Video Games- Too violent?

[eleanor]

I heard on the news that in Washington state, a new law was passed saying that kids under the age limit for Teen-rated and Mature-rated games couldn't get 'em. Even with their parents. It also said that the result of kids playing such violent games tended to make them more aggresive and violent. I agree with the kids getting more violent thing, since my little cousin is always talking about bloody explosions or something of that sort. What do you guys think?

[Epitome]

Yea, I heard about this as well. I think that that should be for Mature games only. The reason... Because most Teen games anly have little blood or no blood at all. Another thing is even if it shows them shooting guns or something like that, they usually make them weird guns so that kids actually cant by them. One last thing is that it usually, in Teen games, has them kill zombies or aliens. Not really other humans, except for Splinter Cell off the top of my head.

[Mitch]

[size=1][font=century gothic][color=gray]

What about humans--too violent?

Violence is a human at its outwardest. Our inner nature has always been violence.[/size][/font][/color]

[Failed_Attempts]

Hmm, I do agree with the violence being too much, for immature children. It all depends (to me) if the child is ready for the violence or not, if they are impressionable. Then, why should the parent be buying them such games anyway? Video games are meant for a challenge (in most cases) and for enjoyment. If you (or a child) listens to the messages in the games, which, there aren't many bad ones. Then, why are you playing them? Why do you listen to them? Is that how you were raised...or shall I say, NOT raised?

Well, that's my opinion, sorry if I offended anyone. I was using "you" as a general term, it wasn't directed towards anyone. ^_^;

[Senor Ding Dong]

Only thing is, how do they know how old you are? I'm short for a 13 year old, so would they doubt me for being 13, even with a parent? I'd just get my parents to do my dirty work anyway.

[Kent]

This could be an intresting discussion... just depends on how often it is asked.

I dont personally remember it coming up in the last... well, I dont know how long, but its been long enough for me to forget it.

Video games are violent, I will be the first to admit it.

However, I dont think that video games are the cause of violence. Problems from other areas of society are the trouble when it comes to violence... video games are just a reflection of the the world they are created in.

I would say games are no more responsible for violence than the news... back soon with more.

[Epitome]

If whoever is immature about video games, then why would the parents let let whoever this child is have it as Attempts said. I mean I play rated M games and Im 13 but Im "mature" about it. I mean, Im not going to grab a gun and just got blasting people to hell. I mean thats just stupid. So , the parents should be able to make the decision on weather or not the child can play the game, not the state.

[DeathBug]

Let me start off by saying that I played "Doom" religously when I was eight, and I've never had a desire to hurt anyone, with the exception of N Sync.

Parents blame video games for violence, but the're not responsible. It is the parent's responsibility to teach their kids the difference between fantasy and reality. It is also the individual parent's responsibility to know how mature their kids are, and judge for themselves whether or not they can be exposed to such things.

Nowadays, people don't want to take these kinds of responsibilities, so they blame the game manufactuers, who are only trying to earn a living. It's kind of like the saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

I think Marilyn Manson summed it up best, once. (I hate his music, and the guy as a person freaks the hell right out of me, but this particular quote is very insightful.) "If some kid listens to my music and kills himself, then there's one less stupid person in the world. Raise your kids or I'll be raising them for you."

Sadly, it seems that many parents can't be bothered to raise their kids.

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]So, technically, how does this help?

Now kids have to literally break the law in the real world to buy a game that might have realistic blood, or dialogue with cussing? Theres a difference between a game merely being rated Mature and a game actually BEING 'mature'.

Maybe politicans just dont want to admit that while they are milling around voteing on how horrible it is to play video games that are just like the reality that they molded, that real important bills they could vote on are being put on the waiting list.

Anyway, I dont give. I will buy what I want with my money, and if anyone wants to arrest me, I will gladly be arrested for the freedom to piss on politican's blind decisonmakeing.

**** censorship and anything of the like.[/color]

[Nate]

Actually, even alot of the racing games and sport games get Teen raiting because one 1 or 2 cuss words in the rap lyrics they use. I truely find that very stupid, the adult should chose whether the kid can get it. Unless i'm lookngi at it wrong.

[quote]I heard on the news that in Washington state, a new law was passed saying that kids under the age limit for Teen-rated and Mature-rated games couldn't get 'em. Even with their parents.[/quote]

I look at it as the parents should have the choise on that. If the parents don't mind the kid playing games with blood ans shuch, it shouldn't matter. And, anyway, all that is gonna do is make the kids want the games more, and they wil lturn to using violence to get the games. That causes more problems than it stops, if it stops any. Which i doupt.

My 10 cents (my 2 cents is free) from:

-Nate

[Kei]

[color=royalblue]I can see why kids under 17 can't buy Mature-rated games (on some), but for most games rated Teen, the violence is animated. All the fighting and stuff is computer-generated and such. If the parent is along while the kid is getting the game, they know exactly what they're getting and can say "yea" or "nay." But then there is the other side of the issue, in which people think they're protecting children from something.

Take for example this past week's ep of "Everwood." There was a scene in which Ephram and Delia were playing "Ratchet and Clank" and Andy said he didn't want Delia playing it because it was "too violent for her." The end of the scene depicts Delia saying "Die, you scum!" and Andy giving her a serious look.

I believe the game is rated Teen (please correct me if I'm wrong), and the violence is animated. Andy had said before that he didn't want Delia playing it, and that's what parents should do in a case where there's an older sibling with more access to games. The game itself isn't honestly that bad in the way of violence, much like Banjo-Kazooie or Spyro (at least it looks that way, for I haven't played it).

To me, the whole thing is great, up to a point. I mean, there are plenty of E-rated games out there to play, but come on. This is kind of pushing it. It [i]is[/i] just a game....[/color]

[Shinken]

Whoa, Deathbug. Slow down a minute. Parental advice-scratch that, GOOD parental advice, from MARILYN MANSON?! Holy... :wow:

But on the subject, I am a gamer, and I'll admit it. I love blowing people up on Grand Theft Auto III. However, I know the difference between reality and fantasy, and I am mature enough to understand it. And I think that the video games kids play should be monitered by their parents; after all, the parents should know their children well enough to have even a slight idea as to how they will react to certain games.

Now, let's look back for a second at what I said. And I quote, "the video games kids play should be monitered by their PARENTS". No, could we all just take a look at that for a second. It says PARENTS. Not GOVERNMENT. If these guys can't regulate the budget, then why should they be able to regulate what kids can and can't play/watch/listen to, especially if they don't even bother to ACTUALLY INVESTIGATE what it is that they're going to mess with. Because, as we all know, most government officials just listen to the negatives/misinterpretations, and then they go ahead and screw up other peoples lives while they sit in their mansions sipping a martini on the balcony.

Hitokiri Battosai

PS: In case you haven't noticed, ME NO LIKE GOVERNMENT.

[Nate]

Alot of e-rated games my rear. If you can't play teen, then what r u stuck to playing? Barney games? Rocket Power? OPardon my french (i don't care if ya don't, any way), but no body gives a flyig f*ck about them. The good games have blood and violence. Sorry if i offended anyone.

My 10 cents (my 2 cents is free) from:

-Nate

[Kei]

[color=royalblue]I think you musunderstood what I was saying.

What I'm saying is, I think this law is pointless. The following comes from the ESRBS (Entertainment Softward Rating Board System):

[quote][b]T- Teen: Suitable for ages 13 and up. May include violent content, profanity, and mild sexual themes.[/b][/quote]

Most parents know this when they either a) Get the game for the child after seeing a commercial, for whatever reason, or b) Are with the child and have the salesperson tell them the rating or what-have-you. Most parents who allow their children to play these games know what they're getting into.

Also from the ESRBS:

[quote][b]M- Mature: Suitable for ages 17 and up. May include more intense violence and profanity, and more sexual themes, than products in the Teen category.[/b][/quote]

This is where I feel that the law should be set. There's a lot more gore, violence, etc. in these games than in Teen games. There's already a law preventing anyone under 17 (I believe) from getting these games without parental consent/guidance, and I feel that's appropriate.

I just think that they should leave the law at M-rated games and leave T-rated games alone. I'm sorry if my previous post came off as something else to anyone.[/color]

[GinnyLyn]

As far as Ratchet&Clank goes, that's a teen game just because of the plethora of guns, futuristic or otherwise. Whee. Oh, and the annihilation of an entire planet--younger kids might wonder what's up with the whole death thing.

Most of the T games I get ahold of have mild profanity. And yet, they managed to release FF4 (I believe) before the ratings system came out, and that also had profanity in it. The guns, for me, are not much of a problem. It's the profanity--frankly, people who use it constantly are making themselves look bad. I am all for using one in a bad situation to relieve tension, but constantly--no.

I know my brother is 15 and he plays Half-Life constantly, with a mike. And though he may not go out and blow someone's head off, I'm really getting tired of him shouting about stabbing people or shooting them, and laughing uproariously about it. I know it's all virtual, but it's [i]annoying[/i] to say the least.

And as far as prohibiting kids to buy the games, the parents that could care less about their offspring's wellbeing won't have any reservations against going by themselves to buy the games. And it's those kids the gov'n. wants to reach the most.

Seriously, if people want the gov'n to stop screwing with their personal lives, then people need to start taking more responsibility, and the [i]right[/i] responsibilities, besides.

[G.D. Ryoko]

I don`t know why people make laws like that anyway. Don`t they know that kids are still going to play violent games no matter how much they try to stop them. The only way to stop is to ban the production of video games and I am sure that if they do that then the economy might be in trouble and that they will have lots and lots of angry video game fans.

[Nate]

Ok, Lady K, i gotcha. O.^

I guess there really ain't much to say, other than what the others have said.

My 10 cents (my 2 cents is free) from:
-Nate

[DeathBug]

In addition to degrading parental responsibility, interfering with legitame gamers, and just being plain stupid, this law has (yet) another fallicy: it's unenforcable. There aren't going to be "Game Police" that go from store to store pouncing on youthful offenders sneaking away with Vice City, (At least I hope not.)

Laws that can't be enforced degrade the fabric of government. Sometimes, they are useful; President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclimation couldn't actually be enforced when he issued it, but it sent an important message. The message was: Slavery is wrong.

Sadly, the only message being sent here is: "Washington state lawmakers have far too much time on their hands."

[Rhys Mayiessen]

[color=skyblue]Apparentely everything is too violent these days...I mean what kind of example are they showing with war and all that...if they want to ban things like video games cause they are too violent then they should ban too violent books as well lol[/color]

[Nate]

True! You are just as true as Flora is!

I must say it,...hold it back...

My 10 cents (my 2 cents is free) from:
-Nate

(shoot, didn't hold it back...)

[Epitome]

Rhys, I totally agree. I mean every game, including some of the Mario games, are now being called violent. I was on a website and a pop-up came up explaining how games these days are too violent. I mean some games that are rated M arent really all that violent. For example Devil May Cry 2. I mean it has blood and shooting and stuff, but its demons. I mean, its not like shooting living innocent people or something. I mean some games are too violent though, but they are fun. One GTA 3 and Vice City. I mean in those games you can shoot up cops, civilians, pretty much anything you can find. Another thing about that game that is not violent but a bad influence is the whole point of the game... to steal cars. But dont get me wrong, one of the best games Ive played.

[Semjaza]

FF4 was FF2 here, and no, there was no profanity in it. Nintendo wouldn't allow it back at that time. The PSX version has a new translation, which is why there might be some on there now. Nintendo used to be huge on the censorship, but ironically they are probably the most lax about it now. Companies have the most problem with Sony currently with actual censorship (despite it having more M rated games).

I've been playing games since I was a very small kid. I've grown up with these things, and while games have gotten more graphic... I don't know that most are really any more violent. Saying that Doom (god, that's out of date... but everyone names that in violent game suits and such lol) makes me want to shoot people is the equivalent of saying playing Super Mario Bros. makes me want to jump on animals, eat bizarre mushrooms and jump off cliffs. It's nonsensical.

A lot of older people just do not understand games. Instead of thinking, oh this kid had problems in his life with family and friends... they see these violent games and explicit lyrics CDs and blame them instead. It's an easy scapegoat. Especially games, because they have very little backup in congress unlike the music and gun industries.

As for the banning... Why should kids under that age be able to buy them? Technically, stores are supposed to card you for M rated games anyway. It's no different than R rated movies. Just because places don't bother to do it doesn't mean they aren't supposed to.

Anyway, I have met very few small kids who just walked into a store and bought a violent game. Generally, guess who is actual buying it? The parents. If they can't see the huge wanrning on the box, or the fact that most violent games are rather obvious from the boxart (hell, how can something called Grand Theft Auto not be violent?), that's their problem. In fact, most stores have ESRB explanations all over the game cases now even.

I still think it's in the parents hands. If they don't know enough about their kids to know they are playing these games that they consider so horrible, then I don't think they are good parents. I remember a lady saying she bought Conker's Bad Fur Day for her 12 year old kid not knowing how bad it was. Hello? It has an M rating, the squirrel is drinking beer on the cover and there are at least two other labels on it saying it's for 17 and older only. Yet she still can't figure that out?

I just think the parents don't care until they realize they can get something out of complaining about it. So, while I support not selling them to a random 12 year old or something... I think this should be the parent's problem and not the store's.

[Sui Generis]

Ok the whole thing that really makes no sense is....

They are trying to limit the games kids play, yet the violence on TV is getting more and more so. I mean there is rarely a time where a kid can't turn on the TV and see somebody's brain getting blown out of their skull or something.

Its the parents decision on what to expose their children to. I don't think the government should be able to decide how they want the parents to raise their children. This is a democracy not a totalitarian or communistic government.

I'm against it, but naturally I am. I'm a 15 year old who loves video games and I'd be affected so its obviouse how I would be against it.

[Senor Ding Dong]

Well, here's an INCREDIBLA stupid site for you!

[url]www.mavav.org[/url]

[Epitome]

LOL... Those are the kind of sites that kill video games when they arent the cause of violence. I hate people that do that. It gets on my nerves, ALOT.