CT Considers Making Shoot 'Em Ups Adults Only

Adam writes: "Connecticut bans shooting arcade games. I dunno about you but I played these things all my life and have no will to go out and kill anyone. I think passing of a bill ike this inspires a hell of alot more anger then playing a game where I get to shoot animated villans. Story Here" Actually, note that the governor of Connecticut has not yet signed (or declared an intention) to sign this bill, so right now it's not a law. If it's passed, offering arcade games in which fake guns shoot simulated people would not be banned per se, be they would be out of bounds for anyone under 18. (Considering arcade demographics, that might not be such a big difference, though.)

Comments

Any Game Designers quaking in their boots?

[satch89450]

"We hope these type of games disappear from the landscape," Lawlor said. "People that makes these kinds of things have gone too far."

Now, are any of you game designers deterred from creating yet another shoot-em-up game because of this (possible) CT law? Do you feel that you have gone "too far"? I thought not...

Now, here is an idea I'll toss out for you designers to consider. Robert Heinlein made a big deal about the role of intelligence-gathering scouts, yet I have yet to see any arcade or computer game that has the player perform in this role. Wouldn't it be a hoot if one or more of you were to design a game in which the goal is to not get shot while gathering and transmitting back information? Your only weapon would be your wits and the cover provided by the environment, as well as the med-kit on your belt as you get winged by "the bad guys."

Being a scout, you would be considerably lighter on your feet than the typical weapon-toting warrier. Oh, RAH allowed a knife in his stories, but the point was that the scout is the rabbit, not the lion. So design accordingly.

The game prizes would be microdots, but you get the points only when you successfully transmit them back to base. The survival of the scout is not the object, only the transmission of information. Dying well would be a winning move if the information you send back is valuable enough -- in other words, a sacrifice may well be the play that keeps you going, as the reward could be a new life or complete repair or something.

If you use this idea, all I ask is that you give me a little credit. No money required.

Beware of legislators targeting morality

[PD]

Congresscritters do this because it is a win/win situation for them. If they pass a bill that is supposed to fix a morality problem, then they get to declare it from the podium during the next election. If little Billy still goes out and shoots someone, nobody will blame the congress critter for the failure of his bill.

This is an excellent substitute for doing real work. If the congresscritter tackles a real issue, he could certainly claim credit if he is successful, but there would be the risk of blame if he screws it up.

We (citizens collectively) fall for this old gag every single time.