the kid from playing them.

I dont think the Brit's should be rating the games for sale in the US. Why dont we in the US have some system for it? I hear all the time about how the Brits are banning games that arent all that bad.

[Zytek_Fan]

The flaw in your logic is that the Army doesnt show you videos of someone getting shot. Doesnt show you men laying on the ground bleeding, crying for their mother. Doesnt let you listen to the screams and see the blood. Video games do. Army commercials do not. CNN does not.

Do I think video games are the cause of violence? Maybe. Let the kids buy the games, let the parents do their JOB as parents and stop the kid from playing them.

I dont think the Brit's should be rating the games for sale in the US. Why dont we in the US have some system for it? I hear all the time about how the Brits are banning games that arent all that bad.

Yep.
I've started to see "think smart" commercials or something like that, that tells parents they need to take responsibility for what their children are seeing and playing. It also tells them to research the game before buying it.

I'm so sick and tired of parents complaining about violence in games when they are the ones enabling their children to play it :down:

[Dimitriman]

Hey they more or less stop under aged from buying porn so why not just do the same for games

[Cobalt]

I dont think the Brit's should be rating the games for sale in the US. Why dont we in the US have some system for it? I hear all the time about how the Brits are banning games that arent all that bad.

*Smacks forehead yet again*

Get over yourselves will you please. This has nothing to do with the US. This is UK legislation we are talking about. The BBFC is not going to be rating games for sale in the US.

And I'm sorry but Manhunt 2 was all that bad. And the edited version did get approved until a minister vetoed the decision.

EDIT: I just noticed that you said "I hear all the time". WTF? There has been just the one game in recent time and I'm not sure if there were any other notable instances of a game being refused rating.

[strange|ife]

how about no censorship?

works for the japanese..most materials in japan are very much uncesnored.

[Peakr]

I believe ratings need to be in place and enforced but only because there are bad parents who don't really care what there children play. Unfortunately the side effect is game companies will begin producing more games geared for kids rather than adults as they tend to follow the money.

[Brian MP5T]

I'm so Pissed...


...I'm gonna play COD4 for 5 Hours....Get drunk and kill everything that moves!!!!

LOL

[gallardo]

The flaw in your logic is that the Army doesnt show you videos of someone getting shot. Doesnt show you men laying on the ground bleeding, crying for their mother. Doesnt let you listen to the screams and see the blood. Video games do. Army commercials do not. CNN does not.

Do I think video games are the cause of violence? Maybe. Let the kids buy the games, let the parents do their JOB as parents and stop the kid from playing them.

I dont think the Brit's should be rating the games for sale in the US. Why dont we in the US have some system for it? I hear all the time about how the Brits are banning games that arent all that bad.

Are you serious? Are you actually comparing killing some pixels on a monitor to killing actual people? Actual civilians? Men, women and children? Damn, the brainwashing media in the US seems to be doing it's job.
And since the army commercials don't show you blood they're alright? They're bad BECAUSE they don't show you blood. BECAUSE they don't show you the reality of warfare. Kids want to join the army because of the cool stuff they see in the commercials and the prospect of being given a gun and an army suit is just too good to pass of. They don't fully realize what they're getting into. The government promotes REAL violence and then blames video games for violence on they're land? Killing 200 people in GTA doesn't make you wanna get a gun and go shoot your school colleagues. Getting the impression that shooting towel heads is alright and "patriotic" does.
Bottom line is real world violence DROPS with video games because instead of going out on the street to do crime you can just do it in a game and get virtually busted. Not only are there clear statistics about this fact, but one can actually see it. I live in a pretty rough neighbourhood here in Bucharest. When I grew up this place was full of gypsies and I would get picked on or mugged pretty often (don't think that I'm a wuss or anything, they usually did this in packs of at least 3), but now... I don't see this happening anymore. Not to me (cause I'm all grown up now), but not to small kids either. And you know why? Because all the gypsies go to internet caffees and play Counter Strike.

Now guess what happens when people join the army and go to war. That's right, they either kill or get killed. In reality.

I'm all for labelling games with such tags. It's a good idea for parents who have no idea what they're buying. What I'm not confortable with is hypocracy. Don't let the guys who promote violence and war tell you that friggin video games promote violence. That just brainwashes the public and instills fear into them just like using the word "terrorist" 100 times a day.

Slightly offtopic, but... the towel heads would've never attacked the US if the US hadn't started it first. They were happy with their dusty, underdeveloped land and their tiran leaders. Well... maybe not happy, but a HELL of a lot happier than having an all out war and bombing take place in their country and killing their women and children. Hell, if you were so pissed off for 911 why do you think they'd be happy with you bombing the hell out of their country? And the same government that lied to it's people over and over again are now telling you that video games are bad. And that sex ed has no place in schools. And that masturbation is evil. And that God blessed America. Too bad for the rest of the world that america, when it has support from the vast majority of it's people, is a true force, the most powerful country today. And that's bad because the vast majority of it's people blindly believe what their government tells them without doing any research into the subject.


/End of rant


EDIT: Poster below has a point (and in much less words than me :D ). Video games don't make you go psycho. BEING a psycho makes you go psycho. And in that case video games might actually help because they keep the nuts occupied with killing pixels instead of people.

[[XC] Synthetickiller]

Remember, Hitler play video games. Thats why he was the way he was.

Oh..... wait.......

[Zytek_Fan]

Games have been proven to be a great stress reliever :)

[[cTx]Raptor22]

The flaw in your logic is that the Army doesnt show you videos of someone getting shot. Doesnt show you men laying on the ground bleeding, crying for their mother. Doesnt let you listen to the screams and see the blood. Video games do. Army commercials do not. CNN does not.

Time out. Wait:

Statement:
Videogames show people getting shot. True, it it realistic? Not really.

Statement:
Videogames show people on the ground bleeding. Nope, they freeze in place and disappear.

Statement:
Videogames show men dying on the ground crying for their mother. Nope, I have never seen a game where the A.I has realistic emotions while alive, dying, or dead.

You can compare the issue to this: If you own a cattle ranch and slaughter a random steer it will most likely have little effect on you. Its when you slaughter your favorite steer named Bob that you have an emotional reaction. If in a videogame people had a realistic reaction to violence, realistic families and emotions and consequences for your actions, I would never be able to play a violent game because of the emotional toll. I would never kill a man in real life either, no way.

Slightly offtopic, but... the towel heads would've never attacked the US if the US hadn't started it first. They were happy with their dusty, underdeveloped land and their tiran leaders. Well... maybe not happy, but a HELL of a lot happier than having an all out war and bombing take place in their country and killing their women and children. Hell, if you were so pissed off for 911 why do you think they'd be happy with you bombing the hell out of their country? And the same government that lied to it's people over and over again are now telling you that video games are bad. And that sex ed has no place in schools. And that masturbation is evil. And that God blessed America. Too bad for the rest of the world that america, when it has support from the vast majority of it's people, is a true force, the most powerful country today. And that's bad because the vast majority of it's people blindly believe what their government tells them without doing any research into the subject.


Someone is diluted and ill informed... :rolleyes: :eek: :mad: :shrug: :down:

[Zytek_Fan]

Most gamers can separate the game from reality, therefore violent video games aren't bad at all.

It's just a select few that are mentally unstable that can't separate the game from reality and become violent. THAT is why so many people attack video games now.

Remember shortly after the Virginia Tech shooting? How many news stations blamed Counter Strike and called it a "killing simulator". Absolutely ridiculous.

[LudLud]

hey guys lets also restrict boxing and wrestling sports because they promote violence
bunch of morons!

[Zytek_Fan]

Why don't we ban racing games too, since they promote reckless driving? :rolleyes:

[Warboy]

Lets ban Flight simulators because of 9/11, Wait, We already tried that, dang!

[DeathReborn]

*Smacks forehead*

They have been rating games for a long time and doing it well. It isn't the same people doing both but its the actual classifications that are important. At the moment films have U, PG, 12a, 15 and 18. Thats worked well as a legally enforced system and I've never seen a film and thought the rating was undeserved. On the other hand game have either the PEGI 3+, 7+, 12+ and 16+ or the 15 and 18 BBFC rating. PEGI isn't binding although most shops will follow these and not sell to underaged buyers.

The difficultly it seems, is that while parents are used to the red logo BBFC ratings describing the suitability of the content, they do not understand that the PEGI rating means basically the same thing.

So the proposal is to get rid of the dual system and have BBFC rate every game and give it a rating in line with the widely recognised film classifications. I don't see why there is opposition to clarity.

EDIT: there is an advantage to PEGI in that it gives content descriptors as well as an age rating, but seeing as this isn't the USA and there is less of a "oh noes the titties" attitude, the ratings speak for themselves and are much more balanced.

*Smacks Cobalts' forehead* (that'll leave a mark; couldn't resist though...)

You completely missed the point. PEGI should become the standard used to classify games in the UK. They have a lot more knowledge on games & Finland has set an example by making it a mandatory rating by law.

Clarity you will never get from the BBFC that can't even fully control the viewing of films in the local cinema because the local authority can overrule them.

If the red logo they recognise, why not make the black box red instead, make the differing PEGI ratings stand out more. The governemnt is more than willing to modify existing recognised symbols so that's really a non-issue here.

I do support sensible classifications but they sould be done by people with knowledge of the field they are classifying. I wouldn't mind if the BBFC created a BBGC (Game instead of Film) with it being made up of a mix of people with law or gaming backgrounds (strictly zero political or religious presense on the board) so they could use the same ratings as the BBFC.

[Polizei]

Are you serious? Are you actually comparing killing some pixels on a monitor to killing actual people? Actual civilians? Men, women and children? Damn, the brainwashing media in the US seems to be doing it's job.
And since the army commercials don't show you blood they're alright? They're bad BECAUSE they don't show you blood. BECAUSE they don't show you the reality of warfare. Kids want to join the army because of the cool stuff they see in the commercials and the prospect of being given a gun and an army suit is just too good to pass of. They don't fully realize what they're getting into. The government promotes REAL violence and then blames video games for violence on they're land? Killing 200 people in GTA doesn't make you wanna get a gun and go shoot your school colleagues. Getting the impression that shooting towel heads is alright and "patriotic" does.
Bottom line is real world violence DROPS with video games because instead of going out on the street to do crime you can just do it in a game and get virtually busted. Not only are there clear statistics about this fact, but one can actually see it. I live in a pretty rough neighbourhood here in Bucharest. When I grew up this place was full of gypsies and I would get picked on or mugged pretty often (don't think that I'm a wuss or anything, they usually did this in packs of at least 3), but now... I don't see this happening anymore. Not to me (cause I'm all grown up now), but not to small kids either. And you know why? Because all the gypsies go to internet caffees and play Counter Strike.

Now guess what happens when people join the army and go to war. That's right, they either kill or get killed. In reality.

I'm all for labelling games with such tags. It's a good idea for parents who have no idea what they're buying. What I'm not confortable with is hypocracy. Don't let the guys who promote violence and war tell you that friggin video games promote violence. That just brainwashes the public and instills fear into them just like using the word "terrorist" 100 times a day.

Slightly offtopic, but... the towel heads would've never attacked the US if the US hadn't started it first. They were happy with their dusty, underdeveloped land and their tiran leaders. Well... maybe not happy, but a HELL of a lot happier than having an all out war and bombing take place in their country and killing their women and children. Hell, if you were so pissed off for 911 why do you think they'd be happy with you bombing the hell out of their country? And the same government that lied to it's people over and over again are now telling you that video games are bad. And that sex ed has no place in schools. And that masturbation is evil. And that God blessed America. Too bad for the rest of the world that america, when it has support from the vast majority of it's people, is a true force, the most powerful country today. And that's bad because the vast majority of it's people blindly believe what their government tells them without doing any research into the subject.


/End of rant


EDIT: Poster below has a point (and in much less words than me :D ). Video games don't make you go psycho. BEING a psycho makes you go psycho. And in that case video games might actually help because they keep the nuts occupied with killing pixels instead of people.

First, nothing pisses me off more when people who dont live in the US comment on US foreign policy. You dont live here, you dont vote here, so your opinion doesnt matter. Keep it to yourself.

Second, how was the US at fault for what happened on 9/11? Please, tell me. We retaliated, and the terrorists bomb us in Iraq more, hoping we will leave. They are the instigators, see, they bombed us in the first place (9/11) because they think we are living our lives wrong.

Third, if a kid doesnt know what hes getting himself into when joining the army, he's been living under a rock. People join the army and say "Wow, boot camp was tougher than I thought." They dont say "I didnt know I would have to kill someone who is trying to kill me." They dont say "I didnt know people would get wounded or die in war." Anyone who doesnt know that is a fool.

Raptor22;2762910']Time out. Wait:

Statement:
Videogames show people getting shot. True, it it realistic? Not really.

Statement:
Videogames show people on the ground bleeding. Nope, they freeze in place and disappear.

Statement:
Videogames show men dying on the ground crying for their mother. Nope, I have never seen a game where the A.I has realistic emotions while alive, dying, or dead.

You can compare the issue to this: If you own a cattle ranch and slaughter a random steer it will most likely have little effect on you. Its when you slaughter your favorite steer named Bob that you have an emotional reaction. If in a videogame people had a realistic reaction to violence, realistic families and emotions and consequences for your actions, I would never be able to play a violent game because of the emotional toll. I would never kill a man in real life either, no way.


I dont get it?

[[cTx]Raptor22]

First, nothing pisses me off more when people who dont live in the US comment on US foreign policy. You dont live here, you dont vote here, so your opinion doesnt matter. Keep it to yourself.

Second, how was the US at fault for what happened on 9/11? Please, tell me. We retaliated, and the terrorists bomb us in Iraq more, hoping we will leave. They are the instigators, see, they bombed us in the first place (9/11) because they think we are living our lives wrong.

Third, if a kid doesnt know what hes getting himself into when joining the army, he's been living under a rock. People join the army and say "Wow, boot camp was tougher than I thought." They dont say "I didnt know I would have to kill someone who is trying to kill me." They dont say "I didnt know people would get wounded or die in war." Anyone who doesnt know that is a fool.



I dont get it?

The first part of your post is VERY true, and sig-worthy even if it was a little shorter. The part about the games though is a little more complex than you understand. :) :up:

[IanB]

Jeez, didn't anyone watch Zeitgeist? So much denial... :shakes:

[FischOderAal]

*Smacks Cobalts' forehead* (that'll leave a mark; couldn't resist though...)

You completely missed the point. PEGI should become the standard used to classify games in the UK. They have a lot more knowledge on games & Finland has set an example by making it a mandatory rating by law.

Clarity you will never get from the BBFC that can't even fully control the viewing of films in the local cinema because the local authority can overrule them.

If the red logo they recognise, why not make the black box red instead, make the differing PEGI ratings stand out more. The governemnt is more than willing to modify existing recognised symbols so that's really a non-issue here.

I do support sensible classifications but they sould be done by people with knowledge of the field they are classifying. I wouldn't mind if the BBFC created a BBGC (Game instead of Film) with it being made up of a mix of people with law or gaming backgrounds (strictly zero political or religious presense on the board) so they could use the same ratings as the BBFC.

I would love to have PEGI in germany. but our frickin' government doesn't want that. are german teenagers different from the ones in the UK, or France, or Finland? I don't think so.

there is a lot of discussion about "Killerspiele" (killer games) at the moment and they even want to prohibit development, producing and selling of such games entirely. :shakes: best thing is, no one knows which games are killer games... I never played Manhunt and never will, because such games really are discusting. but you can't put CoD4 or Crysis in the same pot.

that's what happens when a bunch of morons who call themselves politicians have no clue what they are talking about. and the media (especially the public-law broadcaster) likes to tell lies about the games so that the ones who don't know :banana::banana::banana::banana: about it think: OH MY GOD! THAT'S EVIL!

€: and of course, imho there is no relationship between violence and playing computer games. it's rather the other way round. if you're pissed of you can go playing Deathmatch instead of fighting a wall or something

[RAMMAN]

there is a lot of discussion about "Killerspiele" (killer games) at the moment and they even want to prohibit development, producing and selling of such games entirely. :shakes: best thing is, no one knows which games are killer games... I never played Manhunt and never will, because such games really are discusting. but you can't put CoD4 or Crysis in the same pot.

if thats the case its a miracle crysis was released :eek:

[gallardo]

First, nothing pisses me off more when people who dont live in the US comment on US foreign policy. You dont live here, you dont vote here, so your opinion doesnt matter. Keep it to yourself.

Second, how was the US at fault for what happened on 9/11? Please, tell me. We retaliated, and the terrorists bomb us in Iraq more, hoping we will leave. They are the instigators, see, they bombed us in the first place (9/11) because they think we are living our lives wrong.

Third, if a kid doesnt know what hes getting himself into when joining the army, he's been living under a rock. People join the army and say "Wow, boot camp was tougher than I thought." They dont say "I didnt know I would have to kill someone who is trying to kill me." They dont say "I didnt know people would get wounded or die in war." Anyone who doesnt know that is a fool.


Well guess what "foreign policy" means. It's.... FOREIGN, as in... out of the US. The US's foreign policy affects most of the world. The US went in Afghanistan and Iraq and asked other NATO members to join them. Consequences for non-US citizens? Madrid and London bombings.

May I remind you of your own god damn history and tell you that the Persian Gulf where mr Bush Senior attacked Iraq was BEFORE the first WTC bomb attempt (the car bomb in '93).
Fact of the matter is that the US sticks it's nose in every other's country's business and sometimes the other countries get pissed off and retaliate.
After the Boston Tea Party and the declaration of Independence... after you've got rid of the British rule.... what country has attacked the US? Japan@Pearl Harbour in WW2. Guess why? Because the US (who was declared neutral at that time) instilled an embargo on Japan trade and choked their economy. And we all know how the government back then LET the Japanese hit Pearl Harbour just so the people would allow the US to join the war. If they lied to you then... and it's proven that they lied to you about the recent wars... Why would you back up the government that constantly lies to you?

[FischOderAal]

if thats the case its a miracle crysis was released :eek:

they want to doesn't mean it is prohibited. but I hope this won't happen, as crytek has no problem at all moving to another country.
(€: and with they I mean some politicians)

and the wank... I mean ... politicians wonder why we don't have many game studios here, though germany is one of the biggest markets.

a german comedian once said: "if you don't have a clue, just shut up"
too bad politicians don't seem to know that one...

most crap about the internet and games is said by politicians of the CDU/CSU.
for instance Schäuble, he wants to surveill computers with a trojan...
or Beckstein, who said that killer-games should be on the same level as child-pornography :mad:
I'm glad I didn't vote that a**holes.

[Marvin_The_Martian]

First, nothing pisses me off more when people who dont live in the US comment on US foreign policy. You dont live here, you dont vote here, so your opinion doesnt matter. Keep it to yourself.

Raptor22;2763744']The first part of your post is VERY true, and sig-worthy even if it was a little shorter. The part about the games though is a little more complex than you understand. :) :up:

And Raptor, just as you've already shown, there is a reason we people who don't live there do tell our opinion on things. Basicly, there are residents who just need some better education/information then they have because their views are so much based on things which are a results off the big ol' PR spins. We, who are not residents, can afford to shift through your propaganda machines incredible output off FUD, and try to make sure you, the residents, also see that some news isn't really news, and some facts might not be as factual as their made to look.

[NINaudio]

As far as I'm concerned, this is all another way to pass the blame. Sometimes they pick music (omg, the beatles, or ozz osbourne or heavy metal or rap is so devil music and spoiling our kids lives), sometimes it's something else. Right now it's video games. I don't see any reason for the hysteria they put on it. It's simple really, don't buy the game for your kid if you don't want them playing it. If they're buying games for themselves, monitor them more closely. Also, it's a GAME, not real life. If someone can't separate a game from real life, then they have deeper problems.

I recently had this discussion with an aunt of mine who was all worried about these awful video games and how the "make kids into killers". I told her she should fear her life around me then because I've played them all. All the dooms, mortal kombat, gta, F.E.A.R., etc etc. Not only that, but I listen to heavy metal and industrial music! Oh no, I'm a raging psychopath looking for my next victim! Watch out dear auntie... you're trying to take away my precious games...

[freeloader]

As far as I'm concerned, this is all another way to pass the blame. Sometimes they pick music (omg, the beatles, or ozz osbourne or heavy metal or rap is so devil music and spoiling our kids lives), sometimes it's something else. Right now it's video games. I don't see any reason for the hysteria they put on it. It's simple really, don't buy the game for your kid if you don't want them playing it. If they're buying games for themselves, monitor them more closely. Also, it's a GAME, not real life. If someone can't separate a game from real life, then they have deeper problems.

I recently had this discussion with an aunt of mine who was all worried about these awful video games and how the "make kids into killers". I told her she should fear her life around me then because I've played them all. All the dooms, mortal kombat, gta, F.E.A.R., etc etc. Not only that, but I listen to heavy metal and industrial music! Oh no, I'm a raging psychopath looking for my next victim! Watch out dear auntie... you're trying to take away my precious games...

It's not about parents buying the game for their children. Although there's always the idiots out there who will; I know, I have a friend who buys crap like GTA for their 8 year kid and let's just say this kid is a few fries short of a happy meal. The censorship boards don't want children playing these games and even though they're rated for adults, they inevitably find there way on to children's consoles. I've spoken about my views on video game violence before, so I won't rehash them here. Suffice it to say, I'd be glad to see crap like Manhunt vanish like a fart in the wind.

[Polizei]

Well guess what "foreign policy" means. It's.... FOREIGN, as in... out of the US. The US's foreign policy affects most of the world. The US went in Afghanistan and Iraq and asked other NATO members to join them. Consequences for non-US citizens? Madrid and London bombings.

May I remind you of your own god damn history and tell you that the Persian Gulf where mr Bush Senior attacked Iraq was BEFORE the first WTC bomb attempt (the car bomb in '93).
Fact of the matter is that the US sticks it's nose in every other's country's business and sometimes the other countries get pissed off and retaliate.
After the Boston Tea Party and the declaration of Independence... after you've got rid of the British rule.... what country has attacked the US? Japan@Pearl Harbour in WW2. Guess why? Because the US (who was declared neutral at that time) instilled an embargo on Japan trade and choked their economy. And we all know how the government back then LET the Japanese hit Pearl Harbour just so the people would allow the US to join the war. If they lied to you then... and it's proven that they lied to you about the recent wars... Why would you back up the government that constantly lies to you?

Are you saying that because the US went to get BAD people out of power (Saddam and bin Laden) that its our fault for the bombings? Are you insane? For all we know, the Madrid bombings could have been that Bilbao group in Spain who wants their independence. We asked NATO nations to help - asked. We did not force them to help. If Blair did not want to join the cause, he didnt have to and the bombings might not have happened. But we will never know.

If you read about the Gulf War, anything about it, you will learn that US went to fight over there because Iraq invaded Kuwait. We went to liberate. We went to help an allied nation. We did not go over there for no reason. You think we were supposed to sit on our ass and let Saddam - someone we knew was bad - roll over our friendly nation and do nothing about it? Would you watch your friend get beat up in a fight and not do anything about it? No. You would go help your friend.

Your claims about lies and Pearl Harbor make no sense. Cant really see how the American governemtn can just let 2,500 people die as an excuse to enter a war. We had the embargo on Japan because we did not support their hostile actions in China and the far east islands. We did not support them invading and conquering other countries. We embargo'd them so they wouldnt have materials (oil, rubber, steel, etc) to fight their war with those countries. We choked their economy to choke their war effort on China and the Philippines other eastern nations.

The embargo has nothing to do with the war - why hasnt Cuba attacked us? We have had an embargo on them since, what, 1962? Cuba hasnt invaded Florida in an effort to get us to trade with them.

[Slay0r]

There'd be much to say about the BFCC, the parents and the idea of children education the government(s) have (generally known as system enslavery and inducted selective ignorance) ... The sum is that the whole censorship comedy-drama that has been going on in the last few years looks more and more like your random southpark episode .

They - whoever this is aimed to :rolleyes: - should really lighten the :banana::banana::banana::banana: up. :shrug:

[Systemcepe]

Researchers at Columbia University Medical Center’s Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) Research Center have shown that watching violent programs can cause parts of your brain that suppress aggressive behaviors to become less active.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206093014.htm

[Slay0r]

Lol seriously, all the semi-scentific dribble is a good read when you haven't taken a dump for a while, but in reality it is just another excuse. Not only that, but watching any of the news on tv would make any human recklessly mental 24/7 .

--

Agent : any ideas why your son would buy a gun and commit a genocide?
Parent : no way, hell no.
Agent : Did he play violent games?
Parent : yes, yes he did.
Agent : Do you harm yourself, your half, take drugs, alcohol, are a peado, run over pedestrians before your breakfast, randomly detonate c4?
Parent : no way no, no no no no no no. (translation = yes)
Agent : Hell, it must have been because he was watching and interacting with a 3d render therefore his anti-aggressiveness slice of brain lagged out .
Parent : Oh sir that has to be the god damn thruth.

Wake the :banana::banana::banana::banana: uppppppp for your own sake. :welcome:

[DeathReborn]

First, nothing pisses me off more when people who dont live in the US comment on US foreign policy. You dont live here, you dont vote here, so your opinion doesnt matter. Keep it to yourself.

I take it you are a isolationist person then? I'd like it if the US could keep its gun in its holster for a few years. Might make the world a little bit of a safer place.

I am still a US & UK Citizen (living in the UK) with the right to vote (which I do so) and I fundamentally disagree with your comments on foreign policy. After all, it's US foreign policy that caused affects the rest of the world so they are entitled to criticise the US for it.

One of the things that pisses me off is people like you that have freedoms that they will deny to others. If you want the world to keep it's nose out of US policy then take your noses out of the rest of the worlds' then.

[Polizei]

Whose policy are we putting our nose in?

[Cobalt]

*Smacks Cobalts' forehead* (that'll leave a mark; couldn't resist though...)

You completely missed the point. PEGI should become the standard used to classify games in the UK. They have a lot more knowledge on games & Finland has set an example by making it a mandatory rating by law.

Clarity you will never get from the BBFC that can't even fully control the viewing of films in the local cinema because the local authority can overrule them.

If the red logo they recognise, why not make the black box red instead, make the differing PEGI ratings stand out more. The governemnt is more than willing to modify existing recognised symbols so that's really a non-issue here.

I do support sensible classifications but they sould be done by people with knowledge of the field they are classifying. I wouldn't mind if the BBFC created a BBGC (Game instead of Film) with it being made up of a mix of people with law or gaming backgrounds (strictly zero political or religious presense on the board) so they could use the same ratings as the BBFC.

First of all:lol at your first line :D

My point is that the BBFC do have knowledge of what they are doing. They are one organisation with different people reviewing the games to the films. They do have the specialist knowledge required. About half of the games I have sitting in front of me now have been rated by the BBFC. The other half by either PEGI or ELSPA. Someone has been getting that experience in all these years. You act as if just because it is a single organisation it is one homogeneous entity.

And the fact that the logo is red doesn't matter. Its the distinctive red circle that we've had on films since 1984. So change the name to BBGC if it makes you feel better but they'll be doing the same thing and public perception won't be any different.

Your point about local authorities having final say isn't really relevant. Individual shops already have that ability under the current system so local councils being obtuse isn't an issue.

The last section of your post basically describes any of the systems already in place.

Polizei: While you're busy trying to ignore anyone who doesn't live in the grand old US of A would you kindly butt out of a discussion on British national policy ;)

[Polizei]

AFAIK, there wasnt a discussion about British national policy.

Dont tell me to butt out when someone comments on my country but doesnt back up their claims.

[Cobalt]

Hmmm. Maybe you didn't notice the thread title. Regardless, your country has been taking flack for its policies for 7 years now and you still get defensive and riled up about it? Get over the fact that you live in a country that is part of a global community and is susceptible to making mistakes, and thus criticism. If you don't like it then you'll have to give up the internet.

Your attitude is part of the reason why the USA gets such a bad name. "You aren't part of this country therefore you aren't allow to judge us." What kind of an statement is that?

[gallardo]

I take it you are a isolationist person then? I'd like it if the US could keep its gun in its holster for a few years. Might make the world a little bit of a safer place.

I am still a US & UK Citizen (living in the UK) with the right to vote (which I do so) and I fundamentally disagree with your comments on foreign policy. After all, it's US foreign policy that caused affects the rest of the world so they are entitled to criticise the US for it.

One of the things that pisses me off is people like you that have freedoms that they will deny to others. If you want the world to keep it's nose out of US policy then take your noses out of the rest of the worlds' then.

Thank god there are still american citizens like you! Too bad they mostly live in Europe. :ROTF:


Whose policy are we putting our nose in?
Well, let's just talk about the last decade, I don't want to make a long post.
1) Bombing Serbia/Yugoslavia. I remember that all of a sudden I hear on the news that the US started to bomb Serbia. I still have no idea why that war was started. How did the US foreign policy affect us? Well... as I'm sure you don't know, Romania is right next to Yugoslavia. Imagine some time into the war we see a news report that says one of your bombs went haywire and hit somewhere in Bulgaria. How safe would you feel knowing your neighbours are getting bombed and that some bombs miss by an entire fkin country?!?!
It's easy for you to preach about how good the USA is and how you're "helping" the world when you're sitting comfortably at home while the bombings take place halfway around the world.

2) Afghanistan. I imagine since the Bush family is pretty close to the Ben Laden family they could locate Ossama. But they didn't. They did bomb the hell out of that country. Killed many women and children too. Not only were the people there living in caves and had no plumbing or just about ANY of the modern conviniences an average american has... buy you had to actually bomb them. Back to the stone age? No.... they were already in the stone age. Lots of help you provided. And where's Ossama now, 6-7 years later and a few hundred billion tax payer dollars later? Well... we don't know. Just like 6-7 years ago with zero dollars spent.

3) Iraq. The original reason to go to Iraq was that they had weapons of mass destruction. They didn't. Oh, by the way.... do you know which country has the most weapons of mass destruction? Yeah, you guessed.... the good 'ol US of A. How many you ask? About 10 times more than the second in the top 10 and just about as much as the total of the other 9. And so far... the USA was the ONLY country in the world willing to use their nukes on populated regions. TWICE. That makes me think of the USA as the greatest WMD threat in the world. BY FAR!
So... moving on. After they didn't find any WMD they said "well, as long as we're here.... let's just overthrow the current regime". They did that... Hurray for them. It was rather bad with all the bombings and the killings and all, but let's admit that it was for a good cause. And they did catch Saddam. So maybe all the mothers' loosing their kids and viceversa wasn't for nothing. But... after they caught Saddam and killed most of his supporters... what the hell are you still doing there? Let the Iraqi people make their own government as they want. What are you still doing policing the area? Nobody likes to be bossed around. It's pretty obvious that they don't want you there. I mean, hell... if I'd get shot at I would get the picture. I'm not supposed to be there.
So why is the US spending TRILLIONS of dollars on a war that is basically over when... the US is already in debt? And in a lot of debt. Did you know that you, as an american citizen, personally owe other countries a sum of money in excess of 20.000$ ? Well... not that the US is ever going to pay those debts. Hell, that's what the 2000+ nukes are for.
So... why does the US continue the war? Well, let's take a look at it from a different perspective.
Romania also had a totalitaristic regime. Our Ceausescu was just about as bad as Saddam (well, maybe a little less killing). Why didn't the US help us overthrow the regime? Well... I guess it's because we don't have any oil. Iraq does.
Well, actually... I'm happy the US didn't help us. They would've just bombed our cities and I would probably be dead right now. Thank god the US didn't help us!

[IanB]

Surely in any TRUE democracy the OUTRAGEOUS conflict of interest in which the political elite can order for supposedly moral reasons a foreign war from which they personally, through arms/energy/service companies they own or control, will profit by a few gazillion dollars, would NEVER be allowed. :mad: Isn't that normally considered extreme corruption, when a politician or their relatives profits directly from their policy decisions? :shocked:

Let's not forget the Bush family interests in arms/energy, or Cheney etc. on the board of Halliburton that was handed the pick of the Iraq reconstruction contracts without any opportunity for outside tendering. Let's remember that the current Bush president's grandfather or great-grandfather was a banker who treasonably sold critical oil or petrol products to the Luftwaffe in WW2. That family has been in the war business for generations. Anyone in the US who still thinks their country went to war just to remove a supposedly dangerous dictator from power is seriously deluded.

And yes, polizei, the US were well aware of the incoming attack on Pearl Harbour. It is public knowledge that a New Zealand or Australian radar post spotted the attack fleet many hours before and passed the information to the US, but the base was not alerted. All the "valuable" ships were out of the harbour IIRC, leaving only the expendable remainder. The reason would be much the same that troops in Vietnam were reportedly ordered not to pursue the enemy in certain areas, and these odd rules of engagement were deliberately leaked to the enemy so that they could maximise their attacks and prolong the war. You may not like the truth, but denying it doesn't make it less true.

War makes money for business. Business controls the government. Ergo an opportunity to enter, prolong or even start a war for no good "foreign policy" reason is in the domestic interest of groups back home that control the policy making. It's just good business: create a market and profit. You can believe the lies your government tells you to justify it, because you don't really care which bunch of non-American towelheads are getting bombed today, as it's not in YOUR backyard. It's easier to deny the truth when you don't see the results firsthand and you lack even the basic willingness to question the information you are getting through media controlled by the same businesses that are profiting from the war.

EDIT: And before anyone thinks this is a purely anti-US rant, I am equally outraged at the activities of my own UK government. Despite massive anti-war demonstrations and advice that supporting the entry into Iraq was illegal under International Law, Blair lied to Parliament using trumped-up "intelligence" to force the issue and go to war just as Colin Powell did to the UN.

Some people might remember the strange incident in Basra where the UK peace-keeping troops bulldozed a police station with a tank to retrieve two members of the British security service that had been arrested. What is not generally remembered is that the local police had arrested them disguised in Arab dress and shooting at unarmed civilians from one side of the Sectarian divide. In other words, they were deliberately stirring up the Suni/Shia unrest that the British forces were publicly there to quell and police - somewhat odd orders, surely? And lets not even get started on our own version of 9/11, the 7/7 London bombings, which had their own sets of bizarre circumstances - like an anti-terrorism exercise happening on the same day using the same scenario including the same Tube stations as targets, eerily familiar to anyone remembering the official hijack exercises happening on 9/11 that conveniently confused and paralysed the US jet response.

Nothing is as it seems, and we are all being lied to by governments with ulterior motives, if only to introduce stricter laws controlling and limiting our freedoms (good luck with your Patriot Act, BTW, removing significant Constitutional protection for the individual), right of assembly, ability to protest at those loss of freedoms, or even just to recite a list of names of war dead within a few hundred feet of Parliament... :mad:

Apologies for this WAAAY off-topic rant, but some naive POV just have to be challenged. :rolleyes:

[DeathReborn]

Whose policy are we putting our nose in?

Iraq, UK, EU, Russia, China, Cuba, Latin America, Afghanistan... I could go on but suffice to say, the US does insist on having its say on their internal & external policies. Sometimes they're right, other times they are so wrong in what they do or right but with bad execution.

No non UK citizen can vote for/against the bill this topic mentions but they are entitled to an opinion, wheter we agree with it or not.

First of all:lol at your first line :D

My point is that the BBFC do have knowledge of what they are doing. They are one organisation with different people reviewing the games to the films. They do have the specialist knowledge required. About half of the games I have sitting in front of me now have been rated by the BBFC. The other half by either PEGI or ELSPA. Someone has been getting that experience in all these years. You act as if just because it is a single organisation it is one homogeneous entity.

And the fact that the logo is red doesn't matter. Its the distinctive red circle that we've had on films since 1984. So change the name to BBGC if it makes you feel better but they'll be doing the same thing and public perception won't be any different.

Your point about local authorities having final say isn't really relevant. Individual shops already have that ability under the current system so local councils being obtuse isn't an issue.

The last section of your post basically describes any of the systems already in place.

I'd like to see you show which of the BBFC board members has worked for any company dealing with Games. You'll find they are all either Business or Film/TV in their respective fields. It's a bit like appointing a carpenter as a regulator of plumbing, easier than getting someone with knowledge & expertise of the job. Good to see you agree with me that the public at large don't pay enough attention to notice if PEGI gets made law or the BBFC carries on regardless.

This; as I see it, is a case of one rule does not fit all. That is what the government & the church wants, one global rule that supports their view & theirs alone.

[Kingcarcas]

Only 75 posts and gallardo is becoming one of my favorite posters, nicely said :clap:

[stayfrosty]

Researchers at Columbia University Medical Center’s Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) Research Center have shown that watching violent programs can cause parts of your brain that suppress aggressive behaviors to become less active.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206093014.htm

See I call BS on this.... There are THOUSANDS of people myself inculded that play violent games like countersitrke and whatnot for 30+ hours every week.
Yea I am exposed to violent games for 30+ hours every week according to that article I should be totally unable to supress my anger which just simply is not the case.