California video game law infographic (, 2010)

Via Sankaku Complex (NSFW), an infographic from provided face-value valuable information for people who are overly concerned about minors’ mental health. It looks nice until you spot the faults.

So let’s criticize!

Point 1 (What is it?) and 2 (who is supporting California?) looks okay, although political pundits would a lot to say about those states. Point 3 lacks some history, just two points in time doesn’t cut it, like where’s Half-Life or Halo?

Point 4 is based on old data, perhaps bordering on obsolete since it’s from 2003. To add injury, that bit about 49% of the 70 top-selling video games contain serious violence, I can’t google the original source. What I could find was that a 2004 National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center report referred this fact from a 2001 review with no citations at all. That 2004 report is long gone and ungooglable. This was repeated ad nauseum among several google results. I’m throwing the towel on this bit due to the time limit I have before going to “mon job à l’aeroport”. The 800 hours of violent footage is kind of misleading because even a JRPG doesn’t last that long, so I’m wondering how those hours are counted. No, I didn’t googled that info because of the previous bit.

Point 5 should’ve been my forte, but the summer season has dulled my senses. “Gamers spending 30% less reading time” is a not what it looks like. I remember that study and it was widely reported (gamepolitics article) around and was criticized by an Ars Technica article. It’s actually 30% of 8 minutes. The academic article in question is “Relation of Adolescent Video Game Play to Time Spent in Other Activities” from Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. When it comes to the brain and physiological stuff: I don’t know.

So it looks pretty, but the information is very useful for the overly concerned adults, but not so much for reasonable people.


3 thoughts on “California video game law infographic (, 2010)

  1. I ran across this last week and looked into it and it looks like a lot of this was taken straight from a amicus curiae brief written by Lealand Yee — one of the people behind the bill in the first place. For example the statement “the most atrocious content is often reserved for the highest levels and can be accessed only by advanced players after hours upon hours of progressive mastery” is taken directly from Yee’s brief as can be found at ars

    I posted a comment about this on their website but they never approved it. Looking at the “recent comments” section on their site it looks like they haven’t approved any comments since June though so either they aren’t getting any comments but mine or they gave up approving comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s