Violent Video Game Rant

The media's bugging me on this one. Yesterday, a judge handed down a ruling that the California violent video game law couldn't go into effect because it infringed on the first amendment. I can see it, but that's not the problem I'm seeing. The way that they're writing articles about this thing makes it sound more extreme than it is. The ESA is complaining that this legal crap is unnecessary - that control of exposure to violent video games should be the parents responsibility alone. I agree, parents aren't paying enough attention - I hear stories about Mom buying son Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas all the time. You can beat whores to death with a double-ended purple dildo in that game. I'm not letting son get ahold of that till his sex life's nice and healthy, thanks much.

So I babble a bit, but my take is: If we put a control on it of the same order that we put on R movies, Alcohol, and Cigarettes, parents will be more likely to believe it's something to be concerned about. If the clerk requires ID of you, you know that you're buying something intended for a mature mind. It doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.

If the entertainment industry has to refocus their interests on making games for kids again, so be it - I've seen a lot of brilliantly well-done games that don't involve violent eviscerations. I can deal with kids not being able to pop the head off their opponent without mommy's approval.

Maybe it'll start a trend of paying attention to children's media intake. God knows they need it.

"knockknock, are you alone? Noone's here and I was not followed."