Tendo City

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/15/mother...to-britis/

So apparently some idiot woman wants a new law in England requiring all games to be tested for photoseizure effects.

How the heck are they going to test for that on a mass produced basis? They'd have to hire a ready and willing team of people to give themselves seizures repeatedly while playing games. While I can see smaller samples of people doing that for a limited time, as in a medical test, I can't see a sustained massive industry for it. And then what? We don't get games until the test is done? Forget that! If you know you or your kids are photosensitive, the burden is on you to stop exposing yourself to that threat. It's not just video games after all! If she (or more accurately her kid) was in a public space or even a restaurant with flashing lights that gave a seizure, there'd be every reason to set up requirements to tone down the special effects in a public space like that. I'd support that to a limited extent, but NOT this.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, the DS in both England and America is identical (PAL and NTSC not mattering with portable displays), and so she (or her kid) should see the same ANNOYING warning I do EVERY TIME I TURN ON THE SYSTEM. That's ignoring that the warning is not just there, but also on all recent GBA games, in the instruction booklets on the first page, in a seperate document dedicated entirely TO that safety warning, and printed on the box itself. Even if they DID do these tests, the warnings aren't going to get any more direct than that. If she isn't going to bother actually READING them, what good will sticking yet another one on there do?

Don't get me wrong. Photosensitive epilepsy is surely just as much of a tragedy as any other form of epilepsy. Heck as recently as the 1980's epileptic seizures were treated like they were contageous by a lot of people and those with it were shunned (if a "very special" sitcom episode I saw is any indication of reality, and of COURSE they are, like how Perfect Strangers taught me what life as "a foreigner" is like for ALL foreigners). So I understand that living such a life and bearing the burdens in taking care of someone with such a condition can be tragic. I also acknowledge that depending on the number of those afflicted society does bear a responsibility in enabling these people to live their lives with minimal threat.

However, this is no reason to so restrict the development of entertainment that it hampers everyone else to this extent. Further, there is no reason why these flashing lights should necessarily hinder this kid's life. So he can't play video games, that's always been the case. All the kid need do is not play those games. This is not going to hinder his life. It's not like someone unable to climb the stairs to go into a restaurant. People need to eat. They don't need to play video games. Again, I'd support the woman if she was encountering flashing lights in lobbies of restaurants and those were causing the seizures. There is no expectation of such a scenario for a photoepileptic when entering a store so it would endanger them, and further it is an effectively public space (not legally but in practical application). I can't support this though. It's unreasonable. Further, I wouldn't support such restrictions to online web sites either. There's not only an expectation of such things but an easily available solution for the kid (surfing the net in a browser or browser mode that disables all scripting, visual plugins, and images, and all of those options are available in Internet Explorer alone).

Basically what I'm saying is it's hard to unilaterally legislate disability protection. It has to be considered on a case by case basis, and in this case I really can't justify this sort of grand wide sweeping change. It's ridiculous. I certainly hope their parliment agrees and they don't get it in their heads that this is a "photo op" style chance to look like they are "caring".

And further, it really limits the ability of the "little guy" trying to just publish a small game for free online. Suddenly they can be found liable for not checking the game for epileptic scenes.

As a side note, I remember when people had the good willed but in the end intellectually dishonest tactic of renaming the disabled "disABLED". Sure the idea was to say they have capabilities, but they can't lie and act like the "dis" part of the word doesn't even exist by (literally) minimizing that. That is what more or less defines their medical condition. Blind people are blind, and no amount of calling them "the abled" accurately reflects that. What they need are things like musical street lights, not good feelings.

Don't most games have a warning???
I distinctly remember have to click off a warning of a bunch of SNES games.

Furthermore they shouldn't be banned. They should elect a independent panel to review the games and provide appropriate content labels on the BOX, similar to the ESRB.

The REAL reasoning behind this, is that she doesn't want to do any of the work in selecting a game for her child, shes just fucking lazy and uninvolved. She got a fucking sandy vagina and now everyone else needs to suffer for it.

One problem is that different people react to different things. There isn't just one standard that all people who get seizures from video will all react to... demands like that one would be hard to meet.

I'm not opposed to at least trying to meet them, though. People getting seizures obviously isn't a good thing. Putting in a warning isn't the same as removing the problem in the first place...

etoven Wrote:Don't most games have a warning???
I distinctly remember have to click off a warning of a bunch of SNES games.

I'm afraid you don't actually remember that. SNES games never had such a warning in the game itself. You must be thinking of later GBA and Gamecube games.

A Black Falcon Wrote:One problem is that different people react to different things. There isn't just one standard that all people who get seizures from video will all react to... demands like that one would be hard to meet.

I'm not opposed to at least trying to meet them, though. People getting seizures obviously isn't a good thing. Putting in a warning isn't the same as removing the problem in the first place...

The first paragraph you stated is exactly the reason I'm opposed (I think?) to the second paragraph.

Games are optional and people bring them into their own homes. As such there's no reason to go through with anything more than a warning, and really, what would the world be like without psychadelic visual light shows? You might as well strip a rainbow of it's color!

You know that's what Korea is like right? The entire place is in black and white! Grayer and greyer and greier! It's enough to make you want to slit your wrists just to see color!

Are you a terrorist!?

I am with you on removing the source though. That source is the subject's brain. MANDATORY NEURAL RESEQUENCING! Okay maybe not mandatory... Stupid ethics board... HOUSE wouldn't have to deal with this... House gets away with everything...

In all seriousness, they already are taking out CERTAIN sources of light patterns (the infamous "Pokemon cartoon" style) from games these days, including emulated releases of older games and rereleases of older shows. However, as you have stated, different brain physiology is susceptible to some alternate forms of light stimulation. I'm not going to hyperbolize and suggest that the variations "could be anything" because I'm not someone from Fox News. However, they certainly have a wide enough variation that it takes away a lot of options if we were to even just eliminate all known sorts of stimulation. I'm also not going to say something stupid like "because we can't help all of them, we shouldn't help any of them". Certainly helping as many as possible is still a good idea. However, my main objection is that there is no logical reason that this restriction should be required because of this danger.

Why? Think about it. The reason we put guard rails in a building is because people have to work there, so it might as well be made safe. The reason we install ramps is because handicapped people have to eat, so they might as well be enabled to do so. It's the easiest solution to the problem, hurting the smallest number to help the most. Now what's the easiest solution that requires the least amount of effort for this? Well, that would be NOT PLAYING GAMES THESE GAMES. They are optional. No one needs this sort of thing. I'm fine with the epileptic warning. In fact I think the warning shouldn't be limited just to video games. I think a small pamphlet should also be included with movies, and a warning shown before anything else starts playing in a theater. Heck dump an extra warning with sales of computers and PC games in general, perhaps even a warning page displayed when someone installs a web browser. Also, where reasonable, certain restrictions on flashing lights in public spaces might be called for. There is a limitation to that but you get the idea.

BUT, no laws requiring the outright banning of such video displaying should ever be enacted. For the majority of people, it's perfectly safe, and such mediums are optional in nature. It's far less efficient to force everyone else to adapt to this (and far more costly) than to simply require people with the disorder (and their parents) to bear the burden of watching out. So long as they are made aware of the obvious, this should not be a problem.

yeah but those kids dont actually matter, more 3 minute cut scenes with strobe lights plz