That's not the biggest problem for me. The biggest problem is the lag when trying to open/navigate through menus. If it happened quickly, then much of the frustration would dry up.
Also, more customization is needed. Being able to move chat boxes around, etc. is a big step up from FFXI, but they still have that NPC-dialog box right in the middle of your screen that you can't move or switch off, which means that I can't put my chat box across the bottom of the screen like I wanted.
In addition, little things like being able to customize font colors and window opacity would be welcome, being able to have separate boxes for chatting and battle/system messages, etc. Not to mention the lack of search-able markets...
There are a LOT of things they did right with this game. It's very beautiful and detailed, the story so far seems rich and compelling, the character development is interesting and very flexible. But coupled with that are a host of minor annoyances that really suck a lot of the fun out of the game.
Plenty of people are playing it and enjoying it, but enough people have either been turned off by negative reviews or have quit out of frustration that FFXIV is going to have a very rough start. SE will continue to modify the game. In a few months, I expect the game to have far fewer frustrations. In a year, this will be a fantastic game. In two, in will be the pinnacle of MMOs. But right now, it's in a late-stage beta.
Cyberleader: Daleks, be warned. You have declared war on the Cybermen. Dalek: This is not war. This is pest control! Cyberleader: We have five million Cybermen. How many are you? Dalek: Four Cyberleader: You would destroy the Cybermen with four Daleks? Dalek: We would destroy the Cybermen with one Dalek! Cyberleader: Just one? No. You are thinking of Chuck Norris. Dalek: You are correct. I always get that mixed up.
They wouldn't need to make it all up. They'd just have to make up the occasional false document to slip in with the rest. If they did it carefully enough, nobody would ever question it, government denials would be seen as an attempt at a coverup, and they'd essentially be making up history as they go.
I agree. It's the promotion of music that costs tons of money. Less promotion means smaller paychecks for those involved, but this could actually mean a larger net return to the actual artists, without having a label skimming most of the fat of the top.
Why spend all that time and energy creating new jokes when recycled jokes is so much more efficient? Think green, dammit!
People often overlook the horrible environmental effects of joke pollution. Re-using old jokes instead of letting them just litter our society could reduce that significantly, and also save many old comedians from complete extinction.
Won't someone please think of the old comedians?!
I re-use old jokes all the time. Just ask my wife. She'll tell you all about it. At length, apparently.
My answer to your question is that, if I truly believed my government to be corrupt beyond redemption and that the only way to recover would be to clean the slate and start over, it wouldn't really matter how many others were marching as well. I'd go alone, even if that meant I'd have to go all Guy Fawkes on the situation.
The thing of it is, I don't believe our government, even as corrupt and lost as it currently is, is anywhere near irredeemable. Or, at least, pragmatically speaking, any worse than what we would replace it with after an armed uprising. The existing system to enact change CAN still work, if enough people actually learn and vote and get the right people into office. It all comes down to the fact that we simply get the government we deserve. Lazy and uninformed voters are the root of all the problems we have. Everything else (government corruption, stripping of liberties, etc) follows from that.
If the vote is ever suspended, or if our current or future President enacts martial law for anything other than a verifiable emergency and refuses to end it once that emergency is over... yeah, that would be the kind of situation that would encourage me to take up arms.
For myself, I would be perfectly happy to exchange some of this government mandated "security" for a return of essential liberties.
In addition to not being able to see inside body cavities, what exactly are they going to do if they find someone with, say, a suicide vest on under their clothes, rigged to go? Instead of blowing up a plane, the would-be terrorist will instead blow themselves up in the extremely crowded terminal, killing not only passengers waiting to go through the checkpoint, but all the agents standing around gawking at the scanners. Really, the ONLY thing this is good for is if someone is trying to bring on a small weapon like a gun or a knife, which a regular metal detector can accomplish far less expensively and with far less intrusion.
Now, all of that aside, when are we going to see this technology built into video cameras? I have some pretty cute neighbors.
Aww, c'mon, it will never happen. ... *mentally reviews all the things going on now that I thought would never happen ten years ago* Crap. Slashdot needs a "delete post" button.
And now I realize that I have become far too reliant upon spell-checkers: *Analysis, *travelers, *unconscious, *possession. My sincere apologies to anyone who becomes excessively irritated upon seeing misspelled words.
The problem is, we aren't going far enough to protect ourselves. These measures, while a considerable improvement over metal detectors, are still a far cry from what we need if we want to be secure. Here is what I propose:
Upon entering any government building, or attempting to enter an airport terminal, all citizens will directed to secure rooms where they will be required to strip off all of their street clothes. These clothes will then be sent for analasys for any chemical agents, explosives, etc. and burned or disposed of if there are any suspicious substances on them. Visitors/travellers will then be issued a standard robe and slippers, after the invasive strip search and full body x-ray. At this point, if boarding an aircraft, passengers will be led to their seats and have an I.V. hooked into their arms. They will be kept sedated for the duration of the flight, and then wheeled out while still unconcious to recover in specially designated rooms. If there is a connecting flight, then of course staff will wheel them onto that flight, while still unconcious. Upon exiting the terminal or government building, citizens will have their personal effects returned to them, minus anything destroyed or detained due to suspicious chemical markers or anti-government slogans or anything else the government feels that it is in the citizen's best interest to remove from their possesion.
I know all of this seems like it might be expensive, but hey, isn't it worth it to be safe?
I agree, the publishing industry has been even slower than the music industry in adapting to the change brought about by the internet. They're traditionalists, but that's no longer an excuse. The internet has been a major part of our culture for at least 15 years, and what's killing there business is that they never embraced and adapted to what it can offer them.
No, basically, we have to wait for the old, slow dinosaurs to die off to make room for the new, fast mammals. It's just a pity. If they were willing to work WITH us instead of against us, we'd all profit. For example... there should NEVER be such a thing as an "out of print" book anymore. Everything should at least be available via e-book. But try finding a less-popular book that's 20 or more years old... if it's not from a famous author, your only recourse is a used-book store. No money goes to the publisher, no money to the author... It's a lose/lose for everyone but the customer and the used book store owner.
Another thing they should do is allow people to go into a brick-and-mortar store with any copy of a book, "register" it, and then download an e-copy of the book for two or three dollars (with part of the profit going to the store, the rest going to the publisher and author). Even if that was a used book. That way, they can still profit off of books that were already published and re-sold via a used book store (or garage sale, or given away, etc). They'll never do it, though. They may as well be throwing away money, and their business will fail because of it.
They don't even have to give e-book copies away for free. Allow me to purchase both the physical book and the e-book for, say, an additional $1 or $2 over the physical book's cover price, and I will be happy as a clam. Not only would I buy a Nook (which I don't have now) but I would also do all of my shopping at B&N rather than at Amazon, even doing in-store orders rather than ordering online for items not currently in stock. Non-B&N brick-and-mortar stores could ally up together to offer downloads for a similar pricing structure for books purchased in stores. Heck, the publishing industry in general should get behind it. It makes sense. Why in the world would I buy an e-book for very nearly the same cost as a hard copy, without some kind of added perk?
Depends on how ambitious you're feeling. If you'd prefer not to venture out into the vastness of space, I'd suggest checking between and under the couch cushions.
Actually, I can kind of see it as a paradigm shift. When the internet first came out, people would surf just to surf. Consider that at one time, one of the most popular pages was the hamptserdance, and you'll understand what I mean.
I see it as similar to when the freeway system was first set up. People would go for long drives just to drive, it was all new and exciting. These days, not as many people do that.. probably because everywhere is pretty much the same. The internet has gone from a destination in and of itself to a medium to get to where you want to go. So, in a way, he's right. But yeah, the internet or something like it will be with us for the remainder of humanity's run on this planet, barring any kind of civilization-wrecking catastrophe.
I'd agree with your assessment of shock value, plenty of art is shocking/disturbing/whatever. That's what I was trying to get at, that something that is just intended to provoke an immediate reaction of disgust, anger, outrage, whatever, with no follow-up thought or appreciation is not art so much as just someone doing something obnoxious.
I think my major complaint about Ebert's statement isn't that he sees no artistic merit in video games, since he's entitled to that opinion (there's plenty of art out there that I, myself, don't "get"). It's more that he's trying to speak as if he's got some sort of authority over what is/isn't art, and he's declared, for all of us, that this particular thing is not "art". I don't see the value in a lot of the art that's around here(there's one that looks like random bits of scrap metal welded together, for example). It doesn't speak to me, but I won't declare it "not art", because my opinion only applies to me. If someone sees artistic merit in it, then it's art to them, and my opinion doesn't matter one bit.
Really, it all comes down to the definition of "art". In my opinion, art is any created work that evokes a thoughtful and emotional response in me, the viewer/listener. I exclude anything that simply tries for a shock or knee-jerk reaction (for example, dropping a crucifix into a jar of urine isn't art in my book, it's an attempt to offend, and in bad taste). There are plenty of games that have done that for me. There are BUILDINGS that have done that for me. The fact that you can interact with it doesn't mean it's not art.
Regarding the title of the article, "Ok, kids, play on my lawn": I'm less than half a year away from 40, and an avid gamer. While I'm not as old as Ebert is, there is no way I qualify as a "kid". In fact, the title of the article gives away a lot more of the rationale behind the original statement about the artistic merits of games than he's probably aware of. To him, it seems games = kid's stuff, and kid's stuff can't be art.
In this, Ebert is guilty of the same elitist, condescending attitude that I often see from self-proclaimed artists towards what they see as non-artists. It's a self-righteously smug attitude where he is convinced that he somehow sees and feels more deeply than the common man. Quite often, Ebert's statements (and not just about games) give the impression that he almost-but-not-quite-really pities us mundane kludges who don't see the world the same way he does. He may be much older than I am, but I'd say he's got some emotional maturing to do, at least in that regard.
You're right about having to know when to police people. Where I work, there are only two times IT gets into monitoring employee's network access: 1. Troubleshooting a problem, at the employee's own request 2. After Human Resources calls us and tells us there may be an issue.
People in general are naturally inquisitive and there are those amongst the IT crowd that may poke their noses in where they don't belong. This raises not only privacy issues, but ethical and security issues as well, which is why the rules are in place. As one of my first IT bosses told me, "If you can't explain why you had to access that data, don't access it".
I'm afraid I have to agree... a friend of mine tried to get me hooked on it. The first episode I ever saw was way early on when they were recovering dynamite to blow open that hatch. The episode was mysterious, shocking and had a certain extremely funny gallows humor (In a "I just shot Marvin in the face!" kind of way), and that made me interested enough to watch another episode or two before going "meh..." and giving up.
If I ever get curious enough, I'll just read a summary of the episodes and save myself some time.
Oh, and I'd also like to point out my biggest complaint about this: the creation of a new crime. Basically, laws like this seek to criminalize the selling of entertainment media, creating a whole new group of potential criminals. What, exactly, should the punishment be for a clerk that sells, say, the latest M for mature GTA game to someone who is only 15? Jail time? A fine? Both? Because you can't have a law like this without having some way of punishing transgressors, or it's completely unenforceable. So, yes, my main objection is the criminalization of sales of entertainment products based on the purchaser's age when there is absolutely no proof that this media causes a minor any kind of harm. Next thing you know, we'll have them trying to add some poor clerk to a sex offender registry because a minor bought a game that had boobies in it.
Also, I'd like to point out that our society has no such law right now, and somehow we're avoiding collapsing into a hedonistic pit of crime, sex and violence. So, a law is obviously not needed to maintain societal stability.
If a truly unbiased study that passes peer review comes out and shows that there is demonstrable harm in allowing a minor to play M-rated video games, then MAYBE we can revisit this with laws. Until then, parents and community groups working with the game industry and the ESRB is all that's needed to combat this "problem".
Oh, and most retailers are chains. With corporate offices. And can set policies that impact every store in said chain, without requiring "every parent to talk with every store owner about what their children can and cannot buy". So that argument fails, as well.
I can use the same logical fallacy to state that societies which set too many laws, especially laws governing speech and expression, tend to get washed away in a tide of dictatorships.
The world also does not owe you whatever you consider to be a "safe" place to raise your kids. What this law is (and laws like it) is a hamfisted attempt to remove the burrs and rough edges from society in an attempt to make a sweet and fluffy world in which to raise their kids. Also, you state that society needs rules. How many of those rules are actual laws, and how many are social contracts that aren't backed up by law? What I mean by that is that no law is needed for this, just like no law is needed to prevent kids from getting into R rated movies without a parent/guardian. This is something that can/should be worked out with parents and the stores that sell games. It does not and should never be made into a law, not in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the biggest problem for me. The biggest problem is the lag when trying to open/navigate through menus. If it happened quickly, then much of the frustration would dry up.
Also, more customization is needed. Being able to move chat boxes around, etc. is a big step up from FFXI, but they still have that NPC-dialog box right in the middle of your screen that you can't move or switch off, which means that I can't put my chat box across the bottom of the screen like I wanted.
In addition, little things like being able to customize font colors and window opacity would be welcome, being able to have separate boxes for chatting and battle/system messages, etc. Not to mention the lack of search-able markets...
There are a LOT of things they did right with this game. It's very beautiful and detailed, the story so far seems rich and compelling, the character development is interesting and very flexible. But coupled with that are a host of minor annoyances that really suck a lot of the fun out of the game.
Plenty of people are playing it and enjoying it, but enough people have either been turned off by negative reviews or have quit out of frustration that FFXIV is going to have a very rough start. SE will continue to modify the game. In a few months, I expect the game to have far fewer frustrations. In a year, this will be a fantastic game. In two, in will be the pinnacle of MMOs. But right now, it's in a late-stage beta.
Cyberleader: Daleks, be warned. You have declared war on the Cybermen.
Dalek: This is not war. This is pest control!
Cyberleader: We have five million Cybermen. How many are you?
Dalek: Four
Cyberleader: You would destroy the Cybermen with four Daleks?
Dalek: We would destroy the Cybermen with one Dalek!
Cyberleader: Just one? No. You are thinking of Chuck Norris.
Dalek: You are correct. I always get that mixed up.
Yes, I am a colossal nerd.
They wouldn't need to make it all up. They'd just have to make up the occasional false document to slip in with the rest. If they did it carefully enough, nobody would ever question it, government denials would be seen as an attempt at a coverup, and they'd essentially be making up history as they go.
"Creating quality content takes money
Hogwash, especially when it comes to music.
I agree. It's the promotion of music that costs tons of money. Less promotion means smaller paychecks for those involved, but this could actually mean a larger net return to the actual artists, without having a label skimming most of the fat of the top.
Why spend all that time and energy creating new jokes when recycled jokes is so much more efficient? Think green, dammit!
People often overlook the horrible environmental effects of joke pollution. Re-using old jokes instead of letting them just litter our society could reduce that significantly, and also save many old comedians from complete extinction.
Won't someone please think of the old comedians?!
I re-use old jokes all the time. Just ask my wife. She'll tell you all about it. At length, apparently.
You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in a shoebox in the middle of the road.
My answer to your question is that, if I truly believed my government to be corrupt beyond redemption and that the only way to recover would be to clean the slate and start over, it wouldn't really matter how many others were marching as well. I'd go alone, even if that meant I'd have to go all Guy Fawkes on the situation.
The thing of it is, I don't believe our government, even as corrupt and lost as it currently is, is anywhere near irredeemable. Or, at least, pragmatically speaking, any worse than what we would replace it with after an armed uprising. The existing system to enact change CAN still work, if enough people actually learn and vote and get the right people into office. It all comes down to the fact that we simply get the government we deserve. Lazy and uninformed voters are the root of all the problems we have. Everything else (government corruption, stripping of liberties, etc) follows from that.
If the vote is ever suspended, or if our current or future President enacts martial law for anything other than a verifiable emergency and refuses to end it once that emergency is over... yeah, that would be the kind of situation that would encourage me to take up arms.
For myself, I would be perfectly happy to exchange some of this government mandated "security" for a return of essential liberties.
In addition to not being able to see inside body cavities, what exactly are they going to do if they find someone with, say, a suicide vest on under their clothes, rigged to go? Instead of blowing up a plane, the would-be terrorist will instead blow themselves up in the extremely crowded terminal, killing not only passengers waiting to go through the checkpoint, but all the agents standing around gawking at the scanners. Really, the ONLY thing this is good for is if someone is trying to bring on a small weapon like a gun or a knife, which a regular metal detector can accomplish far less expensively and with far less intrusion.
Now, all of that aside, when are we going to see this technology built into video cameras? I have some pretty cute neighbors.
I'm not sure what it's called, but I'm pretty sure it has Martin Lawrence in drag in a fatsuit.
"Stop giving them ideas!"
Aww, c'mon, it will never happen.
...
*mentally reviews all the things going on now that I thought would never happen ten years ago*
Crap.
Slashdot needs a "delete post" button.
And now I realize that I have become far too reliant upon spell-checkers: *Analysis, *travelers, *unconscious, *possession. My sincere apologies to anyone who becomes excessively irritated upon seeing misspelled words.
The problem is, we aren't going far enough to protect ourselves. These measures, while a considerable improvement over metal detectors, are still a far cry from what we need if we want to be secure. Here is what I propose:
Upon entering any government building, or attempting to enter an airport terminal, all citizens will directed to secure rooms where they will be required to strip off all of their street clothes. These clothes will then be sent for analasys for any chemical agents, explosives, etc. and burned or disposed of if there are any suspicious substances on them. Visitors/travellers will then be issued a standard robe and slippers, after the invasive strip search and full body x-ray.
At this point, if boarding an aircraft, passengers will be led to their seats and have an I.V. hooked into their arms. They will be kept sedated for the duration of the flight, and then wheeled out while still unconcious to recover in specially designated rooms. If there is a connecting flight, then of course staff will wheel them onto that flight, while still unconcious.
Upon exiting the terminal or government building, citizens will have their personal effects returned to them, minus anything destroyed or detained due to suspicious chemical markers or anti-government slogans or anything else the government feels that it is in the citizen's best interest to remove from their possesion.
I know all of this seems like it might be expensive, but hey, isn't it worth it to be safe?
I agree, the publishing industry has been even slower than the music industry in adapting to the change brought about by the internet. They're traditionalists, but that's no longer an excuse. The internet has been a major part of our culture for at least 15 years, and what's killing there business is that they never embraced and adapted to what it can offer them.
No, basically, we have to wait for the old, slow dinosaurs to die off to make room for the new, fast mammals. It's just a pity. If they were willing to work WITH us instead of against us, we'd all profit. For example... there should NEVER be such a thing as an "out of print" book anymore. Everything should at least be available via e-book. But try finding a less-popular book that's 20 or more years old... if it's not from a famous author, your only recourse is a used-book store. No money goes to the publisher, no money to the author... It's a lose/lose for everyone but the customer and the used book store owner.
Another thing they should do is allow people to go into a brick-and-mortar store with any copy of a book, "register" it, and then download an e-copy of the book for two or three dollars (with part of the profit going to the store, the rest going to the publisher and author). Even if that was a used book. That way, they can still profit off of books that were already published and re-sold via a used book store (or garage sale, or given away, etc). They'll never do it, though. They may as well be throwing away money, and their business will fail because of it.
They don't even have to give e-book copies away for free. Allow me to purchase both the physical book and the e-book for, say, an additional $1 or $2 over the physical book's cover price, and I will be happy as a clam. Not only would I buy a Nook (which I don't have now) but I would also do all of my shopping at B&N rather than at Amazon, even doing in-store orders rather than ordering online for items not currently in stock. Non-B&N brick-and-mortar stores could ally up together to offer downloads for a similar pricing structure for books purchased in stores. Heck, the publishing industry in general should get behind it. It makes sense. Why in the world would I buy an e-book for very nearly the same cost as a hard copy, without some kind of added perk?
Is that my cow? It goes "baa". It is a sheep! That is not my cow!
Now, where do I get my peanuts?
Depends on how ambitious you're feeling. If you'd prefer not to venture out into the vastness of space, I'd suggest checking between and under the couch cushions.
Actually, I can kind of see it as a paradigm shift. When the internet first came out, people would surf just to surf. Consider that at one time, one of the most popular pages was the hamptserdance, and you'll understand what I mean.
I see it as similar to when the freeway system was first set up. People would go for long drives just to drive, it was all new and exciting. These days, not as many people do that.. probably because everywhere is pretty much the same. The internet has gone from a destination in and of itself to a medium to get to where you want to go. So, in a way, he's right. But yeah, the internet or something like it will be with us for the remainder of humanity's run on this planet, barring any kind of civilization-wrecking catastrophe.
I'd agree with your assessment of shock value, plenty of art is shocking/disturbing/whatever. That's what I was trying to get at, that something that is just intended to provoke an immediate reaction of disgust, anger, outrage, whatever, with no follow-up thought or appreciation is not art so much as just someone doing something obnoxious.
I think my major complaint about Ebert's statement isn't that he sees no artistic merit in video games, since he's entitled to that opinion (there's plenty of art out there that I, myself, don't "get"). It's more that he's trying to speak as if he's got some sort of authority over what is/isn't art, and he's declared, for all of us, that this particular thing is not "art". I don't see the value in a lot of the art that's around here(there's one that looks like random bits of scrap metal welded together, for example). It doesn't speak to me, but I won't declare it "not art", because my opinion only applies to me. If someone sees artistic merit in it, then it's art to them, and my opinion doesn't matter one bit.
Really, it all comes down to the definition of "art". In my opinion, art is any created work that evokes a thoughtful and emotional response in me, the viewer/listener. I exclude anything that simply tries for a shock or knee-jerk reaction (for example, dropping a crucifix into a jar of urine isn't art in my book, it's an attempt to offend, and in bad taste). There are plenty of games that have done that for me. There are BUILDINGS that have done that for me. The fact that you can interact with it doesn't mean it's not art.
Regarding the title of the article, "Ok, kids, play on my lawn": I'm less than half a year away from 40, and an avid gamer. While I'm not as old as Ebert is, there is no way I qualify as a "kid". In fact, the title of the article gives away a lot more of the rationale behind the original statement about the artistic merits of games than he's probably aware of. To him, it seems games = kid's stuff, and kid's stuff can't be art.
In this, Ebert is guilty of the same elitist, condescending attitude that I often see from self-proclaimed artists towards what they see as non-artists. It's a self-righteously smug attitude where he is convinced that he somehow sees and feels more deeply than the common man. Quite often, Ebert's statements (and not just about games) give the impression that he almost-but-not-quite-really pities us mundane kludges who don't see the world the same way he does. He may be much older than I am, but I'd say he's got some emotional maturing to do, at least in that regard.
When "Dude" was last in vogue, Pluto was still a planet.
Dude abides
You're right about having to know when to police people. Where I work, there are only two times IT gets into monitoring employee's network access:
1. Troubleshooting a problem, at the employee's own request
2. After Human Resources calls us and tells us there may be an issue.
People in general are naturally inquisitive and there are those amongst the IT crowd that may poke their noses in where they don't belong. This raises not only privacy issues, but ethical and security issues as well, which is why the rules are in place. As one of my first IT bosses told me, "If you can't explain why you had to access that data, don't access it".
I'm afraid I have to agree... a friend of mine tried to get me hooked on it. The first episode I ever saw was way early on when they were recovering dynamite to blow open that hatch. The episode was mysterious, shocking and had a certain extremely funny gallows humor (In a "I just shot Marvin in the face!" kind of way), and that made me interested enough to watch another episode or two before going "meh..." and giving up.
If I ever get curious enough, I'll just read a summary of the episodes and save myself some time.
Oh, and I'd also like to point out my biggest complaint about this: the creation of a new crime. Basically, laws like this seek to criminalize the selling of entertainment media, creating a whole new group of potential criminals. What, exactly, should the punishment be for a clerk that sells, say, the latest M for mature GTA game to someone who is only 15? Jail time? A fine? Both? Because you can't have a law like this without having some way of punishing transgressors, or it's completely unenforceable. So, yes, my main objection is the criminalization of sales of entertainment products based on the purchaser's age when there is absolutely no proof that this media causes a minor any kind of harm. Next thing you know, we'll have them trying to add some poor clerk to a sex offender registry because a minor bought a game that had boobies in it.
Also, I'd like to point out that our society has no such law right now, and somehow we're avoiding collapsing into a hedonistic pit of crime, sex and violence. So, a law is obviously not needed to maintain societal stability.
If a truly unbiased study that passes peer review comes out and shows that there is demonstrable harm in allowing a minor to play M-rated video games, then MAYBE we can revisit this with laws. Until then, parents and community groups working with the game industry and the ESRB is all that's needed to combat this "problem".
Oh, and most retailers are chains. With corporate offices. And can set policies that impact every store in said chain, without requiring "every parent to talk with every store owner about what their children can and cannot buy". So that argument fails, as well.
I can use the same logical fallacy to state that societies which set too many laws, especially laws governing speech and expression, tend to get washed away in a tide of dictatorships.
The world also does not owe you whatever you consider to be a "safe" place to raise your kids. What this law is (and laws like it) is a hamfisted attempt to remove the burrs and rough edges from society in an attempt to make a sweet and fluffy world in which to raise their kids. Also, you state that society needs rules. How many of those rules are actual laws, and how many are social contracts that aren't backed up by law? What I mean by that is that no law is needed for this, just like no law is needed to prevent kids from getting into R rated movies without a parent/guardian. This is something that can/should be worked out with parents and the stores that sell games. It does not and should never be made into a law, not in the US.