I was watching an online video when they mentioned something very weird. BTW, apologies in advanced if this is in the wrong area. They're going to have something like a Surgeon General Warning that you see on cigarettes on M-rated video games. The U.S. rating as we have now notes the rating of the game, E, AO, T, M and a few others, in the right bottom corner. And on the back they have the rating again with notes on what is in the game to have the rating. Now, they're going to have it like cigarettes where it has a warning on what could happen on the affects of playing a M rated game on the box itself. Personally, I am against kids buying M-rated games, I don't think it's a good idea and I think they can wait a few more years to get it. But I find this hilarious in the context that they're doing this to stop the "video game violence" that is PLAGUING the nation. And note, I do not believe violence in video games causes any kinds of shooting. Before the torches and pitchforks come out to hunt me down. :p Reading further, this is actually a bill in Congress coming up. Seriously, this is a bill they're going to vote for in Congress. At least all that money I could be using to get a better life is going to good ol' POS things like this when I pay my taxes.
It is to note that, to my general knowledge, the entire presence of the Surgeon General's Warning on the boxes of such aforementioned cigarettes is to warn consumers of the direct physical effects such smoking may hold upon the body. Though I suppose the presence of the warning would be understandable (despite the way of this violence via video games issue being tackled in a rather inane and silly manner), it is to note that whilst cigarettes hold direct physical effects upon the body that may be present within any such human being, the factor of the effects of playing an M rated game is not dependent on the game itself, rather than it is the player him or herself. Thus, the inclusion of the warning is absolutely unnecessary. I do hope the bill is defeated.
Ha! Studies have shown that games have more benefits than negatives by a relatively wide margain. Games such as Tetris for example is able to improve visuo-spatial skills such knowing distances, lengths and organisation abilities that require physical interaction of objects i.e. packing a bag of clothes, someone who plays Tetris more is able to fit more pieces of clothing into a single bag than the person who doesn't. Amazing powers those bricks have! But for specific violence in games? There is no correlation between video game violence and real life violence since the introduction of home console video games. The extremely rare cases of someone imitating what they've seen on tv is nearly impssoible to police or govern without completely affecting how fundemental games work. those poeple have been diagnosed with several severe mental disorders anyhow, and unless you class the whole population like that you can't place a stigma on top of that. How can you pass a bill on anything that is merely heresay without proper evidence? Ignorant fools.
This is a good article of what Peace-and-War said. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/254652/do_video_games_cause_violence_in_children.html But in my opinion, I think that video games do not influence violence. I mean, I highly doubt someone who was playing a Grand Theft Auto game would actually shoot some people and steal some cars, unless that person as a severe mental issue. The point I'm trying to make is that most people are smart enough to know that video game actions stay in the vidoe games, not in the real world.
Well, the video I picked it up from is a debate from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and the tragedy of the Russian airport bombing. As anyone who has played the NOTED M-RATED GAME!!! Or has seen it played by someone else knows of the terrorist attack in a simulated Russian airport that you play as an undercover agent trying to catch some terrorists by infiltrating the group and participating in their attacks. And yes, that's not spoilers, it's a very early mission. Basically, the whole thing is you participate attacking a simulated airport, which is an optional level which you don't have to play and get credit for. Which they tell you before you start the level, or stop the level at any time. Also, you don't have to do anything during the mission other than follow the others if you want to. I personally would skip it on my own preference because I don't like things like that. I know others have played it and that's up to them. The case a Russian television show was making was that the level at least at some level participated or caused the bombing in the Moscow airport. As much as I am deeply saddened by the tragedy of Moscow and the other noted shooting in Arizona. Both which are massive tragedies and my thoughts go out to them. I don't think neither were caused by violent video games. The warning I also think is just another way for excuses to be made. Why not put control on guns? Because there's a lobby that pays the government MILLIONS of dollars a year to not pass any laws. But we still hand guns to a schizo who goes and kills eight people. Or someone who causes a school shooting, it's tragic and sad, and the saddest thing is... I don't think it's going to change anytime soon.
To be honest, I picked up Modern Warfare 2 on a whim one day and knew little to nothing before it apart from being extremely popular, so when I played the 'Remember, no Russian...' level in MW2 I was surpised. However, I saw it as I see movies, an event to get an appropriate emotional response from the audience and make it more personal, which I believe it accomplished. And I (like all my friends who have played it) didn't shoot any of the civillians, apart from those that were slowly dying I felt I needed to put them out of their misery weirdly enough, and I only shot at the policeman who, for justififcation, shot at me first. I know that after playing this game I wouldn't be shooting people randomly in real life anyway. It helps me reinforce myself on what I would actually do if the situation came up. Though I know it may be diffrent in real life, I can only hope I act the way I want to act instead of being influenced by others. And the Russian Airport Bombing can not be blamed on a video game. the mimicing of fantasty and reality events have happened numerous amounts of time, both miracles and tragedies happen in real life and in ficition. How can that be justified? Video games are a scapegoat for the government's (and parent's) inability to properly train young people in what they should and should not be doing with their responsiblities, and instead discipline them in such a way that is pro-social. The simple answer is to ban everything 'bad' from the world, but that's just gona bite people in the arse in the long run when your goals to promote fre thought and choice comes crashing down.
