An 8-year old wants Gears of War 2
- Thread starter Bob_F_It
- Start date
Did I say I was the "Better parent"? Did I mention ANYWHERE in my post about what *I* would do if I was a parent? Did I say that ALL PARENTS are terrible?JimmyBassatti said:Go have kids. Show me your a better parent,and I'll ride the "parents are terrible" train with you. Have kids and prove your not a better parent, and I evicte you from your Ivory tower and deem you the "I'm an asshole" sign.masterblaze0 said:I'm 15 myself, and I personally have no problem with violent/profane/sexual games. I fully am aware of the consequences of having unprotected sex, or violently assaulting someone.
I think there is an age limit of sorts, but it's a kind of limit that is elastic and based on the morals/understanding of the children
I concur. Parents are becoming more apathetic these days. Very few try to reprimand their children, perhaps because most of them are under the false misconception that punishment involves physically hurting your child. It can be something as simple as setting a curfew instead.homoagogo said:I work with kids from ages 5-12, all of them experiencing different stages of emotional, mental, and social development. I have noticed a trend among the kids that play violent video games- They play violently with other children as well, with very little forethought for their own safety (which is common for crazy, crazy children)or the safety of others (which is where I have a problem). I can only assume that the parents of the kids involved are either apathetic towards the material their child is exposed to or are trying to encourage an intellectual understanding of fiction that their kids are NOT mentally or emotionally prepared for. I often hear the excuse of "I thought I could do it because I saw (character's name) do it," or "It didn't look like it hurt on the tv/xbox/whatever." The parents may have the best of intentions for their children, but the ability of the children to analyze these ideas and images is often overlooked completely. I don't want to sound like Mrs. Lovejoy from the simpsons (Won't somebody think of the children?!) but the parents sure as hell aren't doing very well in my town.
I honestly think it's a combination of the media hyping and exploitation, the parents apathy, and the childrens general lack of education that causes things like this to happen.
No. I did not.
I merely stated my viewpoint on this thread, and kept it relevant to the topic.
^Read this once more. Take a good long look at it.masterblaze0 said:
I said it was a COMBINATION of the three, but I went in-depth about the parents, seeing as that is the main focus of the topic. An 8 year old kid wanting GoW2.
You can put on your "I'm an asshole" sign now.
Just mute 'em. If there are too many, leave the server/room and try another one.UJUSTGOTWACKED said:
If anything need's to be ruduced it is def not the games them self, nor does the ages level need to be increase that wont work, and you cant lower there advertising, i think you just need to nougthing. If the kid wants the games and parent saids yes it another noob for me to own
I think I was...fourteen or fifteen when I bought my first M rated game. It was Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes. That game is pretty mild by M standards. And I had to go through all kinds of crap before my parents would let me rent it.
That kid does not need to play Gears. End of discussion. He should play Mario Galaxy or No More Heroes. Y'know, work his way up to the tactical shooters.
That kid does not need to play Gears. End of discussion. He should play Mario Galaxy or No More Heroes. Y'know, work his way up to the tactical shooters.
Halo is plenty violent. While you focus your attention on aliens and pretty much forget about the marines, it's violent. Ditto Goldeneye, even if it is a N64. Gears of War is as well, it just does so with some nice physics and corpse effects and harsh language of Gears of War. I really wouldn't recommend an eight year old to be playing any of them without proper supervision. I started playing Goldeneye with my dad, and pretty much always ended up playing with him or my uncle with me.Frizzle said:
ugh such a touchy subject. Im far from some anti-video game violence conservative, but really something like gears is so far fetched almost boredline fantasy violence that i really don't see the harm. as long as he understands thats it's ONLY A GAME. And if he thinks it's real enough to affect the way he lives his life or acts around other people then he's an idiot..then again he's only 8. I dunno. Depends on the kid i suppose. Buy him a baseball mit instead and tell him to go outside and play.
Let's try Descartes' posture for a second: why is it even necessary to censor games at all? As I said before, Shakespeare's plays were considered reprehensible for their violence and sexual content in their time, and now we teach them to high school kids. Ditto Goya's paintings - cultural standards are always changing. Find me proof violent games impact children negatively in any way and I'll flag; I'm glad mothers are buying their eight year-olds Gears of War, and I hope they pick up No More Heroes and some hentai game while they're at it.
As it stands, to say parents are "irresponsible" for buying their kids violent video games merely appeases the notion games could cause legitimate social damage if they were 'let free', which, insofar as every study performed has shown it, simply isn't true.
As it stands, to say parents are "irresponsible" for buying their kids violent video games merely appeases the notion games could cause legitimate social damage if they were 'let free', which, insofar as every study performed has shown it, simply isn't true.
The purpose of the ESRB is to provide ratings that are supposed to either appeal and/or provide information as to the content of the game, the exact same as the Motion Picture Ratings for movies. However, the two groups have the same flaws in that they try to put all types of content into a mere four or five categories, and the fact that if people don't care, they will see a movie/play a game regardless. I think its a good thing that they exist, however, several people don't bother to take them seriously or even notice, thus making their existence seem meaningless. I can't imagine Tetris being equated with Silent Hill 2 in any way other than being a videogame. I wouldn't let an 8-year old play something with a monstrous executioner raping zombie nurses. I mean, it was politicians and parents who demanded a ratings board so that they could monitor what type of content was in the games their children played, but apparently, it goes under the radar for many nowaday parents.EzraPound said:
On a different note, I don't think its exactly correct to say that NOBODY gets ANY negative reactions from playing a violent game. What may not affect or bother you or me at age 12 may, in fact, deeply disturb or mentally scar someone else at age 12. This is because of the simple fact that everyone is different, and I believe determining what my child should play would depend on their mental stability, maturity, and how much they know about the difference from reality and fantasy. And, yes, whether or not the game looks interesting.
As for the Shakespeare thing, I think its because most high schools are aware that by age 16, the students are quite likely to know enough about violent and sexual encounters that they can handle Shakespeare's now-considered-to-be-not-that-bad works of famous literature. I also think its because we READ the plays, rather than watch them in English class, and the violence is written in basic descriptions inbetween lines. But again, everyone is different.
I do not appreciate censorship as well, but the ESRB is not censorship, its looking at what happens in a game and then slapping a label on the bottom-left corner saying what goes on in it. Game makers take note of the existence of the ESRB, and may make a game with a target age rating in order to maximize appeal.EzraPound said:
I'm sorry, but I must ask if you are being sarcastic when you say that you hope parents pick up No More Heroes and porn for their 8-year olds. I'm a poor judge of sarcasm over the net. Because the idea that you can just give ANY material to ANY person of ANY age and just say,"Nothing's going to happen ever." is a foolish idea, if you ask me. Because everyone is different.
I don't think that parents who buy M-rated games for their children are irresponsible. If they follow those three metrics of maturity, stability, and knowledge of fantasy/reality, then I think they've made good judgment. I do, on the other hand, think that a parent who buys an M-rated game for their child who is whining for it, and dismisses all videogames as childrens' playthings, and never considers the fact that the ESRB was established to help parents make informed decisions over which games to buy, then goes on to blindly follow the bad publicity on so-called connections between teen violence and videogames and starts ragging on them out of ignorance IS an irresponsible parent.
But no, if games were "set free", I don't think much would change, because I think people have already reacted in ways that I think they will now always react to videogames, so if the ESRB were dismantled and there were no more E, E10+, T, M, or AO, I don't think many would notice. Only the ones who were responsible in the first place and tried to make informed decisions.
Sorry for the long post, I just had a lot to reply to for EzraPound.
Because Jack Thompson complains about ANYBODY playing a mature game. Regardless of their age. There was one Letter-of-the-Month in EGM a few years ago saying that the writer and a few others prepared a modest care package for Jack Thompson along with a letter stating that they were sorry that so many gamers reacted so horribly violent towards him, and that although they completely disagree with his arguments, they wanted to show that not all gamers are murdering psychopaths. They received a response from Thompson berating them for patronizing him with a care package, and that he didn't even bother to read their whole letter, and proceeded to call them terrorists.IndieRocker said:
According to Jack Thompson, anyone who plays any videogame is a terrorist. According to soccer moms, any child who plays M-rated games will be some sort of miscreant. The difference is there.
If the parent acknowledges that the kid has a great enough grasp on reality to be able to distinguish violence in-game and violence in reality, then let him have it (given he deserves it, which is an entirely different matter).