CNash

I'm always flummoxed when I hear gamers say that this bill is a bad idea. You complain when people like Jack Thompson make stupid claims like "GTA is a murder simulator", or soccer moms complaining that God of War taught her 8-year-old to have sex - and yet when the government tries to stop stuff like that from happening, you complain about that too!

In the UK, we rarely - if ever - have media firebrands like Thompson making statements like that about movies and video games. And do you know why? Because in order for a kid to buy an adult video game like GTA, his mother needs to be right there beside him, approving his purchase. So she has no room to complain if she doesn't know what kind of game it is - it's her fault for not doing the research.

The onus on the retailer to ID kids when they're buying these types of games is there to make sure little Johnny doesn't take £40 out of his mum's purse and go buy it himself. It's all checks and balances. And no, this doesn't mean that the government "lurks" outside game stores - the relevant gov't department performs spot-checks every now and again, or if a complaint has been made against the store, to make sure that they're complying with the law. And a law like this doesn't mean anything if the retailers have no reason to uphold it.

Oh, and lost sales? As I understand it, most mainstream stores won't sell AO-rated games (which these 18-rated games would be) to *anyone*. If a retailer chooses to cut a segment of their market out at their end, it's their choice.

My point was that in the UK, it's not necessary to advertise that you don't sell age-rated games to those under that age - because everyone expects it to be so anyway! I'm not particularly versed in the minutia of the US Constitution, but I don't see why creating a government-sanctioned ratings body along the lines of the BBFC would be unconstitutional. It can only serve to prevent minors getting their hands on the latest Grand Theft Auto, and further, dampen some of the bad press against video games that people like Jack Thompson like to create.

I've never understood what all this fuss is about. In the UK, this kind of law has existed for over 40 years and has lead to nary a problem. There are three main age ratings on movies and games - 12, 15 and 18 - and people under those ages cannot buy them. If a store sells an age-rated product to someone under that age, both the store and the cashier who made the transaction are potentially liable and could end up paying large fines. Note, however, that while every movie has this type of rating (including U and PG ratings for non-age-restricted materials), not all games do.

Such a system would have my support. However, what's to stop people buying used games from GameStop, then sending them to Microsoft for credit? Games would need unique markers on them, or else part of the intent of this system - drive up new games sales - would be lost. People could even play the system by tracking down used games at low prices, then potentially sending them to MS for more credit. Essentially, MS would become an online second-hand game retailer - albeit, as you say, one with access to things like manuals etc.

Why should it be a "guilty pleasure"? I don't feel guilty about playing the Warriors games - I think they're fun to play, and if anyone says otherwise, well, it's nice that they have a different opinion to me. Otherwise we'd all be sheep, repeatedly bleating out things like "The Warriors series is just a repetitive button masher".

Today has been very TIE Fighter oriented for me - I installed the Collector's CD and also somehow got the old DOS floppies to run on Windows XP, just so I could compare and contrast the differences.

I hate to say it, but I think my rose-tinted spectacles broke when I looked at the DOS version. It looked fantastic back in the day, but the more realistic textures from the Collector's CD edition do wonders for its playability nowadays. It's just a shame they cut out the iMuse soundtrack in favour of looped John Williams originals - the original MIDIs and innovative mixing system gave the game much of its charm.

I wonder - do the new cover images include the Wii logo, symbols and back of box blurb? The previews don't have them.

Wow, the old old BBC Video logo! It's still my favourite of all of them - the 80s spinning globe gave me nightmares (it was more to do with the music than the globe), the 90s one was too corporate and stuffy, and while I like the string accompaniment on the current one, it's a little boring - just a static logo. The old one, as featured here, has a wonderful twiddly synthesiser piece as its backing music.

Um, what? BBFC ratings are legally binding. All of them. If a retailer sells a game rated 12 to an 11-year-old, they can be legally prosecuted.

Now, she probably meant PEGI ratings should be made legally binding, which I accept, but the quote is misleading.

"-Making it illegal for retailers to sell any video game to a child younger than the age rating on the game box. At present, only the most violent and sexually explicit games are regulated."

IT'S. ALREADY. ILLEGAL.

BBFC ratings ARE LEGALLY BINDING.

Ms. Byron fails at proper research.