In this case, the kid is technically old enough to play the game- the game is rated MA15+ and the kid is 16. He bought the game with his own money and it's not his parents' place to take it off him because they don't approve. The game possibly should have been rated R18+, it only got away with a 15+ rating because we don't HAVE an 18+ rating, but by the age of 16 you should be able to make your own decisions. I think we baby our teenagers for a bit too long.
However, on the broader topic of "should any parent attempt to control what games their kids play at all", I think they should. If the kid was a few years younger (12 or 13) then his father would be perfectly in the right to take the game off him. Get this- as much as we like to argue that violent games don't make people violent,
violent games are still not meant for kids. Hell, one of the Rockstar execs came out and said openly that a parent who lets their kids play Grand Theft Auto is a lousy parent and I think he'd know what he's talking about.
Why are we making such a big deal about kids getting to play violent games anyway? It's not like violence is a prerequisite for a game to be good, is it? If you want your kids to be able to enjoy a good game, why the hell do you have to give them Aliens vs Predator or Grand Theft Auto? Why can't you give them something like Mario, or Zelda, a decent RPG, RTS, or adventure game? Why do we think kids have to be force-fed violence and gore just to prove our point that it isn't bad for them? Because frankly, it's not that GOOD for them either. We argue that just because we've never killed someone that proves that violent games are harmful to minors, but frankly we're not exactly paragons of humanity that all kids should aspire to. Violent games may not turn you into a raging psychopath like the moral guardians claim, but they DO actually desensitise you to violence.
I think the problem is because of a fundamental shift in the industry. In the old 8-16 bit days there was no problem with kids finding oodles of awesome, non-violent games to play because the vast majority of games were made for kids. Oh sure, there was the whole PC market where the hardcore games (hardcore as in advanced, not as in violent) resided like Civilization and the like, but at the time it was still accepted that games were for kids. Nowadays we say it's become accepted that games are for everyone- except they're not. Games are being made almost exclusively for the teenage-adult audience these days, leaving younger audiences to subsist on scraps. Nintendo are pretty much the only company still making an effort to make genuinely good games for younger gamers- all other games for kids are being made as "kids games" which means they're shoddy, patronisingly easy and extrordinarily dull because of an insulting concept that "eh, they're just kids, they won't notice". Have they forgotten that it was kids who were able to beat games like the original Super Mario Bros (where you started with 3 lives, no continues), the original Zelda (where there was no world map and you had to work out EVERYTHING yourself), Contra, Castlevania, Mega Man et al? As a consequence of the abandonment of younger gamers, kids (at least the ones with any sense of taste or discernment) have to play the same games as we do to find a good game, leading to this idea that there's nothing wrong with kids playing games which are
not made for them. Which is wrong. They shouldn't be playing violent games, but they really have very little choice.
Judgement101 said:
I wouldn't care. As a gamer to another gamer. FREEDOM OF PLAY!
See, that's it exactly. You wouldn't
care. You'd rather be a gamer than a parent. I hope you never have children, you'd be a terrible father.
lukenhiumur said:
So...basically everything in Australia can kill you(toads, crocs, Australians), but violent games are a bad influence?
I don't get it.
It's not like watching the wildlife kill people is a national sport. And Australians don't kill people; you're thinking of Americans. That argument is virtually trolling.