There's an upcoming Supreme Court ruling to happen in the United States regarding a concept tossed around for a while now: should videogames have regulated sales based on age? A little background for our readers outside the nation: the US Supreme Court is the end of the line in our judicial system, and it can determine the legality of laws based on our Constitution, which is the document that governs the basic ideology of law in the country.

In regards to this particular case: in the USA, the ESRB ratings system for videogames are not legally enforceable, nor do they hold any say over whether or not content can be censored. This means that it is purely voluntary whether or not a store sells a game like "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" or "Duke Nukem Forever" (both rated "M," which stands for "mature") to those under the age the ESRB specifies. In the case of these two games, 17 years of age. Many stores already prohibit sales of "M" or "Ao" rated games to minors ("Ao" is Adult Only; 18+), but it is not required by USA law. This is in contrast to places like Australia, where videogames are not only regulated in sales. but both censored and sometimes barred from sale based on their legally enforceable ACB rating system (no game above MA15+ can be legally sold, and content must be highly censored to even be considered for revision).

The question comes into play: should sales be restricted to people 17 or 18 when it comes to purchasing "M" or "Ao" games? Should it be required for parents to be present for a person under 17 or 18 to purchase "M" or "Ao" games? This is not a new practice in the world of media in the USA by any means. The MPAA rating system for movies requires any "R" (restricted) or "NC-17" (nobody under 17) movies to be viewed by or sold to people 17 or older only, unless accompanied by adult. Music is under similar regulation; any album with a "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" sticker must be sold only to people 17 or older, unless accompanied by an adult. Both the MPAA and Parental Advisory ratings are legally enforceable. The only unrated forms of media in the USA at this point in time are books and print media, and the internet.

At this point in the USA, the Supreme Court is currently trying to make a decision: should the ESRB ratings be legally enforceable? This would not add any new requirements for censorship like they have in Australia; it would simply take the existing system and make it legally enforceable. Stores that sell games would be required by law to not sell "M" or "Ao" rated games to minors, and parents would have to be present for them to do so.

I have to admit that there are many points surrounding this issue. Let me start by saying I am in full support of legal enforcement of ESRB ratings. My reasons are due to parental monitoring issues, a child's capacity for blurring fantasy and reality, and the fact that there is so much mindless violence in many modern games, which ties back into the fantasy versus reality issue.

First off, parental responsibility, or lack thereof. Many parents in today's world just don't have a vested interest in what their children do with their lives, and therefore the child is free to do whatever they wish without the crucial guidance of a parental figure. If a parent is unable to see what their child is doing at a young, non-matured age, the child may not be able to discern fantasy from reality.

This goes right into my next point. Psychological research has shown that children are not born with the capacity to distinguish fantasy from reality; it has to be taught and conditioned by external forces. Parents can do this, and so can media. Videogames are media first and foremost. Media is a form of expression that can be used to entertain or inform; its status as art is debatable and at best secondary. Children who have no former base of understanding fantasy versus reality may mistake videogames (which are entertainment) for information. This is devastating to the healthy mental development of a young child, because they may try to mimic or imitate what they see in a game or other media. Recent research has shown that children without this essential distinction between fantasy and reality will mimic videogames at a much higher percentage than other media such as television, movies, music, or books.

Finally, there's the content itself. While I feel that it's wrong to censor, I can say with certainty that if I had children, I would not let them near 90 percent of the horrid, atrocious stuff in current videogaming unless they first showed a healthy development of the capacity to discern fantasy from reality, and a high level of maturity to go along with it. With all the hype that franchises like "Duke Nukem," "Grand Theft Auto," "HALO," "Left 4 Dead," and other popular games with recent releases have gotten, I have seen that many of them have very little going for them in the way of anything besides killing everything in sight, black-and-white solutions, and playing up stereotypes that are very unrealistic.

Now, don't get me wrong: these games are fine to play if a person has the capacity to differentiate from fantasy and reality. As I've mentioned, children do not have this wired into them instinctively, and many parents do not have a vested interest in their child's day-to-day activity. This is an explosive combination that could prove very problematic. A child may try to mimic what they see in the game, and even if they don't, they may develop an apathetic attitude towards humanity; becoming unsympathetic and uncaring about humanity in general

For these reasons, I am not in support of censorship of these games, but I do support legally enforceable ratings. I feel that parents should be held more accountable for what their children are doing, and what better way for this than to be forced to come along with their child when they tell mommy or daddy that they want the copy of "Prey," "HALO 3," "Left 4 Dead 2," etcetera? Parents would be educated, and if they let the child purchase the game, they can help the child learn how to distinguish fantasy versus reality using the game as a teaching tool.

After all, without guidance, a child has no way of knowing whether The Duke punching out an alien is considered acceptable playground conduct or not.

One reason: PlayStation Vita.

This handheld is amazing. It can connect to your television in HD, the software and games are solid-state flash memory as opposed to optical, it can connect to PlayStation Network, it has new social networking capacity through PlayStation Network, and it can connect to the internet in two ways: via Wi-Fi, or via 3G networking (although in the USA, they chose AT&T as a 3G service provider; a bad choice in my opinion).

The PlayStation Vita also has some wonderful tilt and touch technology that reminds me of products I consider atrocious, but that have some good ideas behind them (Apple's iPad and iPhone, specifically). Of course, with all the other good things I listed above, this handheld finally puts this tilt and touch technology to good use, in my opinion.

Also, as far as price is concerned: $249.99 for the "Wi-Fi Only" model, and $299.99 for the "Wi-Fi + 3G" model (in the USA)! This price ties Nintendo, people! That is history in the making, to be sure; Nintendo has been known for low prices throughout their history in videogames.

SONY wins this time; that's just the way it is. It trumped Microsoft's conference (all they did was plug Kinect), and due to PlayStation Vita's pros juxtaposed with Wii U's cons, it completely trounced Nintendo. I've never really cared about handheld gaming devices before this. I may actually want to invest in a PlayStation Vita.

I don't understand how Wii U is supposed to be impressive at all. Sure, it's technologically-advanced, and has a controller the likes of which has never been seen before (at least in the way the Wii U controller is presented). However, everything about this system is complex, cost-prohibitive, and shows Nintendo's current lack of insight into the world of hardware.

Let me list my concerns and issues, and then address each one thoroughly:

-Unable to connect more than one Wii U remote to the console
-No central online environment
-Cost of Wii U remote
-Technology that should be reserved for handheld consoles used on a home console
-No big first-party Nintendo titles announced yet
-No Gamecube support
-Worst name imaginable chosen for the new console

First of all, one remote per system. That's one remote, and no more. Sure, you can connect WiiMotes, but why even bother with new remotes if this is the case? What about local multiplayer with the new remotes? Online only, I guess; never mind that there's no centralized online environment provided by Nintendo themselves.

That brings us to the online environment. Everything is going online lately, including the purchase of whole games or upgrades and patches. With no centralized online environment, how will anything be easy to access or workable? Is Nintendo living in the Stone Age or something?

The cost of the Wii U remote is also likely to be prohibitive. I'm no expert, but I'd guess $150 for a controller so fancy. Who's going to buy that? Certainly not me.

Next, the idea that the Wii U remote is a mobile gaming concept turned into a home concept; it's mobile while not being mobile at all. You can't take the remote anywhere outside of the home and expect to play games; it's tied to your home console. How is this a good idea? People will argue that the SEGA Dreamcast had a similar concept with their memory cards, and that the GameBoy Advance/Gamecube link cable was a forerunner to this. However, while they were handy, they were not required to play all the games for their respective consoles. This Wii U remote is integrated with the console itself, and is required to run the games and the console. How ridiculous. Their whole sales pitch about getting to play while someone else watches television is moronic; that's not a selling point. Life requires planning, and I don't feel that television watching conflicts with gaming enough to where it would be a good marketing point.

The lack of first-party games is the final nail in the coffin. As far as I can tell, with Nintendo's new hardware, the only reason to even bother purchasing the system is due to Nintendo's tried-and-true first-party titles. While the 3DS has a few coming out, where are the ideas for the Wii U?

This brings us into the lack of backwards compatibility for Gamecube discs. How will we play old Gamecube games? Since there is no centralized online environment, downloading them seems unlikely, especially since the system still has a very small hard drive in comparison to other current consoles.

Finally, the name. "Wii U?" Not only is it unoriginal, but it makes absolutely no sense. At least the names "PlayStation," "PlayStation 2," and "PlayStation 3"--while unoriginal--make a lot of sense; they are listed in numerical order. "Wii U" makes no sense at all. Honestly, it sounds like they are trying to use text speak to say this new console is all yours. "Wii U. This Wii's 4 U." I hate that sort of thing.

All in all, this concept is atrocious, and I've lost a great deal of respect I once held for Nintendo. Many credit Nintendo with saving the dying videogame industry back in the 1980s, and they also credit Nintendo with great marketing, great games, powerful and innovative hardware, and a wonderful team of employees. While Nintendo is still making great games, they have shown me that they understand little about innovation and power in hardware in today's world.