Lying hypocrite Keith Vaz is at it again. The corrupt Labor politician has once again brought up the subject of violent videogames, perhaps because it distracts everybody from his shady legal deals and questionable expense accounts. In any case, he wants cigarette-style warning labels on game boxes, and states that adult videogames are worst than films.
"A film with inappropriate content is not interactive," bullsh*ts Vaz. "The point about video games, which is backed up by research from America, is that the player is part of the process. Players shoot and stab people in a videogame, and that is different. I accept that inappropriate content is wrong, wherever it is found, but videogames are different.
"If a young person gets hold of Modern Warfare 2, for example, they will be asked to participate in a terrorist attack; they will be asked to shoot at civilians in Moscow airport as part of the game."
Vaz says he's not a fan of censorship, and that adults should be allowed to play violent games. However, he still trotted out the Stephen Pakeerah case and claimed that the young boy was killed thanks to Manhunt, despite a conclusive police report saying that Rockstar's game had nothing to do with it.
So yes, yet more misconceptions and outright lies from Mr. Vadge. Until next time!
Keith Vaz Warns Violent Games Are Worse Than Violent Films [Negative Gamer]
Contest:
10:00 AM on 01.07.2010
| 
You have to love a story that starts with this.
Shamed MPs should resign. That's how it was in the old days, but politicians these days just wait for the fire to die off, then carry on like nothing happened.
Also,
KEITH VAZ EAT LIBERTY!!!
*KEITH VAZ PUT ON SUNGLASSES*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjRG2530rwI
I've been disturbed by plenty of movies in my time, and very few video games. The John Travolta movie Swordfish where in the first scene he straps explosives and ball bearings to the stomach of a pregnant women is a great example. Nothing in video games has ever come close to disturbing me as much as that scene did.
I disagree actually. To me, games don't feel as real as movies do. Clicking on a thumbstick to knife someone is not as real as watching a movie that depicts the drama and horror of actually knifing someone in the back. I usually have stronger emotional reactions to movies over games.
But that's just me.
I don't think the interactiveness of video games makes them any worse. I think the fact that I can control my character in a game actually makes it better. But I have a conscience ... I actually feel bad playing No Russian.
"This will make you do terrible, terrible things"
It's implied when you look into her eyes about 5 second prior.
her eyes. uh, right.
The SOLE reason? Let's not be drastic here.
I was scrolling down the dtoid home page with that EXACT look on my face and when I got to that picture I could feel my face looking like his. And in that moment I knew what it felt like to be Keith Vaz.
It'd work.
Rusty scissors clitoredectomy W00T!
I suspect Mr. Vaz is really Sterling's father, and this is all a game to them, and they bet large hunks of cheese that we'll fall for it.
1. "A film with inappropriate content is not interactive," - undeniably true.
2. "The point about video games, which is backed up by research from America, is that the player is part of the process. - the research may be sketchy or fudged, but I can't tell from this post, and again, the player is undeniably part of the process.
3. Players shoot and stab people in a videogame, and that is different. - It IS different.
4. I accept that inappropriate content is wrong, wherever it is found, but videogames are different. - Again video games ARE different. I guess the implication here is that video games are different in a more severe way, but this is his opinion. You may disagree, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person who doesn't think that a persuasive case can be built against video games as having a more severe detrimental effect on a person than film does.
5. "If a young person gets hold of Modern Warfare 2, for example, they will be asked to participate in a terrorist attack; they will be asked to shoot at civilians in Moscow airport as part of the game." - That's also true!
6. Vaz says he's not a fan of censorship, and that adults should be allowed to play violent games. - Do any gamers out there really disagree with this?
7. However, he still trotted out the Stephen Pakeerah case and claimed that the young boy was killed thanks to Manhunt, despite a conclusive police report saying that Rockstar's game had nothing to do with it. - Basically the only thing he says that seems truly misguided.
God dammit is anyone around here not a douche during sex?
For me the violence corrupt politicians perpetrate on the ideals of the country I live in rouse me to commit acts of violence more than any entertainment ever could. The entertainment does give me some fantastic ideas however, now that they (corrupt fuckers) have put me in the mood.
Old fuck is fucking old.
I wonder what Vaz thought about Rapelay...
Not avocating censorship, saying interactive to a scene has more effect than a passivly watched one, a clearer style warning sticker for parents not as into games as people who go to sites like this one, that some worthless kids get influenced by games (which he doesn't seem to blame the game itself for existing but just kids getting access...you can't argue those points and win that debate. Even if the guy is otherwise a POS, the suggestion is reasonable.
But he is obviously insinuating that videogames will make people commit terrorist attacks, that's true?.
The only thing I can agree is that Videogames and Movies ARE different because the interactivity of the first's. However, if the interactivity makes them "less safer" than movies is just a personal belief, there were already several cases of people that commited violent attacks influenced directly by movies and such and that has been proved. Though I'm not saying that videogames are better than movies or anything, until we got a serious study that proves otherwise it's just our words against theirs.
By the way, that guy is a douchebag.
I still find it strange that society thinks shielding people from such violence will make the world a better place, when in truth the opposite is clear. Like it or not, is still a part of life and who we are, and while it shouldn't be celebrated as such, it shouldn't be denied or refused an outlet either.
Vaz is a bandwagon-jumping ignorant cnut just out to score points for himself. It's very obvious from anything he says that he's got no clue as to the content OR effect of most games.
Also: we already have double-the-size-as-on-DVDs age ratings on 15 & 18-rated games.
I don't want to defend the guy too much, because he does indeed seem a little douchey, but I think my problem with heaping condemnation on him is that I happen to agree with him here. Should young children or even teens be playing "No Russian"? Aside from the violence of MW2, the thing I worry about (amongst my peers, let alone amongst children) is that people are playing these games and accepting the role of the United States as a "world police" with the right to violate sovereign nation's borders at will. It truly takes a mature audience to understand how much of an issue that would be (in this respect, CoD4 was a worse transgressor than MW2).
I'm also inclined to advocate for him somewhat because to me one of the most loathsome qualities of many (certainly not all) gamers is this knee-jerk condemnation of anything they perceive to be derogatory to the realm of gaming. It reminds me of Scientologists, and if gamers were a more cohesive group, it would surprise me to find that the gamer community as a whole would be just as litigious as Scientologists.
I personally strongly desire for this hobby, past-time, or perhaps art form in which I am deeply invested to be taken seriously, and denying any and all criticisms of it out of hand is not the way to be taken seriously.