New York is
quite notorious for its
hard-line stance on
the war against video games. In this latest episode of 'New York State versus gaming,' Assemblyman Steven Englebright (D)
wants to pass a bill which requires retailers to place epilepsy and game-induced seizure warnings "on every video game." Englebright has been trying to push this bill through for the past eight years, according to
GamePolitics; which is quite funny, considering that all retail game boxes already contain those very same warnings Mr. Englebright is fighting for. Thanks, New York, for working on yet another
redundant law.
But wait, hold the phone. Mr. Englebright's work wasn't all done in vain. There's still the business of games
not sold at retail. Expect another eight years and more taxpayer money to go down the drain.
[Via
GamePolitics]
{ Feb 5th 2009 at 11:28AM } 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
AkaMagi @ Feb 5th 2009 11:34AM
Gotta love them North Eastern Democrats. They'll keep trying and trying and trying to get games banned until they finally succeed. Thanks to all who voted to keep these morons in office.
Blue @ Feb 5th 2009 11:37AM
Still better than all those stupid religious initiatives.
infernus @ Feb 5th 2009 11:45AM
I'm losing faith in this state. In the very least, these idiots aren't coming out of the city though (the last guy was from upstate, this fool's from Suffolk [Long Island]). Seems like they've all got too much time on their hands out there, and in this case, 8 years worth.
tyguy92 @ Feb 5th 2009 4:53PM
Right, because liberals are for censorship...
This guys is not a liberal, he's just an idiot. You should know about idiots, you guys nominated one for vice-president and elected Bush twice.
Rizzo @ Feb 5th 2009 11:36AM
Sometimes I hate living in this state. There are plenty of other things you can be wasting my taxes on...
Haggard @ Feb 5th 2009 11:38AM
I don't think I've played a single game in the last few years that doesn't have a seizure warning, in the manual or in-game.
Also, if you've got epilepsy, making note of things that will probably kill you would be number 1 on my to-do list.
Jampirow @ Feb 5th 2009 11:43AM
Seriously, no offense or anything, but are they attracted to videogames like moths to a flame? Because last time I checked, epileptics shouldn't be playing videogames AT ALL. It's pretty much a guaranteed seizure, specially with today's graphics and effects.
klitorisaurus @ Feb 5th 2009 1:22PM
I was thinking the exact same thing! They don't put signs up every 15ft on a railroad track to warn deaf people that trains may be coming. When you have a disability you just learn to adapt and avoid certain things. This country is way too warning happy as it is! We're ruling out natural selection and allowing stupid people to thrive. At least the ones who can read anyway :-)
Saria the Cat @ Feb 5th 2009 2:41PM
I always love seeing the "Warning: Product may contain nuts." on packages of almonds at the grocery store.
HippoHero @ Feb 5th 2009 6:56PM
It seems even more redundant when you consider that there are epilepsy warnings included with the console itself.
F1 @ Feb 5th 2009 11:38AM
Go team retard!
ronEbear @ Feb 5th 2009 11:41AM
The reason he finds it necessary to add epilepsy warnings on the boxes is because video games are not tested for the level of epileptic-ness. Television and films HAVE to be tested for their epileptic-ness thus the chances of them triggering epileptic seizures are close to zero. Although games have warnings, it`ll never be enough until games are thoroughly screened for their epileptic-ness.
bill51 @ Feb 5th 2009 4:22PM
Flashy images, encouraging even more attention and involvement than television shows or films. All images are simulated (assuming we aren't rocking a Sega CD with Make My Video), all are watched on the same or similar mediums.
I don't think you would really need to test such things. Simple reasoning puts video games at least on the level of TV/film. The warnings are sufficient, and anyone who has such a problem as epilepsy should know better, regardless of tests. Of course, parents of epileptic children should be responsible until their kids can use their own common sense.
Professor Lario @ Feb 5th 2009 11:49AM
Sounds like a good idea. Redundant and meaningless legislation - bring it on! It isn't like we are are in heading into a recessio..... oh wait.
Brucie_K @ Feb 5th 2009 11:53AM
What does the recession have anything to do with this?
Professor Lario @ Feb 5th 2009 11:58AM
Hey Brucie - you're so hunky! *swoon*
I can think of two things.
- Spending money on useless legislation
- Spending time on useless legislation
Both money and time could be used elsewhere, especially during the slide into a recession.
Dirty @ Feb 5th 2009 1:04PM
I find that you can blame anything on the bad economy. For example " I only slept with her because of the economy". Or insert it into conversations in which it has no purpose, like " I cant believe the refs making those bad calls on the cardinals, but you know with the recession and all."
Professor Lario @ Feb 5th 2009 1:20PM
@Dirty - I agree with you, but I think you misinterpreted my post.
This seems like the most inopportune time to introduce unnecessary/expensive legislation. I am not blaming the economy for the legislation, but think that politicians might have better things to do - like, maybe working on legislation having to do with business fraud or taxation.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 5th 2009 3:33PM
Stuff like this costs money. Writing and promoting a bill, any bill, absorbs a lot of tax dollars, passed or not. NY can cut taxes if legislatures just stop writing new laws, putting cash back into the productive system. The problem is that legislatures don't know how to do anything but legislate, so the have an urge to just write up new laws to try and bring relevance to their job.
jorojoserojas @ Feb 5th 2009 11:52AM
Here's the thing; I'm all for government doing what is absolutely necessary for the betterment of its people. But is this really doing anything FOR the country?
I can rattle off a couple dozen things that should take high priority for our government, and video games comes nowhere on that list. Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, independent, moderate - none of that matters when they all have their share of misguided individuals attempting to govern things that they don't even understand.
I'm not going to proclaim a party or ideology is superior to another, because my beliefs are mine and I feel that I have no right to force them upon others. There are some very, VERY admirable and noteworthy politicians out there; if you're a politician who can't be that, at least COPY those other people.
The Dark Wayne @ Feb 5th 2009 12:01PM
Fucking dammit. Hate living in this state. Now the asshole governor is increasing taxes on literally everything so we can pay for this shit
mystictaco @ Feb 5th 2009 12:03PM
It's more obvious in this situation since you're all intimately familiar with games, but this idiocy is pretty much par for the course whenever the government does anything.
This kind of crap is exactly why I don't want government health care. I've yet to see them handle things with anything but stunning incompetence and complete obliviousness, and that's just not gonna fly when it's something that my life literally depends on.
RedSonRising @ Feb 5th 2009 12:03PM
hes not interested in gaming at all: that tool is tryin to make a name for himself so he can run for another office. if he gets this bill passed he can claim to be a family values candidate and get elected just before his sex scandal blows up..
because wer're gamers, a lot of us forget how frightened some ppl are of video games (and computers). its natural to us but many ppl are intimidated by all the buttons, flashing lights and loud noises.
video games today are like sex, drugs and rock & roll to some people: they dont get it, fdont do it and dont want anybody else to try it. sure theres a 'medical safety' angle to this bill but thats just more flotsam to cloud the truth..
its a shame: our economy is falling apart, ppl are losing their homes and their livelyhoods and our politicians are worried about less than 1% of the population getting sick from flashing lights.
i hope during the next few years all the old politicians wither up and die. im sick of their pulpit pounding, condescending attitudes towards everything they dont understand. get a clue or get lost: either way, they make me sick.
"Yes they deserve to die and I hope they rot in hell"
WiNG [XBL&Steam: WiNGSPANTT] from lifeinagame.com @ Feb 5th 2009 12:05PM
If anyone actually read the only reasonable comment here, you'd see that there is a legitimate push here to give games a more detailed warning other than "playing any game could kill you"
Agathos @ Feb 5th 2009 12:37PM
Your comment is dead on and I did take note of the post you reference, but I still think that this bill would accomplish nothing but to waste time and money for the same end result:
- Costs, who picks up the costs of administering the tests and verification?
- Methods, as another poster said a game can play out in so many different ways, how do you test it, the answer if you can't make a firm determination the way that you can a movie.
In the end then you've spent large amounts of tax payer money, enforced a whole new level of costs and processes on a specefic industry, all for the result of games being labeled with "May or could induce siezure" etc... which is what we already have today.
In the end though I do try not to assume that people are "just out to attack my beloved video games" and hope that there's more to this story than I've seen...
WiNG [XBL&Steam: WiNGSPANTT] from lifeinagame.com @ Feb 5th 2009 12:46PM
Well the real question is, if you were epileptic, wouldn't you like to know that there ARE some games you could safely play?
klitorisaurus @ Feb 5th 2009 1:47PM
If I'm out and about and I have to poop, I can go to diaroogle.com and find the nearest clean public restroom. The point is that in this world of the internets, guides can be posted online without the rest of us having to stare at an unskippable warning that we ultimately pay for. And you know they're gonna have to put those damn warnings in Spanish too! If this keeps up it'll be 15 minutes of multilingual warning signs at the beginning of every game, while people who HAVE epilipsy will have already checked online to see what games to play and ultimately, never see the warnings. Leaving the rest of us to suffer because some politico pretends to be empathetic by doing those 'poor, poor' epileptic people a favor. In reality, if they actually gave two shits, they'd be pushing for research to help prevent seizures while driving, a common and MUCH more dangerous problem.
AkaMagi @ Feb 5th 2009 1:52PM
@ Wing
I read that. I just don't believe it is important. I know several epileptics, and every single one of them is well aware of what can trigger a seizure. Epileptics who are Photosensitive are well aware of their condition, and really don't need any more detailed warnings about games than what they already have.
And FYI, flashing police lights are far more likely to cause a seizure than a video game, but you don't see Epilepsy warnings on police cars.
infernus @ Feb 5th 2009 11:51PM
Reminds me of those silly "STEALINGMOVIESOMG" clips on DVDs. The poor consumer has to go through that crap while the pirate rips it out and never sees it anyway.
Greg Lewis @ Feb 5th 2009 12:11PM
Thank you for mentioning that this initiative is on the backs of NY tax payers. Most folks don't understand that the state and federal governments make nothing and operate off of tax payers. Allthough right now we are printing money backed by nothing so....TEOTWAWKI is coming.
context @ Feb 5th 2009 12:14PM
If you don't like what he is doing, send him a reasonable well worded e-mail. Tell him that there are already those kinds of warnings on games. And that it is impossible to test games for epilepsy because of the thousands of possibility's you have in a game.
You could probably start of a seizure in any game by putting sensitivity on max and spinning around with the camera.
Freelance @ Feb 5th 2009 12:26PM
This is just another grandstanding politician looking for the easiest bills he can get signed into law just get his/her name on the record books. Hey Steven Englebright, why don't you go after sex offenders and child support evaders next. Those are easy laws to pass too. Why don't you pass a law that say they can't go into candy stores or buy ice cream. Never mind the tough issues like court reform and child abortion. Guys like him just pick an easy target to pile bullshit laws on and claim that he has brought about some type of positive change.
kanweil @ Sep 2nd 2009 4:31PM
Englebright, maybe you should cure your addiction to kiddy porn first
SmoothC911 @ Feb 5th 2009 12:58PM
Yet another reason we're all doomed... can anyone tell me the exact time our democracy became a lunatic asylum where elected officials don't represent the people?
sundr1 @ Feb 5th 2009 1:08PM
Around the time the ACLU came into existance.
Nikonov @ Feb 5th 2009 1:11PM
He even *look* like a smug douchebag. It's like he's saying "I'm wasting your tax dollars and there isn't shit you can do about it. :|D"
Nikonov @ Feb 5th 2009 1:11PM
Also the pedophile moustache.
UltimateQ @ Feb 5th 2009 1:35PM
While I agree it is redundant, I couldn't care less if this bill got passed.
ScottG13 @ Feb 5th 2009 2:04PM
Thank goodness they got that budget mess figured out for NY so they could focus on important stuff like the content of purchased entertainment....
Yeah.
Deck @ Feb 5th 2009 2:14PM
What a waste of resources.
Saria the Cat @ Feb 5th 2009 2:43PM
Those dang video games, trainin' our kids to kill or make their brains go a-haywirin'!
Nick8708 @ Feb 5th 2009 6:43PM
He's preparing for the eventual video game adaptation of Battlin' Seizure Robots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDqxbxzRFP4
C lab Cpn @ Feb 5th 2009 6:30PM
In summation:
Fry: "Are we boned yet?"
Bender: "Yeah, we're boned."
HyperNexus @ Feb 5th 2009 6:30PM
I get the feeling that until people who grew up playing video games become the ones in positions of power in law and the government, we won't see an end to anti-game laws.
Maybe we never will, there will always be people who don't understand things. I once read somewhere something to the effect of "we're all ignorant about something."
Video games simply happen to be something that the generation before ours doesn't understand, and that worries them, which is understandable. It's perfectly human to be afraid of the unknown. It's just sad that rather than try to educate themselves on the matter, they'd rather vilify something that's actually pretty harmless, and place blame on it rather than accept responsibility themselves.
Really, it's up to parents to handle this sort of thing on the individual level. I have to question how effective a law against the sale of games to kids would really be. There's still the internet which has plenty of horrific things to expose kids to besides some violent games (the best and worst thing about the internet: it has everything), many parents will probably still buy their kids M-rated games, not understanding the rating system, or kids will play games at friends' houses, etc. There are myriad ways for people to get their hands on stuff, whether its legal for them to acquire it or not.
Good parenting can do so much more than simply passing a law and saying "eh, good enough, my kid should be fine now." Now, I admit maybe I am in no position to say this, as I am not a parent, and given that I'm still in college, I likely won't be one for a while. But I can cite my upbringing. I've been playing games since I was 8 years old... my parents never really have fully understood video games. They see me killing people in Grand Theft Auto and worry about it. But I remind them that I've yet to go on a spree of violence, and that I also enjoy games with no blood or violence, and they respect that. And they raised me to be a decent human being, and whatever they did worked well enough, I'd like to think I'm a pretty level-headed and caring person.
Now, I believe the flow of Mature games to minors should be regulated. This past Christmas I was deeply concerned for my 12-year-old cousin. He loves video games, and I think that's great.
But what worries me is that frankly, video games may have influenced him in a bad way. My cousin is precisely the stereotypical 12-year-old on Xbox Live who tries to act older than he is that annoys people, and that saddens me.
I played Left 4 Dead with him over Xbox Live recently, and he was the embodiment of the stereotype. He teamkilled me and the bots repeatedly, shot cars with alarms on purpose, and intentionally set our team on fire every time he got a Molotov.
He told me that about 85% of the people he's played with on XBL have him on Avoid status. I asked him if he knew why, and he said he had no idea.
This Christmas my mother bought him Mass Effect for his gift per his request. He also got Gears of War 2 and Left 4 Dead. On the surface that may not be bad, they're excellent games, but what worries me is his insistence on playing Mature games, which he's been playing for years now.
When he came over on Christmas Eve, I had rented Sonic Unleashed a few days earlier and was enjoying it (the Sonic parts, anyway) and showed it to him. He said it sucked after watching for about two minutes. I asked why, and he said it was because there was no gore. When I ran off a cliff and lost a life, he complained that Sonic should have become a bloody splatter on the rocks below. I told him what a blast it was to blaze through everything with such a visceral sense of speed, and he started throwing a hissy fit about wanting to play Gears of War 2. Me and the rest of my cousins wanted to watch a movie, but ended up turning it off because he wouldn't shut up about how Elf had no violence.
I talked to my mom and my aunt about my concern for him. I mean, he's 12. It shouldn't be this way. It should be the other way. He should be enjoying Sonic's innocent, fast fun. I'm in college, I should be the one obsessed with playing only bloody games. But it's not that way. And my mother and his mother don't really grasp the situation. Our whole family knows he can be a headache sometimes, and we all love him dearly anyway just like we do every other member of the family, but they didn't really seem to grasp what to do about his efforts to try being more mature than he is (I've tried telling him that swearing alot on XBL and playing bloody games doesn't make you mature... dunno if it stuck with him at all) and his obsession with games intended for people many years older than him. I asked if they ever considered simply not buying M-rated games for him, and they just kinda... shrugged their shoulders on the matter, not sure if they wanted to deny him something he wanted.
Anyway, the point of that whole thing about my cousin is: video games might have some influence on minors. It may not make them go on killing sprees, but it might influence them in other ways. As such, I do think that kids my cousin's age shouldn't be able to get their hands on M-rated games so easily. But passing a law against games isn't going to do that. What will do it is my aunt putting her foot down and not buying him games meant for people 6 years older than him. My parents forbade me from playing Mature games until I was 15 or so. That was also the age at which they started to relent on their rule against me watching South Park and the like. As a kid, I wasn't happy about those rules. But looking back, I think it really was good for me.
I know this turned into a wall of text (brevity is not amongst my repertoire of skills), but for people who said tl;dr and skipped down here to the end:
It is probably a good idea to restrict minors' access to games (and other media, for that matter) that are intended for mature audiences. But passing a law isn't the way to do it. It's up to parents. If they don't want their kid playing a violent game, a law may help, but the only way for them to be absolutely sure their kid doesn't play it is to make sure of that themselves.
I wonder what future thing our generation will be worried about our kids being corrupted by...
Diskoboy7 @ Feb 5th 2009 7:17PM
Another Democrat wanting to ban something.
It doesn't surprise me one bit.
The stupidity of America, because we keep electing these morons, is what DOES surprise me.
You didn't learn when Al Gore and his wife tried to ban 2 Live Crew, and practically every other rap group under the sun. You didn't learn when Clinton started her anti-smoking tirade. You didn't learn when Mayor Bloomberg banned food with trans-fats, and who is now going after SALT - you give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.
This is what hapens when you have a government sponsored education (aka public schools). Yet the people sit back, bitch, but do nothing about it. And yet you all still keep re-electing these morons.
So Obama, how are those tax cheats you hired, working out for you?