Jordan: What does the industry need to do?

Philip: Who should say what a given retailer is allowed to sell if it is already declared legal for sale?

Janelle: Schubaal: I believe that some recent, quality RPGs have garnered an M rating.

Philip: Tiptail: Hum, which Atlus one was it?

Janelle: It's not just the shoot-'em-ups that get tagged.

Theo: DDSMT2

Janelle: I think Digital Devil Saga?

Ryan: Draco: You, yourself, mentioned the focus of legislation ending in Wal*Mart blacklisting a developer.

Philip: Yeah, DDSMT2.

Philip: Yes. Retailers may, and do, self-police to greater or lesser degrees.

Jordan: So looking at developers, should they keep trying to push this issue?

Stephanie: And it should stay that way.

Janelle: OK, here was my kooky idea of the day:

Jordan: It seems like Rockstar and Take Two keep trying to play a game of chicken with lawmakers.

Jordan: They keep going more violent and offensive trying to cause the knee-jerk reactions that are happening.

Ryan: Though I don't recall EBGames or Gamespot blacklisting GTA as Wal*Mart did. If Wal*Mart is so quick to blacklist something of the sort, should they be dealing with the problem in the first place?

Philip: J: They're in Britain, aren't they?

Philip: Schubaal: Up to them.

Janelle: What if companies provided special censored versions of games that could be sold to minors, and the uncensored versions were sold for a higher price of whatever?

Ryan: And it's also up to the publishers as to where the game will be marketed.

Philip: Tiptail: That'd open a dangerous can of worms.

Stephanie: A very dangerous one.

Jordan: Agreed

Janelle: And the censored versions could be unlocked by a parent getting a code via phone?

Janelle: That's why I threw the idea out there. ^^

Philip: Its inevitable effect would be to draw into question the communicative merit of any game using such things.

Jordan: Yeah, but how do you keep a kid from unlocking it on the phone?

Jordan: That can be gotten round easily enough.

Philip: and would inherently imply that the inclusion of the offending material would be legally obscene.

Ryan: Unlocking something is trivial. A lock censor would not stop anyone who wanted full content any more than current laws prevent minors from purchasing them.

Theo: Well, the developers need to keep themselves in check. If they are making a game that is obviously going to spark controversy, perhaps it is better left for another time. As someone said earlier, the video game industry is still young.

Justin: Anything aside from forcing them to stop doing what they are now isn't going to work.

Philip: Some do.

Philip: Some don't.

Jordan: One thing that has been mentioned is the addition of parental controls in consoles. The 360 will have them.

Philip: Can you walk around and prevent a thousand people from writing what they would?

Philip: I mentioned a sec ago that Rockstar isn't based in the US.

Philip: This is regularly forgotten in the whole deal.

Ryan: And who feels that a 4-digit pin is actually legit protection?

Justin: My old Cable Box had a parental control. Password and stuff. Think it took me two days before I was watching cinemax again.

Janelle: It's marginally more likely to catch a kid faking than an internet registry method.

Stephanie: Most parents use pins that are like the last digits of phone numbers anyway. Any kid can figure it out.

Theo: Well, it adds a degree of parental control to block specific games, but we get the classic arguments, like: play at a friend's house, the parents have no clue what the game ratings mean, etc.

Philip: That we're dealing with designs that come from entirely different countries.

Philip: This will only get more prevalent with time.

Philip: To expect it to be handled at that developer level in light of this is silly.

Philip: folks are able to buy games invented by folks with entirely different value systems.

Philip: Inclusive of ones with entirely different perceptions of obscene.

Philip: There will be the folks who are making stuff that bar the border because there is always a market for 'shock'.

Janelle: Yeah, I figured it wasn't a viable option. But parental controls are being discussed.

Theo: True. The developer is, by most standards, an artist. They make what they want to make. It's up to the consumer to buy it. I guess the lines need to be drawn around obscene.

Stephanie: They can discuss parental controls all they want. It won't take long for anyone determined enough to get past them.

Jordan: Should developers keep trying to push this issue?

Theo: Yes. I think they need to show the world that they are conscious of what's happening.

Ryan: Draco: I'm not sure that's an entirely valid argument. Regardless of where Rockstar is based, I'm sure I'm not overstepping my boundaries to say that mass murder, etc. that is common of GTA is not considered morally acceptable in any way in GB

Matt: But why not shove everything "obscene" into a class of its own... just like movies have X-ratings if they're over-the-top?

Janelle: Moreover, some things can't be censored on the developer's end. Again, I'll say DDS. That's a plot that can't be censored in any way, shape or form without totally destroying the point of the game.

Philip: If you mass-murder in GTA, you tend to get shot and killed.

Philip: or dragged off to jail.

Ryan: Ignoring the glorious cheat codes

Theo: The developers need to say "look, we want to make games, is that cool with you guys?" If the pro-ban group is the only one instigating discussion, then they will always meet on their turf, no?

Philip: I've got a lovely set of cheat codes, there they are listed in a row.... just a few of them now will make president bush's head appear on every character in the game...

Philip: Developers can no more be blamed for folks messing with their game code than authors can be for someone copy pasting a chunk of pornography in the middle of a Winnie the Pooh book.

Philip: It simply is insanity to suggest otherwise =)

Matt: ^^ Nice analogy

Stephanie: Very nice.

Janelle: Yes, I applaud you on that one.

Ryan: Now, I'm aware that the analogy for PC games is flawed

Ryan: But

Ryan: They're built into console games.

Philip: Not always.

Philip: Most of the ones mentioned are modifications.

Theo: If the developers open lines of communication with the public, government, and retailers, keeping in mind the controversy at hand, I expect that things will resolve themselves, to an extent. As for mods, I agree, the developers can hardly be blamed for most of that.

Ryan: Not always, no, but GTA has their history

Justin: But GTA had to be altered by a tool that voids your warranty and can potentially trash the game (personal experience).

Philip: Vigi: How would you propose to collect every movie director and sit them down with the folks arguing that movies are obscene?

Philip: Including the ones in Ebania.

Philip: The best that can be done by an industry is to have a front organization that tries to negotdefenseiate a middle.

Philip: Games have one.

Philip: The ESA.

Philip: Do most follow their suggestions and dictates? Sure.

Theo: Well, it certainly can't happen quite that concretely. It falls to the developer to decide what people will buy, and what to make. True, middle-men speed the process along.

Theo: I mean, 99.999% of games don't end up used as a defense in court.

Philip: Do they have godlike control to prevent some hotshot new publisher and their russian developers from negotiating a deal with walmart to see "SUPERULTRAKILLERNOMERITOFPOLICEOFFICERS 2" in stores across the country next week?

Philip: No, of course not, and no one could sanely expect them to.

Matt: But in the end, it is the PEOPLE who are most responsible for what they buy, and what they play

Ryan: and their resulting actions

Philip: If the developers could decide what people would buy, they'd be much happier people.

Ryan: Playing a game is not a mental illness that renders you unable to claim responsibility for your actions

Jordan: And it looks like we're slipping toward topic number three

Philip: The developers can only decide what they are going to make.

Matt: People should have to take responsibility for their actions

Jordan: So for a bit of backstory:

Matt: Yes exactly Schubaal :)

Theo: But that developer/publisher will take it in the shorts if they make a game like that, as we saw with Rockstar et al.

Janelle: Dracos: Don't you think they've already got a pretty good grasp on that?

Jordan: But before

Philip: Tiptail: Of course not. No better than any other industry.

Jordan: Does anyone have any final comments on the industry?

Philip: Otherwise they'd kill off all their R&D departments

Philip: with no worry

Stephanie: I don't, J.

Philip: since they already know what people will buy.

Ryan: In a criminal trial, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, via which defendants may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were mentally ill or mentally incompetent at the time of their allegedly "criminal" actions. The insanity defense is still in use in the United States, while most Commonwealth countries have moved to a mental disorder defense.

Justin: If someone can find me a case where someone says they were inspired by a video game to commit a crime where they didn't have some kind of preexisting mental illness or disorder and won the case, I will eat my shoe and take pictures.

Stephanie: I second that.

Jordan: On that note

Philip: Has anyone won a case yet on any of those defenses?

Philip: at all?

Justin: I don't think so