Yahoo's Summary on the Candidate's Stand on Videogames

Super Tuesday is upon us and Ben Silverman of Yahoo! Games wrote up a summary on how the top three candidates from both parties stand on video game legislation. Yeah, wars and immigration and stuff are certainly important, but who wants to take away your Pokemons? But then again this is also about how the frontrunners intend to deal with the intertwining topics of violent media and free speech. Democrats Hillary Clinton Despite her good intentions, Hillary's scary track record might be enough to dissuade gamers from putting another Clinton in office.

Barack Obama Obama is more skeptical of how violent games affect behavior than his rivals, and in turn seems less inclined to legislate right off the bat. That should ring true with gamers.

John Edwards
 Edwards is the only candidate willing to outright commend the ESRB's actions, and while he tempers that with a warning, he puts more trust in the industry than anyone else. If you favor the ESRB, you likely favor Edwards.

Republicans John McCain
 Compared to his more conservative opponents, McCain is a viable option for Republican gamers, although his ties to Lieberman are worth noting.

Mitt Romney
 Obscenity laws? Societal cesspools? Unless you're wracked with gamer guilt, Romney is one hard sell.

Mike Huckabee
 He's no Mitt Romney. That's gotta count for something.

Yes, yes, Ron Paul is missing, despite him being the ONLY candidate we can depend on to NOT regulate the Internet and guarantee our First Amendment Rights...

(via gamepolitics)

-Jens

What if the Primary Candidates were Consoles?

Gigaom posted witty a piece comparing the Primary Candidates of the Democrats to game consoles:

Barack Obama is the Nintendo Wii: The multi-racial candidate who was first dismissed by Washington insiders for not having enough power or third-party backers — but has gone on to draw immense popularity, not just from hardcore party faithful, but from the young and old, independents and Republicans alike. Instantly appealing like the Wii, Obama is popular not because of his library of policies, but because he is changing the way the game is played.

Hillary Clinton is the Microsoft Xbox 360: Backed by the most money, seen as a reliable and established brand, Hillary appeals most to the Democratic base, much the same way the 360 is most popular with hardcore gamers. Transitioning from her husband’s Xbox era, she offers not revolutionary change but steady, reliable content.

John Edwards is the Playstation 3: Formerly the Democratic frontrunner of the previous generation, Edwards now offers a greatly enhanced library of positions with far more ideological power — which few except Edwards’ die-hard fanboys seem to be buying. Unsurprisingly, the candidates are now polling about the same as their next-gen analogs are currently selling, with the Wii capturing 44 percent of the vote, the 360 pulling in 36 percent, and the PS3 trailing far behind with 20 percent.

Of course one might want to add some qualifications here and there, e.g. the public eventually realising that only changing the way the game is played might not be enough – just like Wii might face a difficult 2008 once everybody has one and the content comes to the foreground. Nevertheless: Both cases, Wii and Obama, show the public's tremendous desire for change from the status quo. Also Hillary 360 Clinton is actually more revolutionary than her Wii counterpart on a couple of issues, especially socialised medicine. Still funny and though provoking stuff though.

PS
One commentator of the piece linked Ron Paul to old school Nintendo games. I'd rather like to think of him as early 80s Atari: old school and half visionary, half crazy.

-Jens