@Wrighteous86 said:

@kingclaw said:

@Siphillis said:

@kingclaw said:

@DocHaus: There are a lot of videogames showing nipples or othesr sexual themes. The ESRB rate those as M games, and can't be purchased by minors

Gears of War and Halo don't, and they receive the same M-rating.

Yes. I was replying to DocHaus how say that if MK @DocHaus said:

However, if Sonja's top accidentally fell off during the fight then all of a sudden the game would not be found in any normal store.

ESRB regulate sex and violence for equal in videogames. And there are a lot of M rated games with sexual themes in them being selled in any normal store.

Can you name any T rated games with nudity or sexual content in them? I can name a bunch of violent T-rated games. Doesn't sound all that "equal".

The Sims, but that's it that I know of.  (And yes, there is "nudity" in the older ones though not exactly very detailed, you had to use a cheat to move the shower out of the way while they were in it.  I did this as a youngster)

If videogame devs could put sex instead of violence in their games, they would. If they did, we'd have this exact segment except it would be about the depraved game makers peddling pornography rather than violence to our kids.

He's of another generation and didn't do all his homework. He's still an amazing comedian (and a pretty damn good journalist) but this is clearly something he doesn't really feel passionately about, or he'd have done more work.

@Siphillis said:

@UnsavedHero said:

I hate how the mainstream media almost never acknowledge the ESRB. It's there for a reason, like the MPAA. To tell parents, and retailers, what is contained on the disc. It should be so simple yet people just don't think.

If government truly wants to get involved, I suggest they educate the public on the ESRB rating system.

As the court said, the Government will not get involved. As it is none of their business seeing as how there are already commercials depicting what the ESRB is. There may not be alot but there are a few. Also on what you said about shitty parents in america.. there are shitty parents in EVERY country not just the US but yet there are also parents that actually follow the ratings for everything. Its funny how people's opinion can change when they are old enough to play anything because most of this doesnt apply to them anymore but you should all remember what it was like when you were 13-14 and you wanted a rated-R game and your parents wouldn't buy it for you..

@SeriouslyNow said:

@AgentofChaos said:

@Siphillis said:

@JeffGoldblum: I've always found the beauty of the show is that Stewart can make somewhat serious points in a comedic fashion. Should it be a substitute news source? Of course not. Is it a news source? Yes.

Agreed, Stewart has the unique ability to nitpick stories to make actual commentary on them. But he definitely doesn't make actual commentary on every story.

How is that nitpicking? He's quoting Scalia verbatim and he presents both sides of the case.

Don't get me wrong, I mean nitpicking in the sense that he doesn't have to seriously cover stories that he doesn't care for. He can make a passing gag, a little satire, and move on. He doesn't have to have actual, serious commentary about every story. That's the advantage of being fake cable news as opposed to the forced commentary at 24 hour news outlets.

to me, it's always been up to the store clerk to enforce the esrb and the parents to monitor the types of games their kids play. I remember my parents stopping me from playing tekken because it was violent. Pissed me off at the time but it was the right call. I just don't get how people can still ride the "we're selling violence and sex to our children" stance. They should realize that there are regulations in place for certain games to only be sold for the right audience.

@JeffGoldblum said:

If you take anything Jon Stewart says on The Daily Show seriously, you don't understand the show.

Like that time he was virtually THE ONLY pundit to say anything about the bill that would give 9/11 rescue workers health care, while every other pundit tiptoed around it or ignored it? Oh that was satire, you say (no it wasn't).

As much as I love me some vidya gaemz, I gotta say he has a very valid point. No child should be playing things like Mortal Kombat. The government, instead of banning these games, needs to EDUCATE parents on the rating system.

I think you guys are missing the point. It wasn't just about "WHO WILL SAVE THE CHILDREN?" or the ESRB ratings but the hypocrisy of violence vs. sexual content. In Mortal Kombat, you can display Sonja Blade getting brutally ripped in half during Noob Saibot's fatality, blood spilling everywhere and it's okay to sell the game. However, if Sonja's top accidentally fell off during the fight then all of a sudden the game would not be found in any normal store.

@TwoLines said:

Isn't it like with movies? There's some really messed up stuff shown in some movies, but nobody rants about that. I don't get it. Yeah, it's more powerful because it's interactive, but as long as people are not suppose to sell this to minors, I really don't see the problem here.

One of the big differences is that new films must be watched in a movie theater, where ushers can regulate the audience to the theater's policy.  Video games are much more akin to DVD sales, as far as I'm concerned, and there's absolutely no regulation on the latter, to my knowledge.

He didn't argue the decision, he even said he likes video games. He was mocking the convention of allowing and accepting extreme depictions of violence, versus sexuality..that's all his bit was about.

His bits and satires are great, and he is almost always making a point in the process, and that's what makes him so fun to watch.

@Turambar said:

@DocHaus said:

I think you guys are missing the point. It wasn't just about "WHO WILL SAVE THE CHILDREN?" or the ESRB ratings but the hypocrisy of violence vs. sexual content. In Mortal Kombat, you can display Sonja Blade getting brutally ripped in half during Noob Saibot's fatality, blood spilling everywhere and it's okay to sell the game. However, if Sonja's top accidentally fell off during the fight then all of a sudden the game would not be found in any normal store.

Given games that featured full uncensored nudity like GTA, that still were in stores, I don't think your example has any real ground to stand on. It'll take Sonia being forced to felate a third Noob Saibot while being ripped in half for it to suddenly disappear off store shelves.

If this bill was about nudity in GTA, and the court was shown the cutscene you're referring to, it would have gained much more traction and quite probably passed. That's the point.

If I understand the ruling correctly, the Supreme Court didn't 'ok' the sale of violent games to children.  What the ruling does is say that the rating system that is in place currently, the ESRB in the US, is sufficient and anything beyond that rating system is not necessary.  As someone who has worked in retail stores where I was asked at times to sell video games we were constantly monitored and reminded NOT to sell games to children who are under the age of the rating.  In fact, I was told that the whole store, and I, would be held responsible if it was found out that I, or anyone else, sold a game, like a Mature rated game, to anyone under 17 years old (under 13 for T).  The Supreme Court ruling doesn't change that.
 
I don't mind Jon Stewart making jokes about this stuff but I just want him, and people like him, to be accurate before they make fun of something.

Unless the world has changed drastically in 5 years I don't recall being able to purchase M rated games without my parents has that changed?

That wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, thats the style of the show and most things are only half serious, besides this is all on parents who should be able to judge what kind of thing would effect their children and what kind of game would be violent but non effecting. Stewart was saying that he wasn't well informed enough to make any kind of judgment while the other non serious halve of stewart was kidding around.

I think he came off as pretty uninformed about the whole situation. I kind of bothered me when I saw it and it made me wish he would of had a game journalist or somebody in the industry to intelligently defend the other side of the issue. Somebody like N'Gai Croal comes to mind. 

He makes exactly the point I was trying to make in the thread about that decision on GB. Maybe the law was poorly written, but the basic idea of restricting M rated content for chrildren (on a federal level) is good. It has nothing to do with cencorship or moving M rated games on one level with pornography ... its just a law to protect children.

The only good point I heard against that whole thing was Marcus Bear who said that a test showed only 13% of minors who were send to buy M rated games succeeded in doing so.

If you take anything Jon Stewart says on The Daily Show seriously, you don't understand the show.

god damn he's hilarious

@Berserker976 said:

One of the biggest failings in that segment is that Stewart doesn't acknowledge the ESRB, and the fact that the vast majority of retailers already don't sell mature rated games to minors. The industry regulates itself, and does a good job, it's not like the Supreme Court just said it was ok to sell those games to minors, just that the government shouldn't be responsible for regulating it, same as every other media industry except hardcore pornography.

This.

Just to make this point more visible.

@Berserker976 said:

One of the biggest failings in that segment is that Stewart doesn't acknowledge the ESRB, and the fact that the vast majority of retailers already don't sell mature rated games to minors. The industry regulates itself, and does a good job, it's not like the Supreme Court just said it was ok to sell those games to minors, just that the government shouldn't be responsible for regulating it, same as every other media industry except hardcore pornography.

If it wasn't industry regulated, I'd possibly agree. But since it is, and since parents should be the ones laying the law down in their household as to what their children should be playing, this is one rare case when I disagree with Jon Stewart and crew.

I thought it was hilarious.

@Siphillis said:

@TwoLines said:

Isn't it like with movies? There's some really messed up stuff shown in some movies, but nobody rants about that. I don't get it. Yeah, it's more powerful because it's interactive, but as long as people are not suppose to sell this to minors, I really don't see the problem here.

One of the big differences is that new films must be watched in a movie theater, where ushers can regulate the audience to the theater's policy.  Video games are much more akin to DVD sales, as far as I'm concerned, and there's absolutely no regulation on the latter, to my knowledge.

HEY EVERYONE!!!  THERE'S A MORON TALKING ABOUT SHIT HE DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO COMPREHEND!!!

John Stewart is as ignorant as fox news in his own right. There's no reason to listen to his show more then once since he continuously pedals the same shit over and over. He always tries to sound smart when he invites someone intelligent on his shows, but its quite funny finding direct quotes from Wikipedia copy/pasted by his writers. The only reason i watch the daily show is for comedy, and to see john Stewart make an ass of himself like every other opinion show. People need to stop considering fox news, or the daily show anything more then comedic entertainment neither show deserves any respect in terms of news reporting. The biggest facepalm is when you can tell a professor watched the daily show last night by his comments during the next mornings lectures.
 
Also:
 
@ajamafalous said:

@Berserker976 said:

One of the biggest failings in that segment is that Stewart doesn't acknowledge the ESRB, and the fact that the vast majority of retailers already don't sell mature rated games to minors. The industry regulates itself, and does a good job, it's not like the Supreme Court just said it was ok to sell those games to minors, just that the government shouldn't be responsible for regulating it, same as every other media industry except hardcore pornography.

This.

@Siphillis: Can you explain this fascination with those pony's I've been seeing around the internet lately? I'd look it up on knowyourmeme, but that'd spoil the fun.

While I agree with Jon that a rating system should be in place (one that doesn't destroy the potential sales of games due to cowardly retailers) I was really let down by how he went about expressing his views. I love the guy but it was way too sensationalist and manipulative. He oversimplified and rather horribly generalised a complex, if somewhat trivial, issue.

If you take anything Jon Stewart says on The Daily Show seriously, you don't understand the show.

While I agree with Jon that a rating system should be in place (one that doesn't destroy the potential sales of games due to cowardly retailers)...

The problem with comparing violent games to pornography is that it's a hell of a lot easier to make a pornographic movie/game/whatev without communicating ideas and have it be sellable.  By contrast, even films like SAW and Hostel have the communication of ideas.  Violence on its own isn't quite as marketable, which is why games like Postal and "films" like Faces of Death tend not to have much of a retail presence.  That was one of the sticking points that Scalia pointed out in the Court's opinions - nothing in our system of law permits government to restrict what ideas people are exposed to.  Mind you, this is the same Supreme Court that allowed the Westboro Baptist Church to protest soldiers' funerals with their message of seething hate, so clearly speech is the issue.  There are no ideas in porn, no expression.  It's just people screwing.  That's why films like Showgirls and Whore don't get censored or thrown into the adult only section of a store even though they're sexually explicit, and that's why games like Call of Duty and Mortal Kombat shouldn't be censored or thrown into the adult only section of a store regardless of their violence.

@JasonR86: Honestly? No clue. I'd point out that I didn't say it doesn't work though. I live in the UK where we just give games like MK an 18+ rating or whatever and move along but my understanding are that in the US if a game gets rated M then many retailers won't stock it. I could be misinformed but I'm under the impression that while the ESRB system is solid it's the retailers handling of it that's the problem and if they had a system that would let them be comfortable selling games meant for adults only without the morality police throwing a shit fit things would be better. Sorry if I'm totally misunderstanding this whole hoo-ha.

they feared that retailers would just stop stocking M-rated games if the law passed.

  But if retailers already sold M rated games why would a government suddenly be involved change this? I could understand the fear of politicising the system but I don't see reasoning for fearing that retailers would stop stocking the games.

@JasonR86: 

they feared that retailers would just stop stocking M-rated games if the law passed.

  But if retailers already sold M rated games why would a government suddenly be involved change this? I could understand the fear of politicising the system but I don't see reasoning for fearing that retailers would stop stocking the games.

People have rightly said what needed to be said about this segment and its failings. However the shame of it all is that the Supreme Court did nothing more than reflect the standing feelings of the American public concerning sex vs. violence. People made such a hullabaloo over hot coffee, imagine what would happen if R-rated movie sex scenes were a regular thing in video games. But violence is slightly more acceptable given the history of this country vs. Europe and given that video games over time tended to incorporate action (i.e. violence) into its game design...here we are. Sex is less frequent in games because unless the game is about the sex, then it seems rather pointless to make it super-explicit and low brow. Do I think we need to push the limit and include more sexually explicit stuff in games? Absolutely. Do I think porn mini-games are the answer? No.

Keep in mind that porn is also seen (albeit quietly) as not just passive entertainment but as something purely consumable for the sake of fodder and masturbation. I disagree with pornography's simplification in this manner but my point is that we're lucky video games have avoided that quiet relegation despite all the bitching.

If you take anything Jon Stewart says on The Daily Show seriously, you don't understand the show.

I back Steward on most of his points, but on video game's he's constantly gotten it wrong. Yes, violent video games in the hands of children is bad. As are violent movies. The ESRB does a great job, and between them and good parenting that really is where the line should end. The problem with a lot of liberal democrats is that they are starting to move into the regulation of personal behavior, previously the exclusive domain of the republicans. Behavior seen as not "green" enough, or not supporting a "peaceful world view" enough must be outlawed. What makes that different from the right's attempt to ban behavior not "American" or "godly" enough? Absolutely nothing. Democrats and people who vote democrat  really need to sit down and ask themselves what it is they stand for. Supporting personal freedom means you don't get to tell people what to do. It means you oppose that idea. And there's a big difference between saying people should do something then leaving it up to them, and to supporting legislation that takes away their freedom of choice.

@Ragdrazi said:

I back Steward on most of his points, but on video game's he's constantly gotten it wrong. Yes, violent video games in the hands of children is bad. As are violent movies. The ESRB does a great job, and between them and good parenting that really is where the line should end. The problem with a lot of liberal democrats is that they are starting to move into the regulation of personal behavior, previously the exclusive domain of the republicans. Behavior seen as not "green" enough, or not supporting a "peaceful world view" enough must be outlawed. What makes that different from the right's attempt to ban behavior not "American" or "godly" enough? Absolutely nothing. Democrats and people who vote democrat really need to sit down and ask themselves what it is they stand for. Supporting personal freedom means you don't get to tell people what to do. It means you oppose that idea. And there's a big difference between saying people should do something then leaving it up to them, and to supporting legislation that takes away their freedom of choice.

Except at no point did he say that this should have passed. All he said was that the amount of violence accepted in the media (in this case, games) is ridiculous when compared to the amount of sex accepted in the same media. He wasn't arguing that the violence should be illegal, he was arguing that the double standard was ridiculous. The way the American public views sexual themes, content, and nudity is ridiculous when compared with its tacit approval of grotesque violence. Movies like Hostel and Saw are blockbuster franchises, but Janet Jackson's exposed nipple for 3 seconds tightened restrictions and changed policies on live broadcasts for years to come. The equivalent of Hostel would be hardcore pornography. You couldn't release the sexual equivalent of Hostel with an R-rating.

Hmm, 5 pages and noone's talked about the ability to separate fiction from reality ? I remember playing games like the Original Mortal Kombat when I was a small child and I had no problems realizing it was just a game. The first thing that struck me when I watched the segment was how I have absolutely no reaction to violence in video-games, but even at an age of 28 if you show me something like the bone-breaking in Blood Sport or House M.D. operating on himself I get physically ill. While age certainly plays a part in someones ability to separate the two, video games are still so much farther from reality than TV and movies it seems very odd to me that there's an uproar against violence in video games when things like SAW exists.

No problem with that, it was funny and that's what a comedy show needs to be.

I do not agree with the idea that "M-rated" video games should be illegal to sell to minors, but I do firmly believe that there is a double standard in the United States concerning violence and sexuality.  It just must be part of our "puritan" culture because even here on GB, I read a lot more comments of discomfort over the sexual imagery seen in some games whereas a game can graphically disembowel a guy, decapitate him and mount his head on a pike and it brings nary a second glance. 

@PenguinDust said:

I do not agree with the idea that "M-rated" video games should be illegal to sell to minors, but I do firmly believe that there is a double standard in the United States concerning violence and sexuality. It just must be part of our "puritan" culture because even here on GB, I read a lot more comments of discomfort over the sexual imagery seen in some games whereas a game can graphically disembowel a guy, decapitate him and mount his head on a pike and it brings nary a second glance.

No, but you don't understand! The extreme, graphic violence is a joke, it's funny! Ha ha, right? =D

I'd play super mario boners, looks fun.

In all seriousness though, american rating boards need to get over nudity and light sexual content in games. In France, nudity is very common in media and is a hell of a lot less shocking than seeing someone being torn in half

yeah sometimes i think that if people werent so sensitive to nudity, it wouldnt be such a big deal...

I'm so sick of people thinking the government needs to do everything for us.  It's not just this.  

I love how Kotaku tried getting folk rilled up about this, and failed pretty miserably.