Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
New at Reason
Jeff Taylor warns that though a federal judge threw out California's video game law, the bill may have a few lives left.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Cesar | August 9, 2007, 2:27pm | #
"Serious physical abuse" means a significant or considerable amount of injury or damage to the victim's body which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, substantial disfigurement, or substantial impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Serious physical abuse, unlike torture, does not require that the victim be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted. However, the player must specifically intend the abuse apart from the killing.That pretty much means every video game in existence is "violent" except for possibly Barney's Hide & Seek Game, though that game was known to cause violence between my little brother and myself in the early 1990s.
Anyway, seriously, using that definition Raving Rabbids could be banned to the impressionable youth. What a stupid, stupid law.
Taktix® | August 9, 2007, 2:28pm | #
an issue that continues to have national legs.How exactly does an 18-month-old story still have "legs?"
tarran | August 9, 2007, 2:54pm | #
My brother and I never made it through a full game of Intellivision baseball or soccer without a fight breaking out either.Come to think of it, all our games ended in fights... Especially when we played diplomacy. Now, there was a really violent game. :)
Dave B. | August 9, 2007, 3:22pm | #
Shame on Jeff Taylor for accussing the Governor of pandering here. Other than starring in movies that raised the bar for depictions of violence, what has Schwarzenegger ever done to show that his motives here are anything but pure concern for the children?KingHarvest | August 9, 2007, 3:22pm | #
Insofar as video games are actually capable of influencing the public (let alone anyone's) mindset a/o behavior, it's surprising that the neo-conservative war hawks didn't run a PR stunt pushing Risk: the Game of Global Domination. You know, as a way of fostering support among the youth and basement dwellers of the nation.Think of the angle: maintaining the social engineering agenda contra video games, while spreading democratic imperialism via a morally sound, old-fashioned board game!
Cesar | August 9, 2007, 3:30pm | #
My brother and I never made it through a full game of Intellivision baseball or soccer without a fight breaking out either.Come to think of it, all our games ended in fights... Especially when we played diplomacy. Now, there was a really violent game. :)
The fights between my brother and I were more over which game to play, he being a few years younger than me. I.e., playing that godawful Barney game when I wanted to play Gunstar Heroes (oh noes, it has "gun" in the name, ban it!!).
Thank you, holy Joe Lieberman, for starting all this when you tried to ban Night Trap.
Pro Libertate | August 9, 2007, 3:46pm | #
KingHarvest,Ah, but the flaw in your plan is that we'd have to seize Australia immediately.
Isaac Bartram | August 9, 2007, 4:02pm | #
Pro LibertateTo listen to the way some Aussies are whinging you'd think we already had. :)
Pro Libertate | August 9, 2007, 4:06pm | #
Oh, sure, you can win without occupying Australia, but those two units a turn can be quite valuable while everyone else is slugging it out in Asia.anonymoose | August 9, 2007, 4:29pm | #
C'mon PL. Everyone knows owning North America is the key to winning a game of Risk.(Full disclosure: I have never won a game of Risk)
Pro Libertate | August 9, 2007, 4:41pm | #
Sure, later on. But secure your Australian base!Paul | August 9, 2007, 4:41pm | #
Though he does not explicitly say so, Yee clearly wants to medicalize the issue of video gamesAnd the drug war continues...
The real key is South America. That's right, to conquer the world, all you need is to consolidate South America.
Anonymo the Anonymous | August 9, 2007, 11:12pm | #
The Ukraine is weak.Goldthwait | August 9, 2007, 11:47pm | #
"apparently withholding the classic tag from Tolkien and Lewis, as well as Rowling"I can't stand Harry Potter, but I think even the most ardent fan would agree it is ridiculous to even imply that Harry Potter is classic literature.
Mike Reason | August 14, 2007, 1:56am | #
"Remember when I told you I'd kill you last. I lied."There are three things to know to win at risk:
1) You have to control Africa
2) Central and Eastern Europe, and Indo China are always bloodbaths.
3) Always play your enemies against each other.
by the way: Does it still count as a victory if all the other players capitulate to you or do you have to conquer the entire map?
Ventifact | August 14, 2007, 4:27am | #
3) is usually the most important. Basically you do this by never appearing any more threatening than necessary to advance your conquest. Recognize mental traps we all fall into and step away from them. A good example is mutually fortified borders: no on feels safe until they have a few more armies than their neighbor... which leads to both sides wasting armies at that border. Eventually your enemy will have made an investment in lots of armies bordering you and will decide to go far enough with that project to see some return. Let your neighbor have a few more armies than you on the border if it avoids such a bloodbath.2) The Middle East is always the worst bloodbath in games I play.
1) Yes. Africa and South America, then N America, then Asia, then Europe
If all the players capitulated, would there be any territory you didn't own?
