Yehuda

Not discontinued. Just in a fourth version. Check out BoardGameGeek.com . You might like a number of games from Fantasy Flight Games, too.

My favorite game is Puerto Rico.

Erron,

Did you follow the Head Gamez debacle which was to have provided jobs for 1500 people in Nova Scotia, only to uh, not?

I know how you feel about the gaming industry living in Israel, and I think that your location matters a lot.

Yehuda

Thank you, 32_Footsteps. You summed it up pretty clearly.

So I suppose the proponents of this law would be trying to prove that these games are similar to already banned obscene material? That would obviate the need to demonstrate any particular statistics, I would think.

Yehuda

32_Footsteps,

I was under the impression that movies theaters were required, either by state or federal laws, to restrict access to movies based on their motion picture rating. A quick check of Wikipedia reveals that you are correct, and I was in error. My particular argument is certainly moot.

I still have an argument, albeit a weaker one. Video games are more problematic than movies, since the participant is active rather than passive, and I could see them requiring more restrictive laws than movies. In other words, using movies as a yardstick for video games doesn't hold up.

If graphic violence were legally acceptable in video games, then there is no reason that they should not be acceptable in movies. The reverse does not appear to be true.

Yehuda

Both dvddesign and 32_Footsteps compare video games to movies and tv.

There are governmental restrictions on what a minor may access personally for movies and tv. These materials are made available only under the guidance or approval of a parent. The same laws should apply to video games.

Now, if you are arguing that these laws shouldn't apply to movies and tv, then we have a different discussion. It seems to me that that is what you're suggesting.

But if you are suggesting that the current laws are ok for movies and tv, but should not be applied to video games, then I don't follow your logic.

I don't understand the argument that "these kids have seen this in movies and tv". If they have, they weren't supposed to - the movies were rated R and the tv shows were either on pay-per-view or broadcast in the evenings with parental warnings.

If you think that kids should see all of them, that's your right as a parent. If you think they shouldn't that's your right as parent. If you think that goverment should not disallow children from making their own decisions, that's your right to lobby as a taxpayer.

But it seems crystal clear to me that if there is a law that prohibits minors from deciding to watch graphic violence or sex, then all the more so there should be a law that prohibits minors from deciding to both watch and virtually participate in graphic violence or sex.

Yehuda

P.S. And the line "there were other contributing factors" is not an argument. One less contributing factor is always better.

OK, hystrionics aside, I don't see how a law preventing the sale of adult content to minors should be considered a bad thing, or any worse of a thing then restricting any other adult content to minors.

IF GTA is adult content. Which everyone seems to agree with, I think. Or do we disagree on that? I thought the argument was that adult content in video games is no worse than adult content in movies, not that adult content in video games is ok for minors but adult content in movies isn't.

And, sorry, I don't see how this is harmful to gamers. Banning their production would be egregious and harmful to gamers. Restricting their sale to minors isn't.

Yehuda

I guess this is a little off topic, but if you play games like Candyland and Chutes and Ladders with two pawns each, instead of one, it gives the child a choice to make each time they roll/spin. Winnin or losing then becomes, at least to a small extent, a matter of skill vs pure luck.

I avoided games where I would always win against my kids in favor of games where they had some chance at least, until a certain age level. But no, I would never "let" a child win. It is cheating, it encourages spoiled behaviour, and winning isn't what games are about. If you want your kids to always win, play patty-cake.

Yehuda

Ah, yep. It's good to see someone in the mainstream media admit the truth. Monopoly was a good game for its time, even though it was basically stolen from an earlier game, The Landlord Game.

Like computer games, boardgames have evolved over time. There are thousands of much better board games that play in reasonable time, have no player downtime, are fun for all ages, have beautiful components, and are not an endless series of "roll and move" or trivia and yet don't require a lifetime to understand how to play.

Have a gander at http://www.boardgamegeek.com to see what people like you have found as alternatives to the same old same old produced by Hasbro. Check out the top 200 games as a start. Good introductory games include Settlers of Catan, Carcassonne, and Ticket to Ride.

Yehuda Belinger
Jerusalem Strategy Gaming Club
http://www.jergames.com