The comments being bantered about in relation to Hillary Clinton's latest attempt at video game censorship have me thinking. Does gaming really need to pump out gratuitous violence the way it does? And why are most of the people who protest these laws under 17? The reason is that some of these companies - Rockstar in particular - actively market M-rated games to minors. San Andreas ads littered daytime television, including shows like "Hi Hi! Puffy AmiYumi!" even after the Hot Coffee scandal reached its peak. Not only that, but the increase in crappy games that depend on their M rating has risen. For every masterpiece like Resident Evil, Conker's Bad Fur Day or God of War, there seem to be ten crappy games that rely solely on violence, such as NARC (the new one, not the classic), 50 Cent: Bulletproof, Without Warning, True Crime: NYC and Crime Life. Many have complained that the regulation being proposed would compel companies to tone down their content. Would that be so bad? Would it be a bad thing to ensure that only games with the right story, the right gameplay and the right graphics get the M rating, as opposed to the glut of garbage we've seen of late? Not that I advocate censorship. Nothing revolts me more than the State trying to tell people that it knows better. However, the gaming industry has slipped into a downward spiral of senseless, gratuitous violence with little merit story wise. Is that what we want from our videogames? Do we want this glut of mainstream trash that offers nothing but the ability to main and murder? Personally, I could live very easily if Resident Evil, Metal Gear, Half-Life and that calibur of game were the only ones that could survive an M rating. A rebirth of T and E rated games would result in more creative games, and I wouldn't totally mind that.