Mortal Kombat


  • Balaska - June 27, 2011 6:26 p.m.

    Mockraven has it spot on, as an adult, if I choose to play violent games, I will. Will I buy an 18 rated game for my 14 year old Nephew? Hell no I won't. What staggers me is this ended up in spreme court, surely someone had to stop and say it is down to parents, it is their responsibility? Even in a moment of triumph of common sense, I am still dumbfounded by the idiocy of the human race.
  • Baron164 - June 27, 2011 5:57 p.m.

    Wahoo First Amendment FTW! At the very least this should help prevent other ridiculous laws from being passed now that there is precedent saying they are unconstitutional.
  • mockraven - June 27, 2011 5:54 p.m.

    This is pretty awesome news. I'm sure there'll still be crap flying about how awful games are for today's society/youth/future/[insert noble cause] but it's good to see that the first amendment is still being upheld, at least mostly. Games can tell fantastic stories and create amazing, memorable experiences and this is because of the freedom to express ideas. As for upset parents who think that the game industry is out to violate and corrupt their children, maybe they should take a more active role in their children's video games and at least read the ESRB/PEGI ratings which are printed "in large, friendly letters on the cover," to quote the good book. Those things generally tell you what to expect and give a recommended age. This may be a bad example, but it's kind of like buying milk without checking the expiration date. It helps to know what you're buying before you feed it to your kids. Of course, I doubt *those* parents visit this website. ;p
  • therawski - June 27, 2011 5:49 p.m.

    We took the power back!
  • bron1417 - June 27, 2011 5:40 p.m.

    *in Craig Furguson voice* take that California!
  • Spybreak8 - June 29, 2011 3:20 a.m.

    Won the battle, the war is still undecided. Still this is great news.
  • w1n5t0n - June 28, 2011 9:56 p.m.

    "the measure only would have prevented an unaccompanied minor child from buying or renting the product" That's retarded, every place I've ever bought a game at ID's anyone buying an M game. I'm 18 and a Gamestop employee refused to sell me a game when I forgot my ID and told me he could get fired if I was younger than 17...
  • BlackElement17 - June 28, 2011 8 a.m.

    Chalk up another win for murder simulators.
  • Zeb364 - June 28, 2011 7:05 a.m.

    "Rather, the measure only would have prevented an unaccompanied minor child from buying or renting the product…" Oh, you mean how the ESRB has already made it impossible for a minor to purchase or rent any M Rated game from any reatiler in North America? What a fucking tool. I'm happy we won and am glad that this will probably shut them up for a bit but am disgusted by the fact that not only do I know they won't stop here but that they've essentially stated that fact.
  • taterboob - June 28, 2011 3:48 a.m.

    In the words of a wise man: "YES! THIS IS DELICIOUS!"
  • ObliqueZombie - June 28, 2011 3:15 a.m.

    While I agree that no violent games should be restricted within their own design, I DO agree that children should be stripped from them. I mean, the argument was more about the CHILDREN not being able to purchase or play them, but there's no way to even stop that entirely. However, I wouldn't mind the 12-year-olds off my XBL sessions. But hey, that's just bad parenting, and you can't make a law against that.
  • BladedFalcon - June 28, 2011 1:30 a.m.

    Only two words to say about this: FUCKING FINALLY
  • majormoses117 - June 28, 2011 1:01 a.m.

    Some people are so stupid. The ruling doesn't mean that a 10 year old can walk into a Gamestop and buy GTA. You still have to be 17. People who don't know anything about videogames think that its so easy for kids to get an M rated videogame. Employees have to card anyone who even looks like they may be around the age of 17. Its still illegal for anyone under 17 to buy an M game.
  • Evilsafetyboy - June 27, 2011 10 p.m.

    As a gaming parent, my kids already know what they can and cannot play. True, I have played LFD1 and 2 and Borderlands with my 10 year old daughter, but she knows it's just a game and I am there to guide her. All I really have to do is protect them from crappy games and inticing box-art: "No! Drop that Sonic game and pick-up Portal 2 honey!"
  • Gahmah - June 27, 2011 9:22 p.m.

    7-2! Wow! That's cool as hell.
  • ThatGuyFromTV - June 27, 2011 9:08 p.m.

    @anjaneya Kids in this country already arent technically allowed to buy them, but it's enforced by the ESRB and the game retailers outside of the federal government. If we lost this case, the government would step in and effectively "censor" mature games from minors, showing that the U.S. government does not treat video games as a form of artistic expression. The only time when the First Amendment doesn't apply is when the expression creates a "clear and present danger", and since video games don't do that according to the supreme court, they are protected under the First Amendment.
  • shadowreaper72 - June 27, 2011 9:06 p.m.

    Well, Im glad thats out of the way. Now back to gaming XD
  • sharkweek - June 27, 2011 8:08 p.m.

    Finally. Now we can put the subject to the rest.
  • KippDynamite - June 27, 2011 7:30 p.m.

    Great, more children to yell at me online, then. ;)
  • LoganDeckard - June 27, 2011 7:27 p.m.

    Well, we finally won. Now all we need is for all head members of the PTC to "mysteriously disappear" while visiting the North Korea.

Showing 21-40 of 50 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.