California's Definition of Dangerously Violent Games

• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2010-04-28 20:36

  (d) (1) "Violent video game" means a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted in the game in a manner that does either of the following:
  
  (A) Comes within all of the following descriptions:
  (i) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
  (ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors.
  (iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
  
  (B) Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon images of human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim.
  
  (2) For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
  (A) "Cruel" means that the player intends to virtually inflict a high degree of pain by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim in addition to killing the victim.
  (B) "Depraved" means that the player relishes the virtual killing or shows indifference to the suffering of the victim, as evidenced by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim.
  (C) "Heinous" means shockingly atrocious. For the killing depicted in a video game to be heinous, it must involve additional acts of torture or serious physical abuse of the victim as set apart from
  other killings.
  (D) "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.
  (E) "Torture" includes mental as well as physical abuse of the victim. In either case, the virtual victim must be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted; and the player must specifically intend to virtually inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering upon the victim, apart from killing the victim.
  (3) Pertinent factors in determining whether a killing depicted in a video game is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved include infliction of gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that necessary to commit the killing, needless mutilation of the victim's body, and helplessness of the victim.
  

  
  
  Help California Name Some Dangerously Violent Games - Schwarzenegger vs - Kotaku
  
  so basically this would include something as simple as Pokemon
  thank you California for cutting education and putting your money in stopping video games.
• Chockeh wrote on 2010-04-28 20:40
  (iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
  
  That one line make's no sense.
• Axx wrote on 2010-04-28 20:42

  of minors
  for minors
  for minors
  

  
  
  Do not care.
• Hiccup wrote on 2010-04-28 20:46
  E) "Torture" includes mental as well as physical abuse of the victim. In either case, the virtual victim must be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted; and the player must specifically intend to virtually inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering upon the victim, apart from killing the victim.
  
  ^pokemon
• Magenera wrote on 2010-04-28 21:33
  I'm confuse? Are we talking about a real person or a virtual person cause a virtual person has no awareness.@_@ On that note, glad to know that when AI's become self aware, California will be the first to accept them.:thumb:
• Chiri wrote on 2010-04-28 22:03

  Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon images of human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics

  
  
  Not for pokemon, unless it's Jinx or something that looks more human.
  
  I guess this makes all zombie games violent.
• Laconicus wrote on 2010-04-28 22:11
  This is completely flawed. Notice how it only says things about humans or human-like things? If there was a game where you raped animals it wouldn't be banned by these rules. (sorry for the graphic image, just trying to make a point)
• Chockeh wrote on 2010-04-28 22:11

  Quote from Chiri;21688:

  Not for pokemon, unless it's Jinx or something that looks more human.
  
  I guess this makes all zombie games violent.

  
  What about Zombies vs. Plants?
• MrShandavio wrote on 2010-04-28 23:07

  Quote from Chocklitshop;21694:

  What about Zombies vs. Plants?

  
  
  I lol'd for some reason
• Everwanderer wrote on 2010-04-28 23:18
  Yay for Virtual characters having rights!
  So think about it next time you slay any mob in mabinogi, you could get arrested 8D
  [/Sarcasm]
  
  No offense guys, but this is just... gah.
• Chockeh wrote on 2010-04-28 23:29

  Quote from Everwanderer;21780:

  Yay for Virtual characters having rights!
  So think about it next time you slay any mob in mabinogi, you could get arrested 8D
  [/Sarcasm]
  
  No offense guys, but this is just... gah.

  
  I don't think the point of this is to kill people with virtual characters ._., I think it's something for parents to debate over.
• Chiri wrote on 2010-04-29 00:39
  They want to say that games that show people murdering or raping each other are violent.
  
  I don't think this is a problem.
  They aren't giving virtual character rights; they aren't even outlawing violent games.
  
  They just wanna say, If you're 10 y/o, you can't buy rape games.
• Axx wrote on 2010-04-29 01:57

  Quote from Chiri;21899:

  They want to say that games that show people murdering or raping each other are violent.
  
  They just wanna say, If you're 10 y/o, you can't buy rape games.

  
  
  Why is this even an issue, though? Who lets their 10 y/o go out by themselves and buy whatever they want in the first place?
• Moppy wrote on 2010-04-29 01:58
  I head this earlier today.
  
  I can understand and facepalm from this.
• Everwanderer wrote on 2010-04-29 02:10

  Quote from Chocklitshop;21796:

  I don't think the point of this is to kill people with virtual characters ._., I think it's something for parents to debate over.

  
  
  

  Quote from Chiri;21899:

  They want to say that games that show people murdering or raping each other are violent.
  
  I don't think this is a problem.
  They aren't giving virtual character rights; they aren't even outlawing violent games.
  
  They just wanna say, If you're 10 y/o, you can't buy rape games.

  
  
  Must have missread then, my apologies.
  I'm still overly sensitive after all the drama in Japan related to virtual, non-existant characters, so I must have somehow related this to that, Sorry D;