The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Pathetic. Really, really, pathetic. Dr Kim Howells MP last week blamed the rise in gun crime on “boasting macho idiot rappers”, this week its movies, TV and video games. I thought our country’s current American style epidemic of avoiding the blame only extended as far as those silly Direct Line (and the like) adverts offering thousands of pounds when you’re injured by your own stupidity. However, it seems high profile MPs are also keen to insist that society’s problems have nothing to do with them, the arbiters of the law which forms the basis of a civilised society, but some other factor beyond their control.
Okay, the So Solid Crew was a poor starting point. Blaming the rise in gun crime not on the under funded police, not on useless customs controls and not on lean sentences, no, it’s obviously those comical “hard men” rappers. I find it a little offensive that as a 21 year-old voter I can be entrusted with the responsibility of sitting on a jury or selecting the next government, but I’m still so malleable and weak-willed that I may shoot someone because of some UK Garage track. Anyway, that’s not the issue on a gaming forum…
What is relevant here are Dr Howells’ new comments that video games and movies desensitise us to violence to such an extent that we may think shooting someone is an acceptable means of settling a dispute. Not the government’s fault, oh no. Picking the easy target of violent video games is much easer as to the majority of voters they are still an alien past-time.
The movie industry is forced to restrict the access to their more violent titles through a legislated ratings scheme. They have no choice in this matter and as I see it no one can complain about this system. If a child manages to watch an unsuitable title that’s the parents fault, not the movie makers. However, the government has dilly-dallied over imposing such a scheme on video gaming meaning that the publishers and retailers have formed their own, non-binding, system.
Surely this is an example of games developers showing responsibility. Sure, a minority still use violence and brutality in a manner that appeals to the lowest common denominator, but at least they attempt to make sure the audience is suitable. Dr. Howells commented that he watches his “kids constantly playing blood-spattered video games”, so what’s his point? The gaming industry provides its own ratings system and gives information on this at every single point-of-purchase. They also provided a detailed guide to the game’s content or the rear of the box, highlighting any violence or other unsuitable material. If he chooses to ignore this and let his kids play titles that have been deemed unsuitable for their age group that’s his problem.
Naturally, the whole concept is flawed in that test after test has failed to find any link between playing violent games and the likelihood of committing actual violence. What, am I thinking… that would require the Minister to apply logic to the situation and lose his scapegoat.
Okay, the So Solid Crew was a poor starting point. Blaming the rise in gun crime not on the under funded police, not on useless customs controls and not on lean sentences, no, it’s obviously those comical “hard men” rappers. I find it a little offensive that as a 21 year-old voter I can be entrusted with the responsibility of sitting on a jury or selecting the next government, but I’m still so malleable and weak-willed that I may shoot someone because of some UK Garage track. Anyway, that’s not the issue on a gaming forum…
What is relevant here are Dr Howells’ new comments that video games and movies desensitise us to violence to such an extent that we may think shooting someone is an acceptable means of settling a dispute. Not the government’s fault, oh no. Picking the easy target of violent video games is much easer as to the majority of voters they are still an alien past-time.
The movie industry is forced to restrict the access to their more violent titles through a legislated ratings scheme. They have no choice in this matter and as I see it no one can complain about this system. If a child manages to watch an unsuitable title that’s the parents fault, not the movie makers. However, the government has dilly-dallied over imposing such a scheme on video gaming meaning that the publishers and retailers have formed their own, non-binding, system.
Surely this is an example of games developers showing responsibility. Sure, a minority still use violence and brutality in a manner that appeals to the lowest common denominator, but at least they attempt to make sure the audience is suitable. Dr. Howells commented that he watches his “kids constantly playing blood-spattered video games”, so what’s his point? The gaming industry provides its own ratings system and gives information on this at every single point-of-purchase. They also provided a detailed guide to the game’s content or the rear of the box, highlighting any violence or other unsuitable material. If he chooses to ignore this and let his kids play titles that have been deemed unsuitable for their age group that’s his problem.
Naturally, the whole concept is flawed in that test after test has failed to find any link between playing violent games and the likelihood of committing actual violence. What, am I thinking… that would require the Minister to apply logic to the situation and lose his scapegoat.
Page:
What a load of old cobblers. Pfff!
Personally I blame americans.
I'm sorry, Mr MP, but I don't feel like running aroundf in my car running people over after a heavy session of GTA.
I blame the parents
I blame the parents
I'm sorry, Mr MP, but I don't feel like running aroundf in my car running people over after a heavy session of GTA.
If there was no guns or weapons - then people wouldn't be able to use them.
I blame the people holding the guns.
I dont blame movies, games, music or America.
I blame guns.
I blame guns.
Pathetic. Really, really, pathetic. Dr Kim Howells MP last week blamed the rise in gun crime on “boasting macho idiot rappers”, this week its movies, TV and video games. I thought our country’s current American style epidemic of avoiding the blame only extended as far as those silly Direct Line (and the like) adverts offering thousands of pounds when you’re injured by your own stupidity. However, it seems high profile MPs are also keen to insist that society’s problems have nothing to do with them, the arbiters of the law which forms the basis of a civilised society, but some other factor beyond their control.
Okay, the So Solid Crew was a poor starting point. Blaming the rise in gun crime not on the under funded police, not on useless customs controls and not on lean sentences, no, it’s obviously those comical “hard men” rappers. I find it a little offensive that as a 21 year-old voter I can be entrusted with the responsibility of sitting on a jury or selecting the next government, but I’m still so malleable and weak-willed that I may shoot someone because of some UK Garage track. Anyway, that’s not the issue on a gaming forum…
What is relevant here are Dr Howells’ new comments that video games and movies desensitise us to violence to such an extent that we may think shooting someone is an acceptable means of settling a dispute. Not the government’s fault, oh no. Picking the easy target of violent video games is much easer as to the majority of voters they are still an alien past-time.
The movie industry is forced to restrict the access to their more violent titles through a legislated ratings scheme. They have no choice in this matter and as I see it no one can complain about this system. If a child manages to watch an unsuitable title that’s the parents fault, not the movie makers. However, the government has dilly-dallied over imposing such a scheme on video gaming meaning that the publishers and retailers have formed their own, non-binding, system.
Surely this is an example of games developers showing responsibility. Sure, a minority still use violence and brutality in a manner that appeals to the lowest common denominator, but at least they attempt to make sure the audience is suitable. Dr. Howells commented that he watches his “kids constantly playing blood-spattered video games”, so what’s his point? The gaming industry provides its own ratings system and gives information on this at every single point-of-purchase. They also provided a detailed guide to the game’s content or the rear of the box, highlighting any violence or other unsuitable material. If he chooses to ignore this and let his kids play titles that have been deemed unsuitable for their age group that’s his problem.
Naturally, the whole concept is flawed in that test after test has failed to find any link between playing violent games and the likelihood of committing actual violence. What, am I thinking… that would require the Minister to apply logic to the situation and lose his scapegoat.
Okay, the So Solid Crew was a poor starting point. Blaming the rise in gun crime not on the under funded police, not on useless customs controls and not on lean sentences, no, it’s obviously those comical “hard men” rappers. I find it a little offensive that as a 21 year-old voter I can be entrusted with the responsibility of sitting on a jury or selecting the next government, but I’m still so malleable and weak-willed that I may shoot someone because of some UK Garage track. Anyway, that’s not the issue on a gaming forum…
What is relevant here are Dr Howells’ new comments that video games and movies desensitise us to violence to such an extent that we may think shooting someone is an acceptable means of settling a dispute. Not the government’s fault, oh no. Picking the easy target of violent video games is much easer as to the majority of voters they are still an alien past-time.
The movie industry is forced to restrict the access to their more violent titles through a legislated ratings scheme. They have no choice in this matter and as I see it no one can complain about this system. If a child manages to watch an unsuitable title that’s the parents fault, not the movie makers. However, the government has dilly-dallied over imposing such a scheme on video gaming meaning that the publishers and retailers have formed their own, non-binding, system.
Surely this is an example of games developers showing responsibility. Sure, a minority still use violence and brutality in a manner that appeals to the lowest common denominator, but at least they attempt to make sure the audience is suitable. Dr. Howells commented that he watches his “kids constantly playing blood-spattered video games”, so what’s his point? The gaming industry provides its own ratings system and gives information on this at every single point-of-purchase. They also provided a detailed guide to the game’s content or the rear of the box, highlighting any violence or other unsuitable material. If he chooses to ignore this and let his kids play titles that have been deemed unsuitable for their age group that’s his problem.
Naturally, the whole concept is flawed in that test after test has failed to find any link between playing violent games and the likelihood of committing actual violence. What, am I thinking… that would require the Minister to apply logic to the situation and lose his scapegoat.
Page: