Would you stop your children playing violent video games?

[Beach_Sided]

I don't have children yet myself, but a friend of mine has a 16 year old boy and last weekend he noticed that his son had bought himself Aliens v Predator for his 360.

My friend isn't particularly into gaming but had heard of this game because of the controversy over it a few months ago. (we live in Australia and it was initially banned here last year)

Because of this my friend has taken the game and the 360 off his son and is very unhappy about him playing it. He has pretty much banned his son from playing games again whilst he still lives at home.

This made me think about what I would do if I found out my child had been playing 18 rated games.......

What would you do?

 

[ICanBreakTheseCuffs]

wait how did his son get a banned game in the first place?

 

[googleit6]

I hope if I ever have children, I will raise them with strong enough values to not kill people just because they see it being done in video games. If I think my children are well grounded and can differentiate between real life and video game violence, I would be fine with them playing violent video games.
If my kids are mature enough, I would let them play violent games. Plus, they'd have my genes, and I would never, ever, inflict violence like we've seen in video games, and if I ever did resort to violence, it wouldn't be because of video games anyways. Hopefully, they would take after me in that respect.

 

[Judgement101]

I wouldn't care. As a gamer to another gamer. FREEDOM OF PLAY!

 

[Beach_Sided]

wait how did his son get a banned game in the first place?

It was banned last year but that ban was lifted a few months ago

 

[SeanTheSheep]

Well I'd hopefully raise my children so they can tell between things being harmless, in-game fun and real life morality, but I would probably keep them off 18s until 12-13ish, but I'd probably let them have 15s from about 9, depending on how realistic games get in the time between now and then.

 

[Haunted Serenity]

My children will be allowed to play any sort of violent games if they can prove that it doesn't make them violent in the actual world. They can get angry in the game and murder pixels all they want. If they want a 18 plus game or something they have to ask me to get it and I'll be cool with it.

 

[Glamorgan]

No, I wouldn't, within reason. I wouldn't let a 6 year old play R, or even MA games, but when they're like 9, I'd let them play M, and by 12, I wouldn't restrict ratings.

 

[Stone Wera]

I hope if I ever have children, I will raise them with strong enough values to not kill people just because they see it being done in video games. If I think my children are well grounded and can differentiate between real life and video game violence, I would be fine with them playing violent video games.
If my kids are mature enough, I would let them play violent games. Plus, they'd have my genes, and I would never, ever, inflict violence like we've seen in video games, and if I ever did resort to violence, it wouldn't be because of video games anyways. Hopefully, they would take after me in that respect.

I believe that's known as common sense. So... This, I guess.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

wait how did his son get a banned game in the first place?

It was banned last year but that ban was lifted a few months ago

So there's actually nothing wrong with the game and your friend is acting purely on media spin? Or is there more to it?

Yeah I'll let my kids play violent games. They shouldn't be hidden away and it's a game, it's not as if they're going to kill someone based on what they did in a game. If they do kill someone I know I've gone wrong somewhere because it won't be a game.

 

[lukenhiumur]

So...basically everything in Australia can kill you(toads, crocs, Australians), but violent games are a bad influence?

I don't get it. Plus the kids 16, seriously wtf.

 

[Beach_Sided]

wait how did his son get a banned game in the first place?

It was banned last year but that ban was lifted a few months ago

So there's actually nothing wrong with the game and your friend is acting purely on media spin? Or is there more to it?

Yeah I'll let my kids play violent games. They shouldn't be hidden away and it's a game, it's not as if they're going to kill someone based on what they did in a game. If they do kill someone I know I've gone wrong somewhere because it won't be a game.

I've not played it myself - when he told me he'd taken it away I thought about asking to borrow it..... but thought better of it.....

The game was banned for being too violent, then after an appeal the ban was lifted. And I'm sure everyone will know that a game involving the monsters from the Aliens and Predators will be violent. So my friend has based his decision on that information.

 

[Okuu_Fusion]

As long as they are old enough (9-13?), and they don't confuse reality with the game, then all is fine... I'd still be pissed and yell at them, but they could continue to play it...

 

[StBishop]

For those who don't know what it's like here in Australia here's the skinny.

We have no R18+ rating so adult games get "Refused Classification" and it's illegal to sell and (in at least one state) to own unclassified media (not books).[footnote]Books can be banned though[/footnote]

So games like MW2 or L4D2 are refused classification as we only have MA 15+ and then the developer/published change the game a la L4D2 censorship or allow you to skip the ba bits (this happened for the Airport bit in MW2).

AVP was refused classification and SEGA said fine, no game for Aussies then. They resubmited the exact same thing a few months after telling us to fuck off, grow up and get a real rating system. Our classification board squeezed it through as an MA 15+.

Both sides (for and against) used this as an argument in the debate as to whether or not we need an R18+ rating.

If you still don't get it PM me and I'll edit this post and let you know once it's fixed.

OT: My children will be playing games that are considered age appropriate by the classification board of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as Australia has no R18+ rating.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

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.

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.

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.

 

[The Procrastinated End]

Give the kid Grand Theft Auto 3 and desensitize them at an early age.

 

[Judgement101]

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.

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.

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.

First off: Never verbally attack me, that is NEVER a good idea. Second off: At my current age I really hate children anyway so of-course I'll pick gaming first. Third off: Stop judgeing people off of a single statement.

 

[Slaanax]

I wouldn't let a young kid play too many violent games, but as he gets older he can play more.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Yes, unless I am there to monitor the game, and they have to be at least sixteen to play them, or on rare occasion I might approve of one that I played though first to ensure that it is appropriate for my child. I did not play GTA3 until college, and I believe I was better for it.