Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case to prohibit the sale of "excessively violent" video games to minors in California
so what do people think?
do books,comics and films also affect minors making them into killers or mentally abused people..or is it load of crock of over protective people who dont get that this stuff is fantasy?
Last edited by Hystzen; November 03, 2010 at 01:38 PM.
Like I said before, this is stupid... the games are rated so under aged kids can't buy them.If the parent is there with the kid and allows them to buy it, it's the parent's responsibility. Don't blame the video games.
This at first confused me. I was under the impression that it was like U.K were it is actually illegal for a retailer to sell a rated game to someone under the required age. But it seems that the rating system in California is not actually law but a "suggestion" as to the content for parents and retailers?
I think the system in the U.K works, in the sense that a person above that required age has to buy it which is important for me. If that overaged person thinks its suitable for a child then so be it. Such things shouldnt be the concern of the government, but at least the child himself is not buying it. Of course there are ways around it, I remember getting my older cousin to buy me GTA 3. But the main thing for me is not making it illegal for a child to play it, but for a child to go in a shop and buy it like they would a packet of skittles.
If that guy in the transcript is advocating in making it illegal for a minor thats underage to buy a game that has a higher rating. I am with him, I think most of us have a tendency to look at these things from a rather narrowed viewpoint. Put yourself in a parents shoes, i for one wont want my child being able to walk into any game store and buy Manhunt for example. But he wants to make law stopping kids playing a game, then he is being ridiculous in my opinion.
In Germany it's not allowed to sell video games/movies with an age restriction to children under that age, though of course it is not forbidden for parents to buy it for them.
Let's face reality: At age 12-14 I'ld guess that most children have watched a movie as stupid and cruel as Saw. Many will start watching porn on the internet. Probably -at least for the boys- they've played video games rated 16+ or 18+.
And not a single of these things will come from a legal source. So, if they liked it, they'll just download more via the internet.
I guess I myself was around... 12 when I first played a demo of Unreal Tournament 2003 which a friend gave me. Shortly after eMule (p2p sharing) became popular amongst my age group and was used by pretty much everyone.
Most people I already knew back then were mostly influenced by music and television (alot of MTV I'ld say) rather than video games or violent movies - many loved horror movies but weren't influenced by them and most only played video games casually. I myself rather played many video games but became rather focussed on the competitive aspects of beating other players on LAN or the internet than the display of violence.
I think it takes a broken milieu to make media harmful to a child/teen's psyche. And if the milieu is broken anyways, then the people will
1) face a reality much more harmful than the worst of media in many cases
2) get in early contact with drugs, alcohol, tobacco and porn/sex anyways
3) recieve their media from illegal sources either way - shoplifting, burning DVDs, illegal downloads.
So, I think the current system is quite allright - it's the parents' choice.
Most of the political discussion about it is just randomly pointing at possible causes why youth became "worse"... remember the previous youth? Against everything, dreadlocks, doing drugs all day? "Free love"? It's not the crime rate amongst youth had increased so much, it's just that it's been shown in all media every day. It's just so much easier for politicians to point at the bad bad media than bad social circumstances leading to criminal teens...
Last edited by Roflkopt3r; November 04, 2010 at 12:51 PM.
I don't think video games can actually push a kid into being a murderer or a criminal. The kid would have to have some sort of prior mental disorder to be pushed into being a criminal simply by playing video games. I do think a video game can influence kids but not in such extreme ways. Say, a character looks cool when smoking, picks up random girls, looks cool while drinking alcohol or things of the sort.... I think things like that can push kids into thinking things like "wow, drinking is cool", "smoking makes me look cool and sophisticated", "I need to get me some tail".... Well, technically kids already do think those things from the regular media but in turn just putting more of that out there does not help. It might be just what pushes them past the line. In that sense, perhaps the issue itself is not specifically video games but rather the constant media bombardment of certain things. Kids should not be kept altogether isolated from the world but in turn the media does create the notion that drinking, smoking and a number of things are cool in kids who are way too young (legally and mentally). Then again, not all kids would be affected the same way. I have friends who have been playing resident evil from the time they were 6 years old and they could not be furthest from being criminals. I think this should be a parent controlled thing but in turn the media bombardment of notions of alcohol being cool, smoking makes you sophisticated, and things of the sort are hardly necessary.
Also have the opinnion that games and other media arent the root of all evil it may have some effect but if its strong enough to make someone aggresive...
From my point the most influence have family and ppl nearby. Keeping it behind the scenes is useless, its in RL not only in TV and web. The best way may be to clear them up soon enough that its nothing they should be keen on in RL.
The restrictions have some effect the parents should decide if its good for their child or not they, should know its character if it may get influenced or not.
When they buy it and it harms its not the fault of the product but the parents (beeing parent is more than onlz clothing and feeding )
i think it down to parents.
prob is most parents are too lazy or just dont care.
the xbox360 and ps3 both have parental locks which require to enter a password before a game that is 12+
but how many parents will care to input or even check it have one.
Last edited by Roflkopt3r; November 06, 2010 at 02:44 PM.
I don't think more knowledge is the appropriate way to put it. The generation which should start having kids soon enough will be more familiar with video games due to growing up with them, that is true, however I don't think that is quite the same as having actual knowledge. This generation is bound to be even more lenient regarding what video games they get their children if anything given the familiarity they will have with them. Actual knowledge should not be gotten from experience but rather statistics and studies regarding the actual effects of video games on kids. Not sure whether there actually are any of those around or even how reliable they would be considering video gaming as we know it hasn't been around that long(15 years ago people in video games looked rather square and blood was mostly a red weird blur) and the effects a bloody and gory video games so far would be something which only time will show us. All the more reason parents should be responsible about this sort of thing.
At the end of the day it all boils down to the parents. I played Mortal Kombat when I was six and I didn't grow up to be some serial killer, nor did I shoot up my school after having a bad day. And obviously I didn't kill myself because, "Aw, life is so hard." Video games are entertainment. They don't determine a person's course of action, they don't shape a person's life, they are entertainment. If parents nowadays didn't half-ass raising their kids by sitting them in front of a television then this wouldn't be a problem. Parents need to step their game-up, do their jobs, and teach kids the difference between real life and reality.
If a game is rated mature and a ten year-old tries to buy it, they shouldn't be allowed to. That is, or rather should be plain common sense. If however they are accompanied by their parent then of course that is a different story. But I don't think any state or government has the legal OR moral right to ban that kid from having the game AT ALL. The parents are the gatekeepers and they should be the ones to decide what games (if any) their children are allowed to play.
I've been playing violent video games for more than a decade and not once have a I ever been in trouble with the law, or done something harmful to myself or another human being. Not bragging, just saying that if video games were responsible for violent behavior, then I would be a real life Kratos. Obviously that isn't the case.
Both the school and the parents play an important role in instigating values towards children. Like ZERO PHOENIX, I have also started playing Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat during the times of Nintendo (1995, I think). In the present, I'm a teacher. Why did those kinds of games not affect my personality? Because my school and my parents taught and controlled me about those video games.
It is true that the way the parents are controlling their children in video games. But the last integral part falls on the children themselves. What they choose to become is also a great factor in forming themselves.
Damaging, no. Influencing up to various stages, yes.
I found it true from the language part. I grew fond of English and expanding my knowledge of English because of games; it's one of many factors which made me grew. Not only in learning English, but also knowing the use of internet to find walkthrough or joining gamers community. But because I don't play games with brutal action or porn content, I don't find violence, sex, or even language damaging. Moreover, it's up to the player, how to react to this new knowledge he got from playing games.